Case Digest (G.R. No. 224302)
Facts:
Hon. Philip A. Aguinaldo, Hon. Reynaldo A. Alhambra, Hon. Danilo S. Cruz, Hon. Benjamin T. Pozon, Hon. Salvador V. Timbang, Jr., and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Petitioners, vs. His Excellency President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, Hon. Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Hon. Michael Frederick L. Musngi, Hon. Ma. Geraldine Faith A. Econg, Hon. Danilo S. Sandoval, Hon. Wilhelmina B. Jorge-Wagan, Hon. Rosana Fe Romero-Maglaya, Hon. Merianthe Pacita M. Zuraek, Hon. Elmo M. Alameda, and Hon. Victoria C. Fernandez-Bernardo, Respondents, G.R. No. 224302, August 08, 2017, the Supreme Court En Banc, Leonardo‑De Castro, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners challenged the Judicial and Bar Council’s (JBC) handling of nominations to six simultaneous vacancies in the Sandiganbayan, filing a petition invoking quo warranto and certiorari and prohibition to contest the clustering of nominees and the subsequent appointments of several Associate Justices. The JBC intervened in the proceedings.
In its Decision of November 29, 2016, the Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, declared the JBC’s clustering of nominees unconstitutional, and nevertheless upheld the appointments of Associate Justices Michael Frederick L. Musngi and Geraldine Faith A. Econg along with four other newly appointed Sandiganbayan Associate Justices as valid; the Court denied the JBC’s motion to intervene but directed that certain changes in JBC rules and practices be docketed as a separate administrative matter and ordered the JBC to comment thereon within thirty days.
The JBC filed a Motion for Reconsideration (with a Motion for the Inhibition of the Ponente) on December 27, 2016 and a Motion for Reconsideration‑in‑Intervention on February 6, 2017; both were denied in a Resolution dated February 21, 2017, though the Court granted the JBC’s motion for leave to intervene as to one aspect. The JBC then filed (a) a Motion for Reconsideration of the February 21, 2017 Resolution (MR‑Resolution) on March 17, 2017 and (b) a Supplement to that motion on March 24, 2017. The present En Banc Resolution resolves those motions.
The Court considered the MR‑Resolution and Supplement and denied them for lack of merit, reiterating that the JBC itself admitted lack of consensus among its members regarding the clustering and emphasizing that the ponente, although formerly a JBC consultant who had received allowances, had been excluded from executive sessions and had not participated in the challenged JBC decisions; the Court therefore found no basis for the ponente’s inhibition. The Resolution also reaffirmed the prior administrative directives to docket and require comment from the JBC regarding deletion of a former rule ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the Judicial and Bar Council’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Resolution dated February 21, 2017 (and its supplement) be granted?
- Are the JBC’s clustering of nominees for the six concurrent Sandiganbayan vacancies constitutional, and are the subsequent appointments of the challenged As...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)