Case Digest (G.R. No. 164893) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Arturo M. De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al. (632 Phil. 657, G.R. Nos. 191002, 191032, 191057, A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC, G.R. Nos. 191149, 191342, 191420, April 20, 2010), the Supreme Court en banc consolidated multiple petitions and interventions challenging the applicability of the “midnight appointment” ban under Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution to judicial appointments. Petitioners—Arturo M. De Castro, Jaime N. Soriano, the Philippine Constitution Association (PhilConsa), Estelito P. Mendoza, John G. Peralta, Atty. Amador Z. Tolentino, Jr., and the Philippine Bar Association—sought certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, or declaratory relief to enjoin or clarify the Judicial and Bar Council’s (JBC) nomination proceedings for the impending vacancy caused by Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno’s compulsory retirement on May 17, 2010. Numerous parties, including various lawyers’ organizations and student groups, intervened. Th Case Digest (G.R. No. 164893) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Consolidation of Cases
- G.R. No. 191002 – Arturo M. de Castro vs. Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) and President Gloria Macapagal–Arroyo (certiorari and mandamus).
- G.R. No. 191032 – Jaime N. Soriano vs. JBC (prohibition).
- G.R. No. 191057 – Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) vs. JBC (mandamus).
- G.R. No. 191149 – Estelito P. Mendoza (A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC) in Administrative Matter re: applicability of Sec. 15, Art. VII.
- G.R. No. 191057 and related – John G. Peralta vs. JBC (certiorari/mandamus).
- G.R. Nos. 191032, 191342, 191420 – Multiple petitions for prohibition and intervention by private individuals and organizations (Corvera, Lim, Tan Jr., BAYAN et al., IBP chapters, PBA, WTLOP, student and labor groups, etc.).
- Constitutional Provisions at Issue
- Sec. 15, Art. VII – ban on presidential appointments two months before a presidential election until end of term (with an exception for temporary executive appointments).
- Sec. 4(1), Art. VIII – requirement to fill Supreme Court vacancies within 90 days from occurrence.
- Sec. 8(1), Art. VIII – creation of the JBC under Supreme Court supervision.
- Procedural History
- March 17, 2010 – En banc decision dismissing most petitions as premature or meritless and granting the A.M. petition.
- Various motions for reconsideration filed by petitioners (Soriano; Tolentino and Inting; PBA) and intervenors (IBP-Davao del Sur et al.; BAYAN et al.; individuals).
- Submission of comments by the Office of the Solicitor General and the JBC; a separate comment by Estelito P. Mendoza.
Issues:
- Justiciability and Jurisdiction
- Are the petitions for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition ripe or prematurely filed?
- Was the A.M. petition a proper exercise of the Court’s supervisory (administrative) power over the JBC?
- Constitutional Interpretation
- Does Sec. 15, Art. VII’s ban on “midnight appointments” extend to judicial appointments, specifically to the Supreme Court?
- Does Sec. 4(1), Art. VIII’s 90-day rule to fill Supreme Court vacancies conflict with Sec. 15, Art. VII?
- How should Secs. 15 (Art. VII) and 4(1) (Art. VIII) be harmonized?
- Supervisory Authority
- What is the scope of the Supreme Court’s power to direct the JBC in fulfilling its nomination duties?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)