Case Summary (G.R. No. 224302)
Key Dates
– June 11, 1978: PD 1486 creates Sandiganbayan (1 Presiding Judge + 8 Associate Judges)
– December 10, 1978: PD 1606 elevates members to Justices, divides court into three 3-Justice divisions
– March 30, 1995: RA 7975 increases Justices from 9 to 15 (five divisions)
– April 16, 2015: RA 10660 creates two additional divisions (six new vacancies)
– October 26, 2015: JBC submits six separate shortlists, 5–7 nominees each
– January 20, 2016: President issues six appointment papers
– January 25, 2016: Six appointees receive papers and take oaths
– May 17, 2016: Petition filed
Applicable Law
– 1987 Constitution, Article VIII, Section 9: President appoints justices/judges “from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy”
– Rule 65 (Certiorari) and Rule 66 (Quo Warranto) of the Revised Rules of Court
Factual Antecedents
- Constitutional and statutory history of the Sandiganbayan: created by PD 1486; elevated and expanded by PD 1606, RA 7975, RA 8249, and RA 10660.
- JBC’s recruitment for six new Associate Justice slots and publication of vacancy announcements.
- JBC’s October 26, 2015 submission of six distinct shortlists (labeled 16th through 21st vacancies).
- President Aquino’s January 20, 2016 appointments drawn from those shortlists, but not matching nominee-to-vacancy labels.
Petitioners’ Arguments
– President violated Art. VIII, Sec. 9 by appointing no one from the “16th” shortlist to that vacancy and by appointing two nominees of the “21st” shortlist to other numbered slots.
– Clustering of nominees created distinct “vacancy labels” with attendant seniority; the President must choose within each cluster.
– Appointments altered order of precedence, undermining JBC’s constitutional function to depoliticize judicial selection.
Respondents’ Arguments
– President enjoys immunity; JBC clusters are nonbinding, arbitrary, and unduly limit presidential discretion.
– Constitution requires only a minimum of three nominees per vacancy, not exclusive shortlists. JBC effectively submitted 37 nominees for six slots, exceeding the minimum.
– Seniority of Justices is determined by commission date, per PD 1606 and Sandiganbayan internal rules, a presidential prerogative.
Issues Presented
- Did petitioners have standing to invoke quo warranto?
- Could the Court exercise original jurisdiction via certiorari in this case?
- Was the petition timely filed?
- Did the President breach Art. VIII, Sec. 9 by ignoring JBC’s clustering?
- Were respondents’ appointments valid?
Court’s Jurisdiction and Standing
– Quo warranto: petitioners lacked a clear, direct right to the offices (only expectant rights) → improper parties for Rule 66. IBP likewise cannot invoke quo warranto.
– Certiorari (Rule 65): petitioners and IBP had personal and substantial interest (direct injury from clustering) and the issue is of transcendental importance; they have standing under the Court’s liberalized approach.
– President dropped as respondent due to immunity; Executive Secretary Ochoa remains.
– Supreme Court’s direct exercise of original jurisdiction justified: constitutional question of first impression, issues of transcendental importance, no other adequate remedy, and timely resolution needed.
Timeliness of Filing
– Appointment effective upon oath-taking on January 25, 2016; 60-day reglementary period would expire March 25, 2016.
– Petition filed May 17, 2016—late.
– Exception granted: petitioners only obtained the six shortlists on March 22, 2016; delay permitted to prevent injustice and given the significance of the issues.
Substantive Ruling
- Art. VIII, Sec. 9 requires only that the President appoint “from a list of at least three nominees” per vacancy; it does not mandate exclusive, numbered shortlists.
- Clustering into six separate shortlists was arbitrary, without constitutional or statutory foundation, and impinged on the President’s appointing power and prerogative to determine seniority.
- Seniority in a collegiate court is fixed by commission date (PD 1606, Sandiganbayan Rules), not by JBC labeling.
- President Aquino lawfully considered all 37 nominees as one composite
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 224302)
Procedural History
- Petition filed May 17, 2016 for Quo Warranto (Rule 66) and Certiorari and Prohibition (Rule 65) to challenge appointments to the Sandiganbayan.
- Primary relief prayed: nullification of the appointments of Associate Justices Musngi and Econg.
- Respondents moved to dismiss on procedural grounds and denied JBC’s motion for intervention.
Factual Antecedents
- 1978: Sandiganbayan created by PD 1486 (Presiding Judge + eight Associate Judges).
- PD 1606 (Dec 1978): elevated members to Justices; three divisions of three each.
- RA 7975 (1995): increased to five divisions (15 Justices).
- RA 10660 (Apr 2015): expanded to seven divisions (21 Justices).
- July 20, 2015: JBC called for applications for six new Associate Justice posts.
- Oct 26, 2015: JBC submitted six separate shortlists (vacancies numbered 16th–21st) totaling 37 nominees.
- Jan 20, 2016: President Aquino appointed six new Associate Justices, including Musngi and Econg.
- Jan 25, 2016: Oaths taken at Supreme Court.
Petitioners’ Standing and Arguments
- Judges Aguinaldo, Alhambra, Cruz, Pozon, Timbang claim direct injury from non-appointment.
- IBP invokes taxpayer standing and public interest in safeguarding justice.
- Core contention: Article VIII, Sec. 9 of 1987 Constitution limits the President to appoint only from each vacancy’s shortlist; clustering into six lists creates numbered posts and violated both the shortlist rule and order of seniority.
Respondents’ Arguments
- Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) procedural defenses:
• Presidential immunity warrants dropping the President as respondent.
• Private quo warranto must show c