Title
Supreme Court
De Castro vs. Judicial and Bar Council
Case
G.R. No. 191002
Decision Date
Mar 17, 2010
Consolidated petitions challenge the incumbent President's authority to appoint Chief Justice Puno's successor post-retirement, questioning JBC's role and Section 15, Article VII's prohibition on midnight appointments.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 191002)

Petitioners and Respondents

• Arturo M. De Castro, John G. Peralta, Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA), and Estelito P. Mendoza (seeking certiorari, mandamus, or declaratory relief)
• Jaime N. Soriano and Atty. Amador Z. Tolentino Jr. (seeking writs of prohibition)
• Judicial and Bar Council and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (respondents in various actions)

Key Dates and Election Ban Period

• Mandatory retirement of Chief Justice Puno: May 17, 2010
• Next presidential election: May 10, 2010
• Constitution’s “election ban” under Article VII, Section 15: March 10, 2010–June 30, 2010 (no appointments, except temporary executive posts)
• 90-day deadline to fill Supreme Court vacancy under Article VIII, Section 4(1): by August 15, 2010

Applicable Constitutional Provisions

• Article VII, Sec. 15 (Executive): bans appointments two months before the presidential election and up to term end, except temporary executive posts
• Article VIII, Sec. 4(1) (Judicial): “Any vacancy [in the Supreme Court] shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.”
• Article VIII, Sec. 8(5) (Judicial): JBC’s principal function is recommending appointees to the Judiciary
• Article VIII, Sec. 9 (Judicial): President appoints justices “from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the JBC for every vacancy.”

Factual and Procedural Background

• December 22, 2009: JBC notified of Puno’s upcoming retirement
• January 18, 2010: JBC en banc resolved to begin nomination process and to seek views on when to submit the shortlist
• January 20–February 2010: JBC opened applications/recommendations, identified initial nominees, and invited public comments and oppositions
• Multiple petitions filed in February–March 2010, raising conflicts between the election-ban and the 90-day fill-vacancy mandate, and JBC’s duty to submit a shortlist

Issues Presented

  1. Does the election-ban under Art. VII, Sec. 15 apply to Supreme Court appointments?
  2. Does Art. VIII, Sec. 4(1) (“fill within ninety days”) override the election-ban, or must the ban yield for Court vacancies?
  3. May the incumbent President validly appoint Puno’s successor?
  4. What are the JBC’s obligations, and do certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition lie to control the JBC’s conduct?

Court’s Conclusions on Justiciability and Standing

• Petitioners as citizens, taxpayers, lawyers, bar organizations and JBC members possess sufficient interest to qualify for standing under the liberal “transcendental importance” doctrine
• Certain petitions were premature or lacked a final adverse action by the JBC and thus did not present a ripe, justiciable controversy for mandamus or certiorari
• Petitions seeking purely declaratory or advisory rulings were outside the Court’s original jurisdiction and were likewise dismissed

Merits: Election Ban versus 90-Day Mandate

• The framers deliberately placed the ban in Article VII (Executive) and the fill-vacancy rule in Article VIII (Judicial) – the former prohibits Executive appointments generally; the latter imposes an imperative duty on the President for Supreme Court vacancies
• Section 15’s exception (“temporary appointments to executive positions”) confirms its limited scope in the Executive Department, not the Judiciary
• Deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission show the 90-day fill-vacancy rule was intended as a special, self-standing mandate to preserve a full Supreme Court, irrespective of the election-ban period
• Valenzuela (1998) held that Section 15 barred certain judicial appointments but was confined to lower court judges under Article VIII, Sec. 9; its dicta extending the ban to Supreme Court appointments was not based on deliberate analysis of Art. VIII and must be overruled as unsound

Ruling on Petitions and JBC Guidance

• Petitions for certiorari and mandamus (G.R. Nos. 191002, 191149, 191057) dismissed for prematurity or lack of clear duty breach by the JBC
• Petitions for prohibi



    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

    About Privacy Terms