Case Summary (G.R. No. 191002)
Arguments in Motions for Reconsideration
– Soriano: Supreme Court power to designate Chief Justice; JBC composition challenged.
– Tolentino & Inting: Plain reading of Section 15 bans all midnight appointments, including judicial; Valenzuela v. Valenzuela should stand.
– PBA: Decision exceeded constitutional safeguards; Court lacked authority to set deadlines for JBC; advisory opinion.
– IBP-Davao et al.: Section 15 applies to all branches; election ban extends to judiciary.
– Lim, Corvera, BAYAN, Tan Jr.: No justiciable controversy; Section 15 unambiguous; conflict with Article VIII should yield to plain text.
– WTLOP, Ubano, Boiser: Literal statutory construction; no urgency given acting Chief Justice provisions; reversal of Valenzuela improper.
– Bello et al., Pimentel: Ban extends to judiciary; supervision means oversight not directive; decision alters constitutional balance.
Solicitor General and JBC Comments
– OSG: President may appoint Chief Justice; Section 15 does not apply to judiciary.
– JBC: Petitions premature; interviews and shortlist pending; decision’s doubt on necessity of short list undermines JBC’s independence; will comply with final ruling.
Ruling on Motions for Reconsideration
All motions denied for lack of new matters. The Court reaffirmed its March 17, 2010 decision and clarified key points.
Stare Decisis and Supreme Court Authority
– Stare decisis binds lower courts but not the Supreme Court itself, which may overrule its prior decisions en banc.
– The 1986 Constitutional Commission records do not show an intent to extend the appointment ban to the Judiciary; proposals to include judges were withdrawn.
Statutory Construction and Constitutional Harmony
– The absence of an express ban in Article VIII, Section 4(1) (fill Supreme Court vacancies) precludes importing Section 15’s prohibition.
– Interpolation of words is improper; cl
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 191002)
Procedural History
- Consolidation of multiple petitions and an administrative matter challenging the effect of the constitutional “midnight appointment” ban (Art. VII, § 15) on nominations to the Judiciary, particularly the next Chief Justice
• G.R. No. 191002 (De Castro) – certiorari and mandamus
• G.R. No. 191032 (Soriano) and G.R. No. 191342 (Tolentino & Inting) – prohibition
• G.R. No. 191057 (PhilConsa) – mandamus (premature)
• A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC (Mendoza) – supervisory administrative matter
• G.R. No. 191149 (Peralta) – certiorari/mandamus
• G.R. No. 191420 (PBA) – certiorari and mandamus - Promulgation of Supreme Court Decision on March 17, 2010
• Dismissed certiorari/mandamus petitions as premature (G.R. 191002, 191057, 191149)
• Dismissed prohibition petitions for lack of merit (G.R. 191032, 191342)
• Granted administrative petition (A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC) directing JBC to resume nomination proceedings and submit judicial short lists by May 17, 2010 - Motions for reconsideration filed by petitioners and intervenors; summary of arguments below
Facts
- Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno to retire on May 17, 2010, creating a vacancy in the Supreme Court
- Constitution’s Art. VII, § 15 imposes a ban on appointments two months before a presidential election up to the end of the term (“midnight appointments” ban)
- Constitution’s Art. VIII, § 4(1) requires every Supreme Court vacancy to be filled within 90 days of its occurrence
- Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) commenced its six-phase nomination process for judicial posts, including the Chief Justice
- Uncertainty over timing: whether the Appointments Ban applies to the Chief Justice’s replacement and when the JBC must submit its shortlist
Issues
- Does the constitutional ban on presidential “midnight appointments” (Art. VII, § 15) extend to appointments to the Supreme Court?
- Is there a justiciable controversy and proper remedy (certiorari, prohibition, mandamus) to resolve the timing and validity of Chief Justice nominations?
- What are the constitutional duties of the Supreme Court in supervising the JBC under its administrative powers (Art. VIII, § 8)?
Arguments of Petitioners and Intervenors
- De Castro & Peralta:
• No justiciable issue; JBC has not refused or failed to act; petitions premature
• Certiorari inappropriate against a body not exercising judicial or quasi-judicial power - Soriano:
• Power to designate the Chief Justice lies with the Supreme Court en banc; declaratory relief unwarranted
• All