IBP v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO

IBP (Petitioners) vs PRES. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO ET. AL (Respondents) 

JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (Intervenor)

G.R. No. 224302

February 6, 2017

FACTS:

The rendered a decision dated November 29, 2016, wherein it DISMISSES the instant Petition for Quo Warranto and Certiorari and Prohibition for lack of merit. The Court DECLARES the clustering of nominees by the Judicial and Bar Council UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and the appointments of respondents Associate Justices Michael Frederick L. Musngi and Geraldine Faith A. Econg, together with the four other newly-appointed Associate Justices of the Sandiganbayan, as VALID.

The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) successively filed a Motion for Reconsideration on December 27, 2016 and a Motion for Reconsideration-in-Intervention on February 6, 2017. The Court notes the revelation of the JBC in its Motion for Reconsideration-in-Intervention that it is not taking any position in this particular case on President Aquino's appointments to the six newly-created positions of Sandiganbayan Associate Justice. In its Motion for Reconsideration the JBC argues that the JBC has a legal interest in this case, and its intervention would not have unduly delayed or prejudiced the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.

The JBC asserts that in submitting six short lists for six vacancies, it was only acting in accordance with the clear and unambiguous mandate of Article VIII, Section 93 of the 1987 Constitution for the JBC to submit a list for every vacancy. Considering its independence as a constitutional body, the JBC has the discretion and wisdom to perform its mandate in any manner as long as it is consistent with the Constitution. According to the JBC, its new practice of "clustering," in fact, is more in accord with the purpose of the JBC to rid the appointment process to the Judiciary from political pressure as the President has to choose only from the nominees for one particular vacancy. Otherwise, the President can choose whom he pleases, and thereby completely disregard the purpose for the creation of the JBC.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the clustering of nominees for sandiganbayan by JBC impaired the President’s power to appoint members of Judiciary?

RULINGS:

The Court ruled that the clustering impinged upon the President's appointing power in the following ways: The President's option for every vacancy was limited to the five to seven nominees in each cluster. Once the President had appointed a nominee from one cluster, then he was proscribed from considering the other nominees in the same cluster for the other vacancies. All the nominees applied for and were found to be qualified for appointment to any of the vacant Associate Justice positions in the Sandiganbayan, but the JBC failed to explain why one nominee should be considered for appointment to the position assigned to ·one specific cluster only. Correspondingly, the nominees' chance for appointment was restricted to the consideration of the one cluster in which they were included, even though they applied and were found to be qualified for all the vacancies. Moreover, by designating the numerical order of the vacancies, the JBC established the seniority or order of preference of the new Sandiganbayan Associate Justices, a power which the law (Section 1, paragraph 3 of Presidential Decree No. 160616), rules (Rule II, Section 1 (b) of the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan 17), and jurisprudence (Re: Seniority Among the Four Most Recent Appointments to the Position of Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals18), vest exclusively upon the President.