Monday, July 30, 2012

President's Power to Appoint a CJ; JBC to function without an ex-officio member


With regard to the JBC proceedings as to the Chief Justice vacancy, the Chair is SC Justice Peralta as the most senior SC Justice who is not a candidate for Chief Justice per the Court’s ruling in GR No. 202143, Dulay v. JBC, dated July 3, 2012.

"Petitioner claims that the President of the Republic of the Philippines cannot legitimately, validly, and constitutionally appoint the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, because the 1987 Constitution only empowers him to appoint members or Justices but not the Chief Justice.[2] She adds that the Chief Justice should be replaced and designated exclusively from among their peers.[3] Petitioner also contends that the JBC cannot be validly, legally and constitutionally headed by a retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, because the Constitution specifically provides that it be headed by the incumbent Chief Justice and no other.[4]"
Simply stated, petitioner seeks the resolution of two substantive issues: (1) whether or not the President of the Philippines has the constitutional power to appoint the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; and (2) whether or not the JBC can validly be headed by a person other than the incumbent Chief Justice. 
We answer in the affirmative to both questions.
Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court  and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
 ... In interpreting the above-stated constitutional provision, petitioner considers only the Associate Justices as the "members of the Supreme Court" thereby excluding the Chief Justice from the President's appointing power. Said interpretation is baseless. 
We, likewise, do not agree with petitioner that the JBC can only be headed by the incumbent Chief Justice and no other. Petitioner, in effect, argues that the JBC cannot perform its task without an incumbent Chief Justice. To follow this logic would lead to an eventuality where a vacancy in the Judiciary will not be filled if a vacancy occurs in the JBC. We can likewise infer from this argument that if the Office of the Chief Justice is vacated, the same will not be filled because there will be no "incumbent Chief Justice" to act as Chairman of the JBC.
We definitely cannot sustain these arguments. The principal function of the JBC is to recommend appointees to the Judiciary.[17] For every vacancy, the JBC submits to the President a list of at least three nominees and the President may not appoint anybody who is not in the list.[18] Any vacancy in the Supreme Court is required by the Constitution to be filled within 90 days from the occurrence thereof.[19]  This 90-day period is mandatory. It cannot, therefore, be compromised only because the constitutionally-named Chairman could not sit in the JBC. Although it would be preferable if the membership of the JBC is complete, the JBC can still operate to perform its mandated task of submitting the list of nominees to the President even if the constitutionally-named ex-officio Chairman does not sit in the JBC. This intention is evident from the exchanges among the Commissioners during the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 ... 

The regular JBC members are retired SC Justice Regino C. Hermosisima (retired SC Justice), Atty. Jose V. Mejia (academe), Atty. Maria Milagros Nolasco Fernan-Cayosa (Integrated Bar of the Philippines), and retired CA Justice Aurora S. Lagman (private sector).

The Chief Justice is the ex officio chair of JBC, while the Supreme Court En Banc Clerk of Court Atty. Enriqueta E. Vidal is ex officio secretary.

Secretary De Lima, also an ex officio member but a candidate to the Chief Justice post, is replaced in the JBC proceedings to select the CJ nominees by Undersecretary Michael Frederick Musngi. Only Rep. Niel Tupas, Jr.  is seating in the panel conducting the interview for the next Chief Justice following the High Court’s ruling in GR No. 202242, Chavez v. JBC, dated July 17, 2012, which held that only one member of Congress can sit as representative in the JBC deliberations.

Emphasis and links provided by Broker Rem Ramirez 0922.883.9308 broker.ramirez@yahoo.com.ph

For bar questions and law subjects reviewers, visit www.onlinereview.com.ph


No comments:

Post a Comment