G.R. No. 191002 , G.R. No. 191032, G.R. No. 191057, A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC, G.R. No. 191149, G.R. No. 191342 & G.R. No. 191420. April 20, 2010.
Arturo M. De Castro, Petitioner, vs. Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Respondents. / Jaime N. Soriano, Petitioner, vs. Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), Respondent. / Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA), Petitioner, vs. Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), Respondent. / In Re Applicability of Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution to Appointments to the Judiciary, Estelito P. Mendoza, Petitioner. / John G. Peralta, Petitioner, vs. Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), Respondent. / Atty. Amador Z. Tolentino, Jr., (IBP Governor-Southern Luzon), and Atty. Roland B. Inting (IBP Governor-Eastern Visayas), Petitioners, vs. Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), Respondent. / Philippine Bar Association, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Judicial and Bar Council and Her Excellency Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Respondents.

FACTS

Several petitions and a motion for reconsideration were filed concerning the applicability of the constitutional ban on midnight appointments under Section 15, Article VII to the Judiciary, particularly relating to the impending vacancy for the position of Chief Justice upon the compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno on May 17, 2010. The Court, in a decision promulgated on March 17, 2010, dismissed some petitions as premature or lacking merit, and granted the petition in A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC. It directed the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to resume its proceedings, prepare a shortlist of nominees for Chief Justice, and submit this list to the incumbent President on or before May 17, 2010. The Court held that the prohibition in Section 15, Article VII does not apply to appointments to the Judiciary. Motions for reconsideration were filed by various petitioners and intervenors, arguing primarily that the constitutional ban on midnight appointments applies to judicial appointments, that the Court’s interpretation was erroneous, and that the Court lacked authority to direct the JBC.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution , which prohibits the President or Acting President from making appointments two months before the next presidential elections and up to the end of the term (except temporary appointments to executive positions), applies to appointments to the Judiciary.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the motions for reconsideration and AFFIRMED its decision dated March 17, 2010. The Court held that Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution does not apply to appointments to the Judiciary. The ban on midnight appointments is intended to curb the abuse of presidential prerogatives for partisan political purposes, a concern primarily relevant to executive appointments where a President can appoint allies who may later serve as proxies. In contrast, appointments to the Judiciary require a nomination process by the independent Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), which serves as a constitutional safeguard ensuring that only qualified and vetted nominees are presented to the President. This JBC process removes the element of partisan politics from judicial appointments, making the ban inapplicable. The Court further ruled that its directive to the JBC to submit a shortlist was an exercise of its constitutional power of supervision over the JBC, not control. The Court also clarified that the doctrine in In Re: Valenzuela (which applied the ban to judicial appointments) was effectively abandoned. The constitutional intent, as reflected in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission and the structure of the Constitution (with the ban located in the Article on the Executive Department), supports the conclusion that the prohibition was meant to apply only to executive appointments.