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; March 17, 2010
Case Parties:

ARTURO M. DE CASTRO, Petitioner, vs. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC) and PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, Respondents. (G.R. No. 191002)
JAIME N. SORIANO, Petitioner, vs. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC), Respondent. (G.R. No. 191032)
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), Petitioner, vs. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC), Respondent. (G.R. No. 191057)
IN RE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 15, ARTICLE VII OF THE CONSTITUTION TO APPOINTMENTS TO THE JUDICIARY, ESTELITO P. MENDOZA, Petitioner. (A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC)
JOHN G. PERALTA, Petitioner, vs. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC). Respondent. (G.R. No. 191149)
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. (G.R. No. 191342)
PHILIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner, vs. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL and HER EXCELLENCY GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, Respondents. (G.R. No. 191420)

FACTS

The compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno on May 17, 2010, days after the May 10, 2010 presidential elections, gave rise to legal dilemmas regarding the appointment of his successor. The principal issue was whether the incumbent President, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, could appoint the next Chief Justice, considering the prohibition in Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution against presidential appointments within two months before the next presidential elections and up to the end of the President’s term. This was in relation to the constitutional mandate under Section 4(1), Article VIII that any Supreme Court vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from its occurrence. The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) initiated the process of screening candidates for the position. Various petitions were filed: some sought to compel the JBC to submit its list of nominees to the incumbent President (De Castro, PHILCONSA, Peralta), while others sought to prohibit the JBC from conducting the nomination process or submitting the list during the election ban (Soriano, Tolentino and Inting). Estelito P. Mendoza sought a ruling for the guidance of the JBC on the applicability of the appointment ban to the Judiciary. The Court consolidated these cases due to their transcendental importance.

ISSUE

The principal legal question is whether the incumbent President can appoint the successor of Chief Justice Puno upon his retirement, considering the prohibition under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the incumbent President is NOT prohibited by Section 15, Article VII from making appointments to the Judiciary, including the position of Chief Justice, during the period of the ban on midnight appointments. The Court held that Section 15, Article VII applies only to appointments in the Executive Department. Appointments to the Judiciary are governed by a separate constitutional provision, Section 4(1), Article VIII, which mandates that vacancies in the Supreme Court must be filled within 90 days from their occurrence. This 90-day period is mandatory and leaves no discretion to postpone appointments. The Court overruled its previous decision in In Re: Valenzuela which had applied the election ban to judicial appointments. The Court further ruled that the JBC is not guilty of any grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with the nomination process. The JBC was directed to continue its process and submit to the incumbent President the list of nominees for the position of Chief Justice upon its completion.