GR 224302; (February, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 224302, February 21, 2017
Hon. Philip A. Aguinaldo, et al., and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) v. His Excellency President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, et al.
FACTS
Petitioners, including several judges and the IBP, filed a Petition for Quo Warranto and Certiorari challenging the validity of the appointments of six new Sandiganbayan Associate Justices. They contended that the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) violated the Constitution by submitting six separate shortlists for the six vacancies, a practice termed “clustering,” which effectively restricted the President’s choice of appointee to a specific list per vacancy. The JBC filed motions for reconsideration and intervention, arguing its practice was constitutional and within its discretionary power. It also moved for the inhibition of the ponente, Associate Justice Leonardo-De Castro, alleging she had prior knowledge of the JBC’s internal procedures as a former consultant.
ISSUE
The primary issue was whether the JBC’s practice of submitting multiple shortlists for multiple simultaneous judicial vacancies, thereby assigning specific nominees to specific vacant seats, was constitutional.
RULING
The Court En Banc, in a Resolution penned by Justice Leonardo-De Castro, denied the JBC’s motions and affirmed its earlier Decision. The Court held the clustering practice unconstitutional. The legal logic rests on a strict interpretation of Article VIII, Section 9 of the 1987 Constitution, which mandates the JBC to submit a list of at least three nominees for every vacancy. The Court reasoned that the constitutional provision aims to give the President the widest possible discretion in appointing members of the Judiciary from among all qualified candidates approved by the JBC. By numbering the vacancies and attaching a specific list to each, the JBC impermissibly limited the President’s choice to only the nominees clustered under a particular vacancy, thereby diminishing the appointing power’s constitutional breadth. The Court clarified that the President must be able to consider all nominees for all concurrent vacancies. The appointments themselves were declared valid, as the defect lay with the JBC’s procedure, not the qualifications of the appointees. The motion for inhibition was also denied, as prior knowledge of JBC procedures in an official capacity does not constitute a ground for mandatory inhibition under the Internal Rules or the New Code of Judicial Conduct.