Another Supreme Court justice declines automatic nomination

MANILA, Philippines - Another senior justice of the Supreme Court declined yesterday the automatic nomination to replace Chief Justice Reynato Puno when he retires on May 17.

Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura, the fifth most senior justice in the SC, told the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) that he is not interested to become the successor of Puno.

In his letter to JBC members, Nachura said he would like to defer the nomination to the two most senior magistrates, Associate Justices Antonio Carpio and Renato Corona.

Nachura holds the distinction of having served in the highest levels of all three branches of government.

Two other senior justices being considered for the chief justice position have manifested with the JBC their decisions on their automatic nomination.

Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr., the fourth most senior justice, had earlier rejected the automatic nomination to replace Puno and said that he is not interested in the post.

Velasco declined the nomination for the imminent vacancy when Puno retires.

He sent a letter to the JBC and asked the members of the council to exclude him from the list of possible nominees for the next chief justice.

Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, the third most senior justice, has accepted her automatic nomination to the post of chief justice, but stressed that she only accepted the nomination on the belief that the appointment would be made not by President Arroyo but by the next duly elected president.

Automatic nomination

In the tradition of the JBC, the five most senior justices of the SC are automatically considered for the position of chief justice and unless they decline, their names would be included in the shortlist to be submitted to Malacañang.

Outsiders who do not belong to the judiciary but are qualified for the post could also under the rules be nominated or apply.

The JBC started last Wednesday the nomination process for the vacancy in the SC amid questions on the legality of a proposal to allow the President to appoint the replacement of the retiring chief justice despite the constitutional ban on appointments during the election period.

The JBC is now accepting applications or nominations for the next chief justice.

The council had earlier sought the views and opinions of legal experts. Fr. Joaquin Bernas, a noted constitutionalist and one of the framers of 1987 Constitution, had said that Mrs. Arroyo could not appoint the next chief justice without violating the Charter.

Lawmakers back JBC move

President Arroyo’s allies in the House of Representatives commended the decision of the JBC to begin the process to nominate the next chief of the Supreme Court.

Baguio City Rep. Mauricio Domogan, vice chairman of the House committee on justice, acknowledged the independence of the nine-man panel, saying the JBC can do its job without any interference, in cases of vacancies in the judiciary.

“The JBC has a mandate to fulfill. Its process should be shielded from politics and pressure,” he said. “The JBC is supposed to give a list of nominees to the President who is the ultimate appointing power in case of vacancies in the judiciary.”

Domogan reminded critics of Mrs. Arroyo that the issue of appointing the next SC chief has a deadline, which is within 90 days after the occurrence of vacancy in the SC as provided for in Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

Independent, impartial

Agusan del Norte Rep. Jose Aquino, a Lakas-Kampi spokesman, said the JBC deserves praise for demonstrating its independence and impartiality insofar as choosing nominees to fill vacant posts in the judiciary is concerned.

“It is a fact that the opposition through Sen. Francis Escudero is represented in the JBC and so far he has not complained that his colleagues in that body have been rigging the process,” Aquino said.

Camiguin Rep. Pedro Romualdo, chairman of the House committee on good government, criticized Fr. Bernas for warning that prematurely appointing a chief justice may divide the justices.

“Warnings and criticisms are unnecessary in the nomination and appointment processes. It’s unwarranted for anyone to forewarn the President that the issue on the appointment of the next SC chief justice will divide the justices,” he argued. – With Delon Porcalla