MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) yesterday ordered the government and the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to comment on petitions regarding the proposal to allow President Arroyo to appoint a chief magistrate ahead of the retirement of Chief Justice Reynato Puno.
The High Court called on the JBC and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to submit within 10 days their answers to the petitions of the Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa) and lawyers Jaime Soriano, Arturo de Castro and former solicitor general Estelito Mendoza.
The petitioners sought the resolution of the issue of whether President Arroyo is allowed to appoint the next chief justice in the last few months of her term.
The JBC and the OSG were ordered to submit their separate comments.
Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera, a member of the JBC, said the JBC would submit its collegial comments on the petitions even without the Solicitor General since its members are all lawyers, including Chief Justice Puno himself.
SC administrator and spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said the petitions basically involve two main issues - whether the President is still allowed to make an appointment during the constitutional ban and if the JBC could withhold the names of nominees.
Marquez said Puno, in effect, becomes a respondent in the case since he is head of the JBC.
Marquez said he expects the chief magistrate to inhibit from the case.
He said the Court moved to resolve the petitions while allowing the JBC to proceed with the selection process.
The JBC is currently in the stage of collecting comments and allegations against the six aspirants for the chief justice post.
In an advertisement in The STAR last Saturday, the JBC published the names of the remaining candidates. In the list are Senior Associate Justices Antonio Carpio and Renato Corona; Associate Justices Conchita Carpio- Morales, Arturo Brion and Teresita Leonardo-de Castro; and Sandiganbayan Acting Presiding Justice Edilberto Sandoval.
In a 20-page petition, the Philconsa argued that the prohibition on appointments during election period does not apply to positions in the judiciary.
Philconsa, group of lawyers including constitutional experts, argued Article VII Section 15 of the Constitution applies only to appointments to vacant posts in the executive department.
Applying the election ban to the judiciary, Philconsa said, would be “a subtle and insidious sabotage of the designed autonomy/independence of the judiciary.”
In a 12-page taxpayer’s suit, lawyer Arturo de Castro wants the SC to prevent the JBC from committing grave abuse of discretion by deferring the submission of the list of nominees to the President.
The petitioner, managing partner of De Castro and Cagampang Law Offices, cited as basis an earlier resolution of the JBC to defer its decision to submit the shortlist for the chief justice post because of the legal and political debate over the issue.
De Castro argued the JBC has no business or any mandate under the Constitution to decide if it can or cannot submit the list to Mrs. Arroyo in view of the constitutional ban on appointments during the election period.
“The JBC cannot arrogate unto itself the judicial function that is not conferred upon it by the Constitution. Its function under the Constitution is limited only to recommending appointees to the judiciary,” De Castro said.
He said the JBC cannot decide on constitutional questions, which is a power vested only in the Supreme Court.
Mendoza, on the other hand, said the SC should decide on the issues immediately for guidance of the JBC.
He said under Article VIII Section 8 (1) of the Constitution, the JBC is under supervision of the Court.
Mendoza, however, agreed the constitutional ban on appointments during the election period does not apply to the President in appointing members of the judiciary.
Soriano, for his part, argued that the SC has authority to appoint the next chief justice.