Supreme Court seeks comments on appeals pertaining to Chief Justice ruling

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) sought comments yesterday on appeals of its ruling exempting SC positions from the constitutional ban on midnight appointments, allowing President Arroyo to name the successor of Chief Justice Reynato Puno, who will retire on May 17.

Jose Midas Marquez, court administrator and SC spokesman, said the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) will interview six aspirants for chief justice on April 19 and 20 in Baguio City on their plans for the tribunal.

At the House of Representatives, Quezon City Rep. Matias Defensor, a JBC member, said the names of Justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio-Morales, who had said they would not accept an appointment by Mrs. Arroyo, should be in the JBC’s list of nominees to be submitted to Malacañang.

Defensor, House committee on justice chairman, disagrees with Justice Secretary Alberto Agra that Carpio and Morales should no longer be nominated since they do not want to be appointed by Mrs. Arroyo.

“I think we have to submit all six nominees,” he said.

“Under the ruling of the Supreme Court, the President can appoint the next chief justice. But for all we know, she may choose not to exercise that right and let her successor make the appointment.”

Defensor said if Mrs. Arroyo decides to leave the appointment of the next chief justice to her successor, Carpio and Morales would not be considered if their names are not in the JBC list.

“Remember that the President can appoint only from the list of nominees submitted by the JBC. So we have to include them in our list, just in case,” he said.

Fr. Joaquin Bernas and Christian Monsod, members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, said the nine justices misread the Constitution.

The Constitution clearly prohibits midnight appointments, including those in the Judiciary, according to Bernas and Monsod.

The only exceptions are temporary designations to executive positions that are critical in the delivery of public service or ensuring public safety, the two added.

In their first summer session in Baguio City, the justices ordered the JBC and the Office of the Solicitor General to submit within a non-extendable period of five days their comments on the separate motions for reconsideration.

Appealing the March 17 decision were Nacionalista Party senatorial candidates, heads of Integrated Bar of the Philippines chapters in Southern Luzon, Eastern Visayas and Davao City, the Philippine Bar Association (PBA) and militant groups led by Bagong Alyansang Makabayan.

Marquez said the case would again be included in the full court session agenda on April 13 in Baguio City.

In a vote of 9-1-2, the SC ruled that the ban on midnight appointments under the Constitution does not apply to positions in the SC.

It allowed Mrs. Arroyo to name the successor of Puno, whose retirement on May 17 falls within the period of the ban.

Appellants said the ban covers the post of chief justice, and that the justices misread the Constitution.

Most of the appellants agreed with the opinions of Justices Antonio Eduardo Nachura and Presbitero Velasco Jr., who voted for dismissal of the petitions for “lack of justiciable controversy.”

Bayan warned that the ruling has “opened the floodgates to other controversial appointments” like dismissals and designations made by Mrs. Arroyo reportedly after the ban took effect last March 10.

The PBA, led by former ombudsman Simeon Marcelo, said in directing the JBC to submit the shortlist to Mrs. Arroyo, the SC has allowed it to “execute a culpable violation of the Constitution and the commission of an election offense.”

The SC “violated the basic precepts of understanding and applying the Constitution,” the PBA added.

The IBP said it was a grave error for the SC to reverse its 1998 ruling where it voided the appointments of Judges Mateo Valenzuela and Placido Vallarta to the regional trial courts in violation of the constitutional ban on appointments during the election period.

The nine justices who voted for the majority ruling were Associate Justices Lucas Bersamin, Jose Perez, Roberto Abad, Martin Villarama, Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta, Jose Mendoza and Mariano del Castillo.

All nine were appointees of Mrs. Arroyo.

Justice Morales dissented, while Justices Nachura and Velasco voted to dismiss the petitions.

Chief Justice Puno and the two frontrunners for his position, Senior Associate Justices Carpio and Renato Corona, did not take part in the voting. – With Artemio Dumlao, Jess Diaz