JBC: Judicial and Bar Controversy

As previously scheduled, the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) is supposed to vote already tomorrow for at least three names to comprise the shortlist of nominees they would submit to Malacañang. It is from this list where President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III must choose who would take over as new Chief Justice of the country.

Of course, the shortlist could be longer than three nominees based on who would get the most number of votes from the eight-man JBC. But it does not necessarily mean the nominee who gets the highest number of votes would become the 24th Chief Justice of the country.

From the shortlist he will receive from the JBC, President Aquino will have to make a choice by August 27. This is the lapse of the 90-day period from the time the vacancy arose after the impeachment of erstwhile Chief Justice Renato Corona. At the end of the Senate impeachment trial last May 29, Corona was convicted and became the country’s first-ever Chief Justice unceremoniously removed from office.

Under the country’s 1987 Constitution, the President must fill this vacancy following the prescribed screening process of the JBC. The JBC voting caps the public interviews they did on the 20 nominees they grilled during a televised hearing last week at the SC office in Padre Faura, Manila.

There were originally 65 nominees and applicants for the position. The number swelled after JBC extended the nomination period. This, however, was eventually pruned down to 24 after more than half either declined or failed to meet standard qualifications. At least four candidates were disqualified by the JBC in their final vetting process.

But as of today, it is still uncertain how the JBC would go about with the earlier Supreme Court (SC) decision that only one of the two members of Congress would be allowed to vote.

This SC ruled in favor of the petition filed by former Solicitor General Frank Chavez who himself was nominated to the CJ post but declined it. The SC ruled Senator Chiz Escudero and Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas, as representatives of the 15th Congress at the JBC, should have only one vote. Escudero and Tupas are the chairmen, respectively of the Senate and House committee on justice and as such, they automatically became the official representatives to the JBC.

The ruling naturally did not sit well with the leaderships of both chambers of Congress who filed a joint motion of reconsideration (MR) before the SC. House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. rightfully argued the SC should have considered the history of this issue when JBC was created under the country’s 1987 Constitution.

The framers of the Constitution originally contemplated the JBC under a unicameral system instead of the bicameral that we have today. So, the Senate and the House of Representatives should get one vote each at the JBC, Belmonte argued.

If we strictly go by the letter and spirit of the Constitution, Belmonte added, SC associate justice Diosdado Peralta should not have presided the JBC as acting chairman. Peralta took over as chairman of the JBC after acting CJ Antonio Carpio accepted his automatic nomination as among the five most senior associate justices qualified to replace Corona. As mandated by the Constitution, the CJ must preside the JBC.

The SC set today the oral arguments for the MR of the lawmakers, with the Office of the Solicitor General supporting the side of the two chambers on this issue. Incidentally, incumbent Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza is also one of the nominees grilled by the JBC.

In three resolutions they adopted last Monday, the Senate called on the JBC to postpone the release of a shortlist of candidates for Chief Justice until the SC has resolved the issue and allow Congress to defend their stand in oral arguments before full court session tomorrow. So for all intents and purposes, the JBC has no choice but to defer anew their scheduled voting for CJ.

To its credit, the JBC has shown it has been flexible with their rules and procedures when warranted. A case in point is allowing full public access to their screening process of nominees by allowing a live telecast of the interviews conducted on all aspirants. We have been able to hear and listen to prospective CJ on their individual ideas, reasoning, extent of knowledge, and legal expertise. In the past, the interviews were done in closed-door session.

Actually, the JBC has already reset their voting for the shortlist of new CJ from Monday to this Thursday.

Atty. Jose Mejia, a member of the JBC representing academe, clarified they merely wanted more time to deliberate on each nominee they interviewed. This was to obviously brush aside suspicions of deliberate delay in the process because they are giving certain “favored” candidate for CJ the chance to clear the remaining hurdle.

Although no one in particular is being mentioned, this is obviously generated by the intense bid of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima to get her disbarment case dismissed by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Currently, the IBP representative who will be voting in the JBC deliberations is Atty. Ma. Milagros Fernan-Cayosa.

During the JBC interview, De Lima’s disbarment case was raised as a possible complication should she be appointed as the next CJ. Unfortunately for De Lima, the IBP decided to proceed with the three separate disbarment cases filed against her.

One of these cases was De Lima’s refusal to obey the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the SC headed then by CJ Corona in favor of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. At the JBC hearing, De Lima hemmed and hawed when asked on how she would handle a situation if as CJ, her Court-issued TRO is also disobeyed like she did with the Corona court.

Under JBC rules, any candidate who has a pending criminal or regular administrative case is disqualified. De Lima, however, argued hers is not yet a regular administrative case and as such, she should not be disqualified. The JBC would hopefully not bend the rules for De Lima.

The JBC could not afford that their search for new CJ again become a judicial and bar controversy.