SC: GMA can appoint CJ

Source: Manila Bulletin
By EDMER F. PANESA
March 17, 2010, 4:25pm

The Supreme Court (SC) declared Wednesday that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has the authority to appoint the successor to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno upon his retirement on May 17.

Voting 9-1, with three justices inhibiting, and two others voting to dismiss the petition for being premature, the High Court ruled that the appointment of a new chief justice is not covered by the election appointment ban, which started last March 10 and ends June 30.

Consequently, the High Court directed the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to submit to Malacañang the shortlist of nominees to replace Puno on or before his retirement date.

Reacting to the SC order, Quezon City Rep. Matias Defensor, chairman of the House Committee on Justice, said the JBC is ready to submit to President Arroyo the nominees for the next Supreme Court chief before Puno’s retirement.

Court Administrator and SC Spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said nine justices voted to uphold the authority of Mrs. Arroyo to name the country’s next chief magistrate, only one justice dissented, two voted for the dismissal of the petitions in favor of the appointment by the incumbent president, and three took no part in the decision.

“The Court has already spoken. It said the incumbent president has the power to appoint the successor to Chief Justice Puno,” Marquez announced in a press conference.

The nine magistrates who allowed President Arroyo to appoint Puno’s successor were Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama Jr., Jose P. Perez, and Jose C. Mendoza.

The majority opinion was written by Justice Bersamin while Justice Brion wrote a separate opinion. The lone dissenting opinion was written by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales.

Associate Justices Eduardo B. Nachura and Presbitero J. Velasco Jr. voted to dismiss the petitions in favor of President Arroyo appointing the next chief justice for being premature.

Marquez said both Nachura and Velasco believed that the court cannot compel the JBC to submit the shortlist to President Arroyo since there is yet no vacancy in the office of chief justice.

“Justices Nachura and Velasco are of the opinion that the present petitions are premature considering that no actual case or controversy has yet taken place. Therefore, for them the cases before the Court are not yet ripe for judicial determination,” Marquez said.

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno and Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio and Renato C. Corona did not take part in the voting.

Marquez, however, said it was not clear in its latest decision whether the SC had in effect reversed its 1998 decision where it nullified the appointments of Judges Mateo Valenzuela and Placido Vallarta to the regional trial courts for violating the constitutional ban on appointments during the election period.

“While five justices said that the Vallarta doctrine should be reversed or overturned, five also said that the Vallarta doctrine stays,” Marquez said.

The Vallarta doctrine was based on Article VII, Section 15 of the Constitution, which bars the President from making appointments two months immediately preceding the next presidential elections and until June 30.

On the other hand, Article VIII, Section 9 provides that the President should make the appointment within 90 days upon the vacancy in the judiciary.

Marquez noted that in the Bersamin opinion, the SC ruled that all appointments to the judiciary are not covered by the election ban, thus reversing the Vallarta doctrine.

“That means that the President can appoint the members of the judiciary from the highest – meaning the chief justice – to the lowest – meaning a metropolitan trial court judge – during the supposed election ban because appointments to the judiciary are not covered by Article VII,” he said, referring to the Bersamin opinion, which was concurred in by Justices De Castro, Abad, Villarama, and Perez.

However, Marquez said the Brion opinion says otherwise.

“The Brion opinion said that appointments to the SC alone are not covered by the ban and appointments to courts lower than the SC are covered by the ban. So that means the President can appoint the chief justice or any associate justice to the SC during that period but the President cannot appoint any other member of the court below the SC,” he said.

Marquez said the Brion opinion was supported by Justices Peralta, Castillo and Mendoza, while Justice Morales said the President cannot appoint any member of the judiciary at all during the election ban.

“In effect, there was no doctrine developed in that regard because of the conflicting opinions of the magistrates,” Marquez said.

He said a petition may be filed before the SC to clarify the issue of whether or not the President can appoint any other member of the judiciary aside from the chief justice.

“You will have to remember that the main issue here is whether or not the President can appoint the successor to Chief Justice Puno. Appointments to lower courts are just collateral issue that’s why the court need not be clear on that issue because the main issue is the appointment of the next chief justice,” Marquez pointed out.

Marquez said the two conflicting provisions in the Constitution – Article VII (Executive Department) and VIII (Judicial Department) – were considered in the Bersamin opinion.

“Justice Bersamin believes that considering that particular provision saying that the President cannot appoint two months before the election is found in Article VII, it should be limited to appointments in Executive Department,” Marquez said.

He added: “The mandatory provision that the President should appoint within 90 days is found in Article VIII, which covers the judiciary. It was Justice Bersamin’s view that the election ban under Article VII does not cover those in Article VIII.

“When you look at the Constitution, Article VII speaks about the Executive Department and Article VIII speaks about the judiciary. These are two co-equal branches of government.”

Malacañang was pleased with the SC verdict. Presidential Spokesman Ricardo Saludo said the SC decision as a “victory of the Constitution and the Filipino people” and expressed hope the public would respect the decision of the high tribunal.

But Senate Minority Leader Aquilino “Nene” Pimentel Jr. expressed dismay over the ruling.

Pimentel said the decision of the 15-man High Court smacks as another scar in the integrity of the institution.

“It’s a big blow versus rule of law. (It’s) another blight on the armor of the SC as an institution,” Pimentel said in a text message.

Meanwhile, Tagbilaran Bishop Leonardo Medroso called on the faithful to pray that President Arroyo will responsibly choose the next Chief Justice.

“Let’s pray that the President will be very responsible in choosing the most competent and without prejudice the appointment of the new Chief Justice,” Medroso said over Church-run Radio Veritas 846 Wednesday.

“There should be no other consideration except for the good of the justice system and the Filipino people,” he added. (With reports from Ben R. Rosario, Hannah L. Torregoza, and Leslie Ann G. Aquino)