Nominee for chief justice questions composition of JBC
Former solicitor general Frank Chavez, a nominee for Supreme Court (SC) chief justice, questioned yesterday the composition of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) that is currently in the process of drawing up a shortlist of nominees to send President Aquino.
Chavez said the JBC should only have seven members as provided for in the Constitution and not the current eight.
Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. was nominated for chief justice yesterday by a certain Egay Bigay.
Ochoa said he would decline his nomination and submit a formal letter to the JBC.
In a three-page letter to the council tasked to vet nominees to judicial posts, Chavez sought clarification as to why the Senate and Congress have separate representatives in the council when Article VIII Section 8 (1) of the Constitution states there should only be “a representative of the Congress.”
“When the Constitution uses the phrase ‘a representative of the Congress,’ it is all too clear to require interpretation that there should only be one representative from Congress. Under the present setup, why do we have two representatives from Congress – one from the House of Representatives and one from the Senate?” he asked.
Chavez also questioned the JBC’s practice where one vote is given to each of the ex-officio members from the two chambers of Congress.
“If the chief justice, as ex-officio chairman, casts his vote on an issue presented before the JBC, then we have the possibility of an impasse because we have an 8-member body. In such a case, who will be the tie-breaker?” he argued further.
Chavez wonders if previous decisions and actions made by the JBC – which he believes is not rightly constituted as required by the Constitution – were valid, binding and constitutional.
His queries apparently pertain to Sen. Francis Escudero and Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., the ex-officio members of JBC representing the Senate and House, respectively.
Chavez believes his move could jeopardize his chances of being included in the shortlist of nominees.
“I know that this letter-query may earn the ire or provoke adverse reaction from the JBC itself or its members affected by it. But that is not important to me. It does not bother me a bit, as I am not seeking the position. What matters most to me are the Constitution and our laws – above everyone and everything else,” he stressed.
Chavez said he would soon decide on whether to accept or decline his nomination by Melchor Magdamo and Manuel Baviera.
Lawyer Jose Mejia, ex-officio JBC member representing academe, told The STAR that council members would discuss Chavez’s letter in their regular meeting on Monday.
When asked for comment, he replied: “It’s been the rule. And that’s not for me to answer. Let’s wait for the council.”
Article VIII Section 8 (1) of the Constitution provides that the JBC should be composed of the Chief Justice as ex-officio chairman, the Secretary of Justice and a representative of the Congress as ex-officio members and four regular members composed of a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.
Interpretation of this constitutional provision, however, has changed over the years.
For more than a decade, members of the Senate and the House alternately represented Congress in the council and shared one vote. But the setup changed in 2001 during the term of Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. as then ex-officio chair of JBC when they were given one vote each.
Meanwhile, two other SC justices formally declined their nomination for chief justice.
Associate Justices Jose Mendoza and Bienvenido Reyes told the JBC that they would rather defer to more senior justices of the SC.
“May I inform this honorable body that being one of the most junior members of the Court, I defer to the more senior colleagues of mine. Hence, this will serve as my blanket and automatic non-acceptance or declination of any nomination from any person or party to the position,” Reyes explained in his one-page letter.
Associate Justices Mariano del Castillo and Estela Perlas-Bernabe have earlier declined their nomination, citing the same reason.
This means only 10 of the 14 current justices of the SC – including acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio – remain in the running for the chief justice post.
Justice Bernabe, President Aquino’s third appointee to the SC, is currently ranked 14th in terms of seniority by date of appointment among the SC justices.
Carpio, who was automatically nominated for chief justice post, is the most senior member of the Court.
This idea of appointing the most senior justice – in this case Carpio – as chief justice was supported by another nominee who also declined his nomination, former energy secretary Raphael Lotilla.
However, this tradition of appointing the most senior as chief justice was not followed in two instances – when Chief Justices Artemio Panganiban and Renato Corona bypassed more senior magistrates with their appointment to the top SC post in 2005 and 2010, respectively.
There are also calls for appointment of an outsider, which was reportedly being considered by President Aquino.
Aside from the three justices and Lotilla, five others in the JBC’s initial list had declined their nomination: 2010 presidential candidate and Bar topnotcher Gilberto Teodoro Jr., Integrated Bar of the Philippines national president Roan Libarios, Laguna Assistant State Prosecutor Cesar Sasondoncillo, former senator Rene Saguisag and lawyer-businessman Rodolfo Robles.
On the other hand, a total of 13 had already accepted their nomination: SC Associate Justices Arturo Brion and Roberto Abad, former UP law dean Raul Pangalangan, De La Salle University law founding dean Jose Manuel Diokno, former Ateneo law dean Cesar Villanueva, elections commissioner Rene Sarmiento, retired judge Manuel Siayngco Jr., former executive secretary Ronaldo Zamora and lawyers Katrina Legarda, Soledad Cagampang-de Castro, Rafael Morales, Vicente Velasquez and Ferdinand Jose Pijao.