SC can choose its own Chief Justice under the Constitution
Latest:
20 April 2010, the Supreme Court en banc in a Resolution upheld its 17 March 2010 Decision and denied all motions for reconsideration filed.
6 April 2010 Inquirer.net breaking news on my motion for reconsideration – click here
On 31 March 2010, I filed a motion for reconsideration of the 17 March 2010 Decision and for a full court deliberation sans recluse. Read the copy of the motion by clicking here.
On 17 March 2010, the Supreme Court en banc promulgated its Decision upholding the power of the President to appoint the Chief Justice vice Chief Justice Reynato Puno during the prohibited period against midnight appointments.
On 10 February 2010, I filed a petition for prohibition with prayer for injunctive relief docketed as G. R. No. 191032 against the Judicial and Bar Council before the Supreme Court docketed as G. R. No. 191032.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
There is no provision in the 1987 Constitution that says that the President should appoint the Chief Justice.
All the Constitution provides is that “Members of the Supreme Court x x x” shall be appointed by the President from a list of nominees submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council” (Sec. 9, Art. VIII).
But the Constitution also says that the Supreme Court has the power ”to appoint all officials x x x of the judiciary” (Sec. 5 [6], Art. VIII). And there is no iota of doubt here that the Chief Justice is an “official” of the judiciary, in fact the highest official thereof.
In short, the appointing power of the President extends only to the associate justices (or members) of the Supreme Court, not necessarily to the post of Chief Justice, which the Supreme Court En Banc may legally designate. Thus, the selection and nominating powers of the Judicial and Bar Council under the Constitution and the consequent appointing power of the President may be exercised only in this case if the person sought to be appointed Chief Justice is not coming from among the incumbent justices of the Supreme Court.
This interpretation is in keeping with the principles of separation of powers and would best serve the independence of our judiciary, free from all political and vested interest.
This is the gist of my letter dated 11 January 2010 to the Chief Justice copy furnished all the associate justices of the Supreme Court. In reply, I received a letter from the Judicial and Bar Council dated 19 January 2010 stating that my constitutional view was duly noted during its en banc meeting of 18 January 2010.
I pray that the Supreme Court asserts its constitutional power to select its own leader upon the retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno on 17 May 2010 to put to rest all the current debate and constitutional controversy about his replacement that continue to undermine or taint judicial independence.
The SC can choose its own Chief Justice under the Constitution by www.soriano-ph.com, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Philippines License.
jose asturias:
very insightful sir. it makes me wonder how 15 supreme court justices and several constitutionalists fail to make that point.
4 February 2010, 7:32 pmmarcus dela cruz:
that interpretation on the letter of the constitution is, very much, an eye-opener for me. i hope the justices of the SC would realize the thrust of it.
5 February 2010, 2:58 pmMaricor Akol:
Only in the Philippines !…so what else is new…the interpretation of the Law has been done several times, specially in this Administration, to suit their needs…. BUT we should assert our rights and leave our comfort zones…uphold the Law for the good of the majority of our people…and not just a select few. Mabuhay and Pilipino
8 February 2010, 10:21 amleo:
jim, is it possible to just file an injunction suit against the jbc before the sc, instead of just a mere letter.
anyway, i think, jbc even impliedly admits that it has no power to screen cj candidates, but only screen another member of the sc upon retirement of puno, when it accepted non sc candicates. even jbc website says it screens only members for the judiciary, but not the cj.
10 February 2010, 10:12 amlairaja:
Interesting. Somehow echoes “Todd E. Pettys, Choosing a Chief Justice: Presidential Prerogative or a Job for the Court?, 22 J. L. & POLITICS 231 (2006).”
4 April 2010, 12:26 amleo delgra:
jim, i subscribe to your view. however, your MR and petition did not cover much the role of the JBC. based on your thesis, the JBC as well should have no power to screen nor make any recommendation for CJ; not now, nor to the next president shall JBC submit any name for CJ. besides, there’s no constitutional mandate for JBC. Sec 9, list of nominees of JBC, is for members of SC. a prospective CJ nominee is already a member of the SC, and he/she need not go back to JBC to be recommended for CJ.
i say, its demeaning and without dignity, for an Associate Justice to be screened by JBC for the position of CJ, to be screened, recommended, interrogated or even possibly grilled by a congressman, a senator or secretary of justice, a private citizen or by IBP representative, who are all JBC members.
i would have hoped that this insult to an Associate Justice having to go through the process of JBC screening should have been emphasized, again to maintain integrity and dignity of Associate Justice.
11 April 2010, 5:12 pm