MANILA, Philippines--The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) has said that the Supreme Court erred in its decision that the President, in extreme cases, can appoint the next chief justice even without a shortlist from the council.
In a comment filed on Monday, the JBC said, “These statements are bereft on any constitutional and legal basis and impinge on the independence of the JBC,” the body that vets nominees to the courts.
Newsbreak reported last March that the SC, in its decision allowing midnight appointments to the judiciary, also raised that the JBC shortlist is deemed unnecessary for appointments to the post of chief justice if the aspirants are SC magistrates.
"As a matter of fact, in an extreme case, we can even raise a doubt on whether a JBC list is necessary at all for the President--any President--to appoint a Chief Justice if the appointee is to come from the ranks of the sitting justices of the Supreme Court," the SC said in its decision which permits President Arroyo to appoint the next chief justice amid the appointment ban that started March 10.
Chief Justice Reynato Puno is set to retire on May 17.
The JBC's latest comment is a deviation from its earlier comment, where it said it would abide by the Court's decision.
This time, the council said that the SC should have dismissed the petitions.
The JBC said that if the SC sticks to its decision ordering the JBC to submit its shortlist to Arroyo on or before Puno’s retirement, the council will “abide by the final decision of this Honorable Court but in accord with its own constitutional mandate and in line with its implementing rules and regulations.”
Delete statement
The JBC is a constitutional body created by the 1987 Constitution to screen and select contenders for the lower courts, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, the Court of Tax Appeals, and the Supreme Court. It was conceived to insulate from politics the appointments to the judiciary. This was to prevent a repeat of the Marcos-era experience where President Ferdinand Marcos packed the Supreme Court with his allies.
The JBC is composed of representatives from the legislature, the academe, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the private sector, and the Supreme Court.
The JBC noted, however, that the tribunal’s statements are not binding since there is no actual petition lodged before the court raising such “extreme case.” Hence, the statements bordered on being “speculative.”
“It is respectfully submitted that such statements are obviously speculative and hypothetical and should be struck out from the Decision in order not to mislead the parties and the public,” the council demanded.
Petitions premature
The JBC also moved for the reconsideration of the SC decision, which allowed midnight appointments to the judiciary on the ground that the case is “premature.”
The council explained that by the time the petitions were filed at the court, the JBC had not yet decided when it would submit its shortlist to Malacañang. It was only in the process of gathering opinions from constitutional experts.
“Since the JBC has yet to decide the issue at that time, it is submitted that the present consolidated petitions and administrative matter are patently premature and should have been dismissed,” the JBC said in its comment.
The JBC joined the motions for reconsideration questioning the SC decision, which reversed a decade-old ruling that the appointment ban covers the judiciary. The President is barred from making appointments, except to temporary posts in the executive department, 2 months before the elections and until his or her term ends on June 30.
SC justices Presbitero Velasco and Eduardo Nachura also held the view that the petitions were premature.
No comments:
Post a Comment