JBC: Gloria can't appoint chief justice without our list

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.

JBC opens nominations for next chief justice

MANILA, Philippines - The Judicial Bar and Council on Wednesday announced the opening for application or recommendation for the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which will be vacated by Chief Justice Reynato Puno when he retires on May 17.

The JBC, through its ex-officio secretary and Clerk of Court, lawyer Ma. Luisa Villarama, said the council will be accepting applications and recommendations not later than February 4, 2010. The council will also accept sworn complaints, written reports or opposition against any candidates not later than February 1, 2010.

Among the top contenders for the Chief Justice post are the five most senior associate justices of the SC namely Antonio Carpio, Renato Corona, Conchita Carpio-Carpio Morales, Presbitero Velasco and Antonio Eduardo Nachura.

The JBC on Monday unanimously agreed to start the selection process for the new Supreme Court chief but did not reach a decision on when to submit the list of its recommendations to President Arroyo.

Many legal experts say the JBC can only submit its list of nominees when there is already a vacancy, not before.

Party-list group Bayan Muna on Tuesday filed House Bill 7109 explicitly prohibiting the President from making appointments to judicial posts, including that of chief justice of the Supreme Court, during the period covered by the constitutional ban on midnight appointments.

Bayan Muna representatives Satur Ocampo, Teodoro Casiño, and Neri Colmenares maintained that the 1987 Constitution is clear that President Arroyo cannot appoint the successor of Chief Justice Reynato Puno. They said they filed the bill to remove any doubt on the unconstitutionality of proposals that President Arroyo can ignore the ban on midnight appointments.

SC junks graft case vs. Joey Marquez

MANILA, Philippines -- The Supreme Court (SC) junked the graft case filed against former Parañaque City mayor and actor Joey Marquez in connection with the city government's acquisition of almost 6,000 pieces of walis tingting (broomstick) in 1996 without public bidding.

In its decision, penned by Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura, the High Court also acquitted Ofelia Caunan, then officer-in-charge of the general services offices of Parañaque, for lack of sufficient evidence.

The verdict reversed the Sandiganbayan’s Aug. 30, 2007 decision and Mar. 10, 2008 resolution, which found the two former city officials guilty of the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

"The gross and manifest disadvantage to the government was not sufficiently shown because the conclusion of overpricing was erroneous since it was not adequately proven," the SC decision said, noting that the Sandiganbayan merely relied on the findings of the Commission on Audit (COA) regarding the alleged overpricing.

Though the COA finding was based on the special audit team's report, it did not include a signed price quotation from the broomstick suppliers of Parañaque City.

The SC maintained that "the absence of a public bidding may mean that the government was not able to secure the lowest bargain in its favor and may open the door to graft and corruption. However, this does not satisfy the third element of the offense charged, because the law requires that the disadvantage must be manifest and gross."

In January 1996, Parañaque officials entered into a contract with businessman Antonio Razo of ZARO Trading for the purchase of 5,998 broomsticks at P25 each, totaling to P149,950, sans a public bidding.

COA later discovered that a broomstick only costs P11 each, overpricing the acquisition by P83,972

Miriam: Supreme Court did not censure me

'FOUL-MOUTHED' ?Excerpt of Sen. Santiago's 2006 privilege speech: "I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I am homicidal. I am suicidal. I am humiliated, debased, degraded.

And I am not only that, I feel like throwing up to be living my middle years in a country of this nature. I am nauseated.

I spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court, I am no longer interested in the position [of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by idiots.

I would rather be in another environment but not in the Supreme Court of idiots."

Read complete speech here

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago on Saturday rejected a news report, which said that the Supreme Court had censured her for scathing remarks she made in a privilege speech in the Senate more than two years ago.

In a statement, she said that the high court, in a ruling released Tuesday, did not reprimand her, but only reminded her to avoid "intemperate language." "Contrary to a certain news report, the Supreme Court did not issue a ‘censure,’ which in law means an official reprimand," the senator said. "The court merely stressed (my) duty as a lawyer to avoid ‘intemperate language’" she added. [Read the Supreme Court's decision here.] Santiago likewise clarified that the terms “censure" and “foul mouth" quoted in the news report were those of the newspaper and did not appear in the SC ruling. A major broadsheet reported on Saturday that the high court “censured" Santiago for her “foul mouth," referring to the "offensive and disrespectful" language the senator used in in her privilege speech in December 2006, wherein she called the high court “the Supreme Court of idiots." The speech, which was Santiago’s reaction to her disqualification as a nominee for chief justice, prompted citizen Antero Pobre to file a disbarment case against the senator for her alleged "disrespect" for the SC. The high tribunal, however, decided on Tuesday to dismiss the disbarment case, citing the senator’s “parliamentary immunity." “The plea of Senator Santiago for the dismissal of the complaint for disbarment or disciplinary action is well taken. Indeed, her privilege speech is not actionable criminally or in a disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of Court," the SC decision read. In favor of Santiago Santiago said the SC’s decision to junk the case filed against her was in her favor. “It is perfectly natural for the Supreme Court to protect its own," Santiago, a former trial court judge, said. She also said that she and then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban remained “amicable" despite her statement in the same privilege speech that she wanted “to spit on the face of Chief Justice."

Santiago had in the past used similar offensive or derogatory language against officials who dared to cross paths with her, calling some lawmakers “fungus-faced" and even dismissing her critics who are non-graduates of UP, Cambridge or Harvard as "just feces of inferior life forms."