ARTICLE 8 SECTION 8 CASE 2 OF 4
Ministerial on JBC to include Jardeleza on short list
JARDELEZA vs. SERENO
IMPORTANT RULING RELATED TO THE PROVISION/DOCTRINE:
1987 Consti deleted Congress’ subsidiary and corrective power in SEC 5(5) ART 8
1. March 6, 2014: opening for application & recommendation for position vacated after
compulsory retirement of Assoc Justice Abad
a. UP Dean Danila Concepcion nominated Francis H. Jardeleza
2. June 16/17: Jardeleza received phone calls from former CA Assoc Justice (incumbent
JBC) Lagman who informed him that CJ Sereno was invoking SEC 2 RULE 10 JBC-009
against him
a. Was directed to be available on June 30 where he would be informed of
objections of his integrity
i. Jardeleza filed letter-petition to Court to exercise constitutional
power of supervision over JBC
3. June 30: Carpio (resource person to shed light on classified legal memorandum)
clarified objection to Jardeleza’s integrity
a. Sereno questioned his ability to discharge the duties of his office over his
handling of int’l arbitration case for the govt
b. NOTE: Jardeleza not present but was directed to Court’s anterooms where
DOJ Sec de Lima informed him that Carpio appeared before JBC and
disclosed confidential info which made his integrity dubious
4. Told Sereno he would defend himself only if provided due process
a. Demanded Sereno execute a sworn statement specifying her objections and
that he be allowed to cross-examine her
i. Same directive to Carpio
b. Gave written statement re views on situations and requested JBC to defer its
meeting considering that Court En Banc would meet the next day to act on
his pending letter-petition
5. JBC continued deliberations and voting for nominees for short list (4)
a. INQUIRER: Court’s Spokesman Atty Theodore Te revealed there were 5
nominees but 1 could not be included because of invocation of RULE 10 SEC
2 JBC RULES
6. Present petition for certiorari + mandamus + TRO to compel JBC to include him in short
list since he garnered sufficient votes (4 out of 6)
7. JARDELEZA POSITIONS:
a. Sereno and JBC violated his right to due process in events leading up to and
during vote on short list last June 30
i. Sereno did not afforded him opportunity to be heard + acted as
prosec/witness/judge in case (grave abuse)
ii. JBC simply ordered him to be available for June 30 meeting and
that objections be made known that day
iii. Didn’t even know identity of his accusers (except for verbal info
that Carpio testified against him)
b. JBC committed grave abuse of discretion in excluding him from short list of
nominees, in violation of its own rules
i. Claimed UNANIMITY REQUIREMENT doesn’t apply when JBC
member raises objection to integrity
1. Lone objector part of body set to vote (unfair)
c.
i. MAJORITY VOTE should apply
d. Unlawful exclusion of petitioner from short list impairs Pres’s constitutional
power to appoint
i. Constrained to choose among 4 instead of 5
8. JBC COMMENTS:
a. Certiorari only available against tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial
or quasi-judicial functions
b. Mandamus cannot compel discretionary act
i. Inclusion in short list discretion of JBC
c. No denial of due process prior to voting process
i. Lagman + de Lima talked to him but he refused to shed light on
allegations against him come June 30
ii. Cross-examine not a demandable right in case since JBC not a fact-
finding body, nor a court/agency
iii. Hearing to determine veracity also discretionary
d. Applicant included in short list when obtains affirmative vote of all members
of JBC except when SEC 2 RULE 10 invoked and integrity is challenged
(unanimous vote required)
i. Sereno’s vote was not counted
e. Violated Code of Professional Responsibility and Code of Professional Ethics
when sued as SolGen (defender of govt)
f. Pres has until Aug 20 to appoint :. Can’t be restrained by TRO
ISSUES:
1. W/N Court has jurisdiction YES
2. W/N Issues against Jardeleza befit “Q or challenges on integ” YES
3. W/N right to due process available for JBC proceedings in general YES
4. W/N Jardeleza should be included in short list YES
NOTE: not a Q of constitutionality of JBC Rule but on its APPLICATION
RULING:
1. THE COURT HAS POWER OF SUPERVISION OVER JBC
a. SEC 8 ART 8 Consti: creation of JBC + supervision by SC
b. SUPERVISION: power of oversight or authority to see that subordinate
officers perform their duties (oversight powers)
i. See to it that rules are followed but themselves do not lay down
such rules nor do they have discretion to modify or replace them
(may order it done/redone)
c. HOWEVER, cannot file for writ of mandamus (just certiorari)
i. Mandamus will not issue to control/review discretion of public
officer where law imposes upon same the right and duty to exercise
his judgment
ii. Certiorari is proper remedy to question act of branch or
instrumentality of govt on ground of grave abuse
A. Even if the latter does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial
or ministerial functions
2. EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIR AND INSIDER-TRADING VALID “Q OF INTEGRITY” i. JBC-010: “any complaint or opposition against a candidate may
BUT NOT HIS HANDLING OF CASE be filed with the Secretary within 10 days thereof; the
a. There must be a showing that the act complained of is, at least, linked to complaint/opposition shall be in writing, under oath, and in 10
moral character of the person legible copies; the Sec of Council shall furnish the candidate a copy
b. OG INVOCATION: “inability to discharge duties of his office as shown in a of the complaint or opposition against him; the candidate shall
legal memorandum related to his manner of representing the govt in a legal have 5 days from receipt thereof within which to file his comment
dispute” to the complaint/opposition, if he so desires; and the candidate can
i. Sereno shared with JBC details of Jardeleza’s chosen manner of be made to explain the complaint or opposition against him.”
framing govt’s position in a case and how this could have been d. Jardeleza was denied of due process in denial of right to be informed of
detrimental to nat’l interest charges against him and riht to answer the same with vigorous contention
A. Sereno disagreed with his legal strategy as expressed by and active participation in the proceedings
group of international lawyers
ii. Discretion as a lawyer has no connection to treacherous intent to 4. SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN SHORT LIST FOR VIOLATION BY JBC OF ITS OWN
trounce upon country’s interests or betray constitution (no bearing RULES AND PROCEDURE AND THE BASIC TENETS OF DUE PROCESS
on moral choices) a. NOTE: ruling is not an endorsement of Jardeleza’s appointment as member
of Court since President still remains the ultimate judge of a candidate’s
A. “A lawyer is not an insurer of victory for clients he
worthiness
represents. An infallible grasp of legal principles and
techniques by a lawyer is a utopian ideal.”
NOTE:
c. AFFAIR + INSIDER-TRADING: invoked for first time ONLY during June 30
- UNANIMITY RULE VALID by express provision of JBC-009
meeting from newspaper reports that Sereno might raise issues of
o SEC 2 RULE 10: “In every case where integrity of an applicant who is not otherwise
“immorality” against Jardeleza
disqualified for nomination is raised or challenged, the affirmative vote of all
i. Incidents when Jardeleza was still the General Counsel of San Mig
Members of Council must be obtained for favorable consideration of his
Corp
nomination”
ii. However, there are standards of morality/decency which every
- THERE IS A NEED TO REVISIT JBC’S INTERNAL RULES
member of the Judiciary must adhere
o Provision on unanimity rule is vague and unfair and can be misused or
iii. IMMORALITY: includes conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or
abused resulting in the deprivation of an applicant’s right to due process
indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness;
 Invocation of unanimity rule is effectively a veto power over the
or is willful, flagrant, or shameless conduct showing indiff to
collective will of majority. Any assertion by a member after voting
opinions of respectable community members and inconsiderate
seems to be unfair since it effectively gives him/her veto power
attitude towards good order/pub welfare
over the collective votes of the other members
 Integrity as a ground needs to be defined.
3. DUE PROCESS RIGHT AVAILABLE AND DEMANDABLE
 It should explicitly provide who can invoke it as a ground against
a. The fact that a proceeding is SUI GENERIS and impressed with discretion
a candidate (outsider or member)
does not automatically denigrate an applicant’s entitlement to due process
 Must still meet minimum req of due process
i. SUI GENERIS (context: disciplinary proceedings): neither purely
o Altho it is still up to JBC to fine-tune rules considering the peculiar nature of
civil nor criminal; involve investigations by the Court into conduct
its function.
of one of its officers, not the trial of an action or a suit.
ii. Disciplinary proceedings (as a whole) are aimed to verify and
finally determine, if a lawyer charged is still qualified to benefit
from rights and privileges that members in legal profession invoke.
b. Observance of due process neither negates nor renders illusory the
fulfillment of the duty of JBC to recommend
i. Not expected to strictly apply rules of evidence in assessment of an
objection. But to hear the side of the person challenged complies
with dictates of fairness for the only test that an exercise of
discretion must surmount is that of soundness
c. Subsequent issuance of JBC-010 puts grave import of right of applicant to be
informed and, corollary, the right to be heard