• No results found

INDEPENDENCE AND FISCAL AUTONOMY MOVEMENT VS. ABOLITION OF JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND (JDF) AND REDUCTION OF FISCAL

In document Political Law Cases (Page 62-66)

ALMARIO V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

INDEPENDENCE AND FISCAL AUTONOMY MOVEMENT VS. ABOLITION OF JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND (JDF) AND REDUCTION OF FISCAL

AUTONOMY

UDK-145143, 21 January 2015, En Banc, Leonen, J.

There can be no justiciable controversy involving the constitutionality of a proposed bill.

Facts:

Rolly Mijares prays for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in order to compel the Supreme Court to exercise its judicial independence and fiscal autonomy against the perceived hostility of Congress which was raised through a letter addressed to the Supreme Court. The letter implied that certain acts of members of Congress and the President shows a threat to judicial independence. Two house bills were filed which would require the court to remit its Judiciary Development Fund to the national treasury and one to create a Judicial Support Fund under the National Treasury to repeal PD 1949.

Issue:

Whether or not the court should exercise its powers to revoke/abrogate and expunge whatever irreconcilable contravention of existing laws affecting the judicial independence and fiscal autonomy as mandated under the Constitution to better serve public interest and general welfare of the people.

Ruling:

No. Petitioner must comply with all the requisites for judicial review before the Supreme Court may take cognizance of the case. The requisites are: (1) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power (2) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.

Petitioner’s failure to comply with the first two requisites warrants the outright dismissal of the petition.

Before the court may exercise its power of judicial review, there must be an existing case or controversy that is ripe for determination. There can be no justiciable controversy involving the constitutionality of a proposed bill.

The Court can exercise its power of judicial review only after a law is enacted, not before. Even assuming that there is an actual controversy that the Court must resolve, petitioner has no legal standing to question the validity of the proposed bill. Petitioner has not shown that he has or will sustain a direct injury if the proposed bill is passed into law. While his concern for judicial independence is laudable, it does not, by itself, clothe him with the requisite standing to question the constitutionality of a proposed bill that may only affect the judiciary.

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL, SEN. FRANCIS JOSEPH G. ESCUDERO AND REP. NIEL C. TUPAS, JR.

G.R. No. 202242, 16 April 2013, En Banc, Mendoza, J.

It is clear that the Constitution mandates that the JBC be composed of seven (7) members only. Thus, any inclusion of another member, whether with one whole vote of half of its, goes against that mandate.

Facts:

From the creation of the JBC under the 1987 Constitution, Congress designated one representative to sit in the JBC to act as one of the ex officio members. The House of Representatives and the Senate would send alternate representatives to the JBC. In 1994, the composition of the JBC was substantially altered. Instead of having only seven members, an eighth member was added to the JBC as two representatives from Congress began sitting in the JBC, one from each house, with each having one-half of a vote.

In 2000 and 2001, the JBC decided to allow the representatives from both houses one full vote each.

Issue:

Whether or not the current practice of the JBC to perform its functions with eight (8) members, two (2) of whom are members of Congress is valid.

Ruling:

No. Under the Constitution, “A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.” It is clear that the Constitution mandates that the JBC be composed of seven (7) members only. Thus, any inclusion of another member, whether with one whole vote of half of its, goes against that mandate.

By allowing both houses of Congress to have a representative in the JBC and by giving each representative one (1) vote in the Council, Congress, as compared to the other members of the JBC, is accorded greater and unwarranted influence in the appointment of judges. It is clear that the Constitution mandates that the JBC be composed of seven (7) members only.

Thus, any inclusion of another member, whether with one whole vote of half of its, goes against that mandate.

FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA v. CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES P. A.

SERENO, THE JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL AND EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.

G.R. No. 213181, 19 August 2014, En Banc, Mendoza, J.

Due process is the right to explain oneself, not to ensnare by surprise, but to provide the person a reasonable opportunity and sufficient time to intelligently muster his response. Otherwise, the occasion becomes an idle and futile exercise.

Facts:

Francis Jardeleza was nominated as one of the candidates for the vacated position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Jardeleza was informed that Chief Justice Sereno was invoking Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 (regarding integrity) against him. He was directed to make himself available on June 30, 2014 before the JBC during which he would be informed of the objections to his integrity. Jardeleza filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to direct the JBC to give him 5 working days written notice of any hearing with the JBC. During the hearing, Jardeleza asked Chief Justice Sereno to execute a sworn statement specifying her objections and that the JBC defer its meeting since the Court would meet to act on his petition. Later that afternoon, the JBC proceeded to vote for the nominees to be included in the shortlist. Jardeleza was not included due to the invocation of Section 2, Rule 10 of the JBC rules.

Issue:

Whether or not Petitioner Jardeleza may be included in the shortlist of nominees submitted to the President

Ruling:

Yes. This consequence arose not from the unconstitutionality of Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009, per se, but from the violation by the JBC of its own rules of procedure and the basic tenets of due process. The Supreme Court refuses to turn a blind eye on the palpable defects in its implementation and the ensuing treatment that Jardeleza received before the Council. Jardeleza has no vested right to a nomination, but this does not prescind from the fact that the JBC failed to observe the minimum requirements of due process.

What set off the lack of due process was the circumstance of requiring Jardeleza to appear before the Council and to instantaneously provide those who are willing to listen an intelligent defense. However, he was not given a reasonable chance to muster his defense. He was merely asked to appear in a meeting where he would be subjected to an inquiry. Due process is the right to explain oneself, not to ensnare by surprise, but to provide the person a reasonable opportunity and sufficient time to intelligently muster his response. Otherwise, the occasion becomes an idle and futile exercise.

FERDINAND R. VILLANUEVA, PRESIDING JUDGE, MCTC, COMPOSTELA-NEW BATAAN, COMPOSTELA VALLEY PROVINCE v. JUDICIAL AND BAR

COUNCIL

G.R. No. 211833, 7 April 2015, En Banc, Reyes, J.

The JBC is the only constitutional body bestowed with the mandate and competency to set criteria for applicants that refer to the more general categories of probity, integrity and independence.

Facts:

MCTC Judge Ferdinand Villanueva assailed a JBC policy which requires five years of service as judges of first-level courts before they can qualify as applicant to second-level courts on the ground that it is unconstitutional. The JBC did not include him in the list of candidates for the vacant position of RTC judge since he had been a judge only for more than a year.

Issue:

Whether or not the policy of JBC requiring five years of service as judges of first-level courts before they can qualify as applicant to second-level courts is constitutional.

Ruling:

Yes. JBC’s ultimate goal is to recommend nominees and not simply fill up judicial vacancies in order to promote an effective and efficient administration of justice. Given this pragmatic situation, the JBC had to establish a set uniform criteria in order to ascertain whether an applicant meets the minimum constitutional qualifications and possesses the qualities expected of him and his office. Thus, the adoption of the five-year requirement policy applied by the JBC to the petitioner’s case is necessary and incidental to the function conferred by the Constitution to the JBC.

Consideration of experience by JBC as one factor in choosing recommended appointees does not constitute a violation of the equal protection clause. The JBC does not discriminate when it employs number of years of service to screen and differentiate applicants from the competition.

The number of years of service provides a relevant basis to determine proven competence which may be measured by experience, among other factors.

The JBC is the only constitutional body bestowed with the mandate and competency to set criteria for applicants that refer to the more general categories of probity, integrity and independence.

RE: PETITION FOR RECOGNITION OF THE EXEMPTION OF THE

In document Political Law Cases (Page 62-66)