Author: James Dy

De Castro vs. JBC (2010)

Petition: To declare petitioner the rightful President of the
Philippines senate and oust respondent.
Petitioner: De Castro; ET AL. Respondent: Judicial and Bar Council, Her Excellency Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo
NOTE: I included lang yung main issue, didnt include the
proceedurals na para mas makuha yung main topic
of the case. Also didnt include na yung mga
intervenors and other facts kasi repeating nalang
sila.
DOCTRINE:
According to statutory construction, the court should seek to
avoid any conflict in the provisions of the statute by
endeavoring to harmonize and reconcile every part so
that each shall be effective.
- Construction which will leave every word operative will be
favored over one which leaves some word or provision
meaningless because of inconsistency. However, a word
or provision should not be given effect if it goes against
the intent of the law.
FACTS:

Case background:
o Retirement of CJ Puno by May 17, 2010, days after the
coming Presidential Elections on May 10,2010 and
subsequent decision of the JBC to fill up the vacancy, has
caused legal dilemmas because of seeming conflicts in
the Constitution.
Whether the Incumbent President can appoint the next
CJ when he is prohibited from doing so within two months
of the next presidential elections except for temporary

appointments of executive positions for the purposes of

public service and safety. (Art. 7, Sec. 15 CONSTI)
Any vacancy in the Supreme Court shall be filled within
90 days. (Art. 8 Sec. 4 CONSTI)
Can JBC submit a list of nominees for the next CJ to the
incumbent President, even during the period of
prohibition?

Facts of Consolidated case:

Petitioners De Castro and Peralta prays that the JBC be
compelled (Mandamus) to submit to the incumbent
President the list of nominees for CJ.
There is a conflict as to whether there is a ban on
appointments in general, or whether only executive
appointments are prohibited.
The JBC has decided to defer the decision of sending the
list of nominees, either to the Incumbent or the next
President.
o But was accused of acting in grave abuse of discretion
when it deferred to the President.
Soriano proposes to prevent the JBC from selecting the
next CJ.
Accused JBC of committing grave abuse of discretion
when it opened the search for the next CJ, because that
authority lies with the SC.
Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) wants
the JBC to submit its nominees to the Incumbent
President because prohibition is only for executive
appointments.
JBC can submit only to the Incumbent president, not the
next one.
Mendoza seeks to know whether Sec. 16 Art. 7 applies to
Judiciary appointments.
Tolentino, Inting, Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
Governors of Southern Luzon and Eastern Visayas, want
to restrain JBC from submitting list of nominees to the
President during the prohibited period.

Author: James Dy

There is an actual controversy because JBC has initiated

the process and nearing completion of their list of
nominees, and very near to the ban on midnight
appointments, which highlights the need to prohibit them.
o According to the Valenzuela case, the court held that Art.
7 Sec. 15 prohibited the President from appointing
Judiciary positions during the prohibitive period.
ISSUES:
1.
WoN the Incumbent President can appoint the next CJ
during the prohibitive period.
PROVISION:

Article 7, Section 15
o Two months immediately before the next presidential
elections and up to the end of his term, a President or
Acting President shall not make appointments, except
temporary appointments to executive positions when
continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service
or public safety.

Article 8, Section 4 (1)

o The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice
and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in
its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven members.
Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from
the occurrence thereof.
RULING + RATIO:
1.
YES. The President is prohibited from appointing only
those in the executive branch, it does not extend to the
judiciary.
a. According to the records of the deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission, it is revealed that meticulous
planning was involved in the creation of the Constitution.
i. The Constitution specifically separates into different
articles the three branches of government, with each

stating its own powers. If the framers intended to extend

the prohibitive period to Judicial appointments, it would
have EXPLICITLY done so.
1. According to Section 9 under the Article of the Judicial
Department, the appointment of SC Justices can only be
made by the President upon the JBCs submission of
nominees, within 90 days from the vacancy.
b. The Court diverted from the Valenzuela case because the
decision therein did not firmly rest on the deliberations of
the Constitutional Commission.
i. It is found that the filling up of a vacancy within 90 days
was a true mandate of the President. By the use of the
word shall, it means it is an imperative requirement that is
mandatory.
c. Art. 7 Sec. 15 was made to prevent midnight
appointments which have pretty much been eliminated in
the judiciary because of the creation of the JBC, which
has its own process for screening candidates. THUS, no
need to extend prohibition to the Judiciary since the intent
to prevent midnight appointments is not tenable with the
judiciary.
d. According to statutory construction, the court should seek
to avoid any conflict in the provisions of the statute by
endeavoring to harmonize and reconcile every part so
that each shall be effective.
i. Construction which will leave every word operative will be
favored over one which leaves some word or provision
meaningless because of inconsistency. However, a word
or provision should not be given effect if it goes against
the intent of the law.
Extra Note:
One of the arguments of the petitioners: While the appointment
to the judiciary is not included in the prohibitive period,
there is no urgency for the president to immediately
appoint because according to the Judiciary Act of 1948,

Author: James Dy

the vacancy in the CJ position, can be filled by an acting

CJ, in the form of the next highest ranked Associate
Justice.
- Found untenable because the appointment of the CJ by
the president is never in an acting capacity. No mention
in the Constitution as to the presence of an Acting Chief
Justice. If they wanted to, they could have placed it, but
they did not.
DISPOSITION: Dismisses petitions GR No. 191002, GR No.
191149, 191032, 191342and GR No. 191057.

Grants the petition in A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC and accordingly

directs the JBC:
- To resume its proceedings for the nomination of
candidates to fill the vacancy.
- Prepare the short list of nominees for CJ.
- Submit to the Incumbent President the shortlist on or
before May 17, 2010
- To continue its proceedings for the nomination of
candidates to fill other vacancies in the Judiciary and
submit to the President the short list of nominees
corresponding thereto in accordance with the decision.