Case Name Jardeleza v.

JBC
Topic The Judicial and Bar Council
Case No., Date G.R. No. 213181, August 19, 2014
Ponente J. Mendoza
Case Summary Jardeleza was a candidate for the position of Associate Justice but was
excluded by the JBC from the short list submitted to the President for
appointment due to the question on his integrity.

(SPOILER ALERT)

The Court ruled that Jardeleza should have been included in the short list
since the JBC violated its own rules of procedure and due process.
Digest Author Ferrer Publishing, Inc.

RELEVANT FACTS

 Following the retirement of Associate Justice Abad, JBC announced the opening for application for
the said vacated position.
 UP nominated petitioner Jardeleza for the said position and was included in the names of candidates
 Jardeleza received telephone calls informing him that CJ Sereno manifested she would be invoking
Sec. 2, Rule 10, JBC-009 against him.
 Jardeleza filed a letter-petition praying that the Court issue an order:
o JBC to give him at least 5 working days written notice of any hearing
o Allowing him to cross-examine his oppositors and supporting witnesses
o JBC to reset the hearing scheduled to another date
o JBC to disallow CJ Sereno from participating in the voting for the vacated position
 During the June 30, 2014 meeting of the JBC
o CJ Sereno questioned Jardeleza’s ability to discharge the duties of his office as shown in
a confidential legal memorandum over his handling of an international arbitration case for
the government
o AJ Carpio disclosed confidential information to which CJ Sereno characterized his integrity
as dubious
o Jardeleza alleged:
 He would defend himself provided that due process would be observed
 He demanded CJ Sereno to execute a sworn statement specifying her objections
 He be afforded the right to cross-examine her in a public hearing
o Denying Jardeleza’s request for deferment of the proceedings, JBC continued its
deliberations and proceeded to vote for the nominees to be included in the short list
 A newspaper article was published, stating that the Court’s Spokesman, Atty. Theodore Te (go sir!!),
revealed that there were actually 5 nominees who made it to the JBC short list. (chismoso mo naman sir)
o But 1 nominee could not be included because of the invocation of Rule 10, Sec. 2, JBC Rules
 Hence, this petition for certiorari and mandamus
o To compel JBC to include him in the list of nominees
o JBC and CJ Sereno acted with grave abuse of discretion in excluding him, despite having
garnered a sufficient number of votes to qualify for the position
 Meanwhile, the disputed short list had already been transmitted to the Office of the President

Petitioner contends:

 CJ Sereno and JBC violated Jardeleza’s right to due process

 o He was simply ordered to make himself available on the meeting and was told that the
objections to his integrity would be made known to him on the same day
o Mere verbal notice of the invocation of Sec. 2, Rule 10, JBC-009
 JBC committed grave abuse of discretion in excluding Jardeleza from the short list of nominees, in
violation of its own rules
o The “unanimity requirement” under Sec. 2, Rule 10, JBC-009 does not apply when a
member of the JBC raises an objection
o All that a member has to do to veto other votes would be to object to the qualification of a
candidate
 Having secured the sufficient number of votes, it is ministerial on the part of the JBC to include
Jardeleza in the subject short list
o Sec. 1, Rule 10, JBC-009 provides that a nomination requires the affirmative vote of at least
a majority of all members of the JBC
o Jardeleza was able to secure 4 out of 6 votes. Thus, a majority of the JBC found him to be
qualified
 The unlawful exclusion of the petitioner from the short list impairs the President’s constitutional
power to appoint
o Unlawfully narrowed the President’s choices
o Limits the President to appoint a member of the Court

JBC contends:

 The JBC does not exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Thus, certiorari is not available.
 Mandamus cannot compel a discretionary act. Also, there is no legal right to be included in the list
of nominees for judicial vacancies. One’s inclusion is within the disceretion of JBC
 No violation of due process.
o Jardeleza was given ample opportunity to be heard
o His request for a sworn statement and opportunity to cross-examine is not supported by a
demandable right
 Secs. 3 and 4, Rule 10, JBC-009 are merely directory as shown by the word “may”
o Even the conduct of a hearing is discretionary on the JBC
 When Sec. 2, Rule 10, JBC-009 is invoked because an applicant’s integrity is challenged, a
unanimous vote is required
o “Majority rule” only applies when there is no question on integrity
 Jardeleza sued the respondents in his capacity as Solicitor General
o Violates the Code of Professional Responsibility and Code of Professional Ethics
o As the legal defender of the government and its officers, he filed a suit against his own
clients
 President has until August 20, 2013 to exercise his appointment power which cannot be restrained
by a TRO or injunctive suit

Comment of the Executive Secretary:

 Possible unconstitutionality of Sec. 2, Rule 10, JBC-009

o It impairs the body’s collegial character, which essentially operates on the basis of majority
rule
o All that a member has to do, in order to disqualify an applicant who attained a majority
vote, is to object to his integrity
  Sec. 2, Rule 10, JBC-009 may be violative of due process
o It does not allow an applicant any meaningful opportunity to refute the challenges to his
integrity
o Jardeza’s allegations show that he was neither informed of the accusations against him nor
given the chance to muster a defense
Procedural Issues
W/N has jurisdiction over
the case
W/N the writ of mandamus
is available
W/N the writ of certiorari is
available
Substantial Issues
W/N the “unanimity rule”,
under Rule 10, Sec. 2, JBC-
009, contemplates a doubt
on the moral character of an
applicant
W/N Sec. 2, Rule 10, JBC-
009 applies to Jardeleza’s
case
RATIO DECIDENDI
Ratio
YES
 Under Sec. 8, Art. 8, 1987 Constitution, the Court was given
supervisory authority over JBC.
 Supervision is the power of oversight, or the authority to see
that subordinate officers perform their duties. It ensures that the
laws and the rules governing the conduct of a government entity
are observed and complied with.
NO
 JBC’s duty to nominate is discretionary. It may not be compelled
to do something.
YES
 A petition for certiorari is a proper remedy to question the act of
any branch or instrumentality of the government on ground of
abuse of discretion, even if it does not exercise judicial, quasi-
judicial or ministerial functions. (Araullo v. Aquino III)
 Expanded judicial power of review under Sec. 1, Art. 8, 1987
Constitution
Ratio
YES
 When an integrity question arises, the voting requirement for
his or her inclusion as a nominee to a judicial post becomes
“unanimous” instead of a “majority vote. That is, the unanimous
vote of all members of the JBC.
 Sec. 2, Rule 10, JBC-009 envisions only a situation where an
applicant’s moral fitness is challenged.
YES. Only on the two other grounds, not the original one.
Does the original invocation of Sec. 2, Rule 10, JBC-009 involve a question on
Jardeleza’s integrity? NO
Original Ground of CJ
Sereno:  The basis for her invocation of the rule was the “disagreement” in
legal strategy, which was opposed to that preferred by the leagl
1. His actuations in the team.
handling of a case
 No connection was established linking his choice of a legal
Two other grounds: strategy to a treacherous intent to trounce upon the country’s
interests or betray the Constitution
1. Extra-marital affair in the
past  A lawyer has complete discretion on what legal strategy to
2. Alleged acts of insider employ in a case entrusted to him. It has no direct bearing on his
trading moral choices.

 There was no clear indication that the tactic was a “brainchild” of

Jardeleza. It could have been a collective idea by the legal team.

 The President has given no signs that Jardeleza’s action

constituted disloyalty or a betrayal of the country’s trust and
interest. Executive Secretary even prayed for Jardeleza’s
inclusion in the disputed short list.

 Under Sec. 2, Rule 10, JBC-009, there must be a showing that the
act complained of is, at the least, linked to the moral character of
the person and not to his judgment as a professional.

 Therefore, it is inapplicable to the original ground of its

invocation.

Do the other two grounds fall within the purview of “questions on integrity”
under Sec. 2, Rule 10, JBC-009? YES

 A lawyer who engages in extra-marital affairs is deemed to have

failed to adhere to the exacting standards of morality and
decency which every member of the Judiciary is expected to
observe.

 It is a bold disregard of the sanctity of marriage and of the law

and erodes the public’s confidence in the Judiciary.

 On the other hand, insider trading is an offense that assaults the

integrity of our vital securities market. It involves the propensity
of a person to engage in fraudulent activities that may speak of
his moral character.

 These two issues can be properly categorized as “questions on

integrity” under Sec. 2, Rule 10, JBC-009. Hence, the “unanimity
rule” may apply.
W/N the right to due
process is available during
JBC proceedings
W/N Jardeleza was deprived
of his right to due process in
the events leading up to,
and during, the vote of the
short list
YES
 The right to due process is available and thereby demandable as a
matter of right. It is not discretionary on the part of JBC.
 The fact that a proceeding is sui generis and is impressed with
discretion does not automatically denigrate an applicant’s
entitlement to due process
 The observance of due process does not negate the fulfillment
of the duty of JBC to recommend. It is not an encroachment on
its discretion in the nomination process.
 In fact, its adherence to due process supports and enriches the
exercise of its discretion.
 When an applicant is afforded the chance to protest, the JBC is
presented with a clear understanding of the situation it faces.
Thus, guarding the body from making unsound assessments.
 JBC’s own rules support this.
Under the provisions of JBC-010:
1. Opposition shall be made in writing
2. It covers “any” complaint or opposition
3. It employs the mandatory term, “shall”
4. It speaks of the very essence of due process
 JBC-010 affords an applicant, who faces “any complaint or
opposition,” the right to answer the accusations against him. This
constitutes the minimum requirements of due process.
YES
 The application of the “unanimity rule” on integrity resulted in
Jardeleza’s deprivation of his right to due process
 The confidential legal memorandum used in the invocation of the
“unanimity rule” was actually addressed to Jardeleza, in his
capacity as Solicitor General.
 Had he been privately informed of the allegations against him
based on the document and had he been ordered to respond
thereto, Jardeleza’s right to be informed and to explain himself
would have been satisfied.
Was he given a reasonable chance to muster a defense? NO

W/N Jardeleza may be
included in the short list,
just in time when the period
to appoint a member of the
Court is about to end
Re: The Need to Revisit
JBC’s Internal Rules
 He was merely asked to appear in a meeting where he would be
subjected to an inquiry. Jardeleza was not given the idea that he
should prepare to affirm or deny his past behavior.
 This precludes the very idea of due process in which the right to
explain oneself is given, not to ensnare by surprise, but to provide
the person a reasonable opportunity and sufficient time to
intelligently muster his response.
YES
 Jardeleza should have been included in the short list submitted
to the President for the vacated position.
 This consequence did not come from the unconstitutionality of
Sec. 2, Rule 10, JBC-009, but from the violation of by the JBC of
its own rules of procedure and the basic tenets of due process
 Where the denial of the fundamental right of due process is
apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for
lack of jurisdiction.
 The invocation of Sec. 2, Rule 10, JBC-009 is deemed never to have
applied due to its erroneous application on the original ground
against Jardeleza’s integrity.
 The “unanimity rule” must be applied in conjunction with Sec. 2,
Rule 10, JBC-010.
 Having been able to secure 4 out of 6 votes, a majority of the JBC
found Jardeleza to be qualified for the position of Associate
Justice and this grants him a rightful spot in the short list
1. The “unanimity rule” on integrity is effectively a veto power over
the collective will of a majority.
2. Integrity as a ground has not been defined. It is vague, nebulous,
and confusing. There is a lack of consensus among the members
of the JBC as to its precise definition.
3. It should explicitly provide who can invoke it as a ground against a
candidate. Outsider? Or also by a member?
4. JBC proceedings, although “sui generis”, must meet the minimum
requirements of due process. An applicant should be given a
reasonable opportunity and time to be heard on the charges
against him or her.
RULING
 Petition is GRANTED.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

J. Leonen, Dissenting Opinion:

1. It is the JBC that determines the extent of competence, independence, probity, and integrity that
should be possessed by an applicant before he or she is included in the list of nominees prepared for
the President.

2. There is nothing in the Constitution which allows the Supreme Court to interfere with the
Council’s exercise of its discretion in the execution of its constitutional mandate. At most, this
court’s supervision is merely administrative.

3. The determination by the JBC of the qualifications and fitness of applicants for positions in the
Judiciary is not a ministerial duty. It is constitutionally part of its discretion. Mandamus cannot
 compel the amendment of any list already transmitted, and it cannot be made available to
compel the Council to transmit a name not in the original list.

4. The short list transmitted to the Office of the President was signed by all the members of the
Council without exception, thereby expressing their unanimity as to its contents. Mandamus,
therefore, does not lie to amend this list.

5. There are 6 others who did not make it to the list. Even if we assume that there was grave abuse of
discretion on the part of respondents, it will be both inequitable and a violation of the rights of the
other applicants and the other nominees to simply require the amendment of the list transmitted to
the President. Petitioner chose not to implead them. They did not benefit from an opportunity to be
heard by this court. Any amendment to the rules of the Council through our interpretation given
the parties impleaded in this case should be prospective and applicable only to future processes
for nomination and appointment to our courts.

6. The JBC is the only constitutional body with the power to interpret its rules to determine the
competence, integrity, probity, and independence of applicants to the Judiciary. We cannot
superimpose this court’s interpretation even if our view be a better one.

7. Before the due process clause may be invoked, there must first be an encroachment to one’s “life,
liberty, or property.” Petitioner has the burden of showing that an act of government affects an
indubitable vested right protected by the Constitution. A nomination is not a right that is protected
by the due process clause of the Constitution.