Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4K views

    De Castro V JBC, Mar17'10 - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kyle Gwapo
    1) The case involved determining who has the authority to appoint the next Chief Justice given the compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Puno just days before the 2010 presidential election. 2) The Constitution prohibits presidential appointments within two months of an election but also requires Supreme Court vacancies be filled within 90 days. 3) The Court dismissed petitions for certiorari and mandamus as premature but directed the JBC to resume proceedings and submit nominees to the incumbent president.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    De Castro V JBC, Mar17'10 - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kyle Gwapo
    4K views1 page
    1) The case involved determining who has the authority to appoint the next Chief Justice given the compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Puno just days before the 2010 presidential election. 2) The Constitution prohibits presidential appointments within two months of an election but also requires Supreme Court vacancies be filled within 90 days. 3) The Court dismissed petitions for certiorari and mandamus as premature but directed the JBC to resume proceedings and submit nominees to the incumbent president.

    Original Title

    De Castro v JBC, Mar17'10 - digest

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The case involved determining who has the authority to appoint the next Chief Justice given the compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Puno just days before the 2010 presidential election. 2) The Constitution prohibits presidential appointments within two months of an election but also requires Supreme Court vacancies be filled within 90 days. 3) The Court dismissed petitions for certiorari and mandamus as premature but directed the JBC to resume proceedings and submit nominees to the incumbent president.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    4K views1 page

    De Castro V JBC, Mar17'10 - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kyle Gwapo
    1) The case involved determining who has the authority to appoint the next Chief Justice given the compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Puno just days before the 2010 presidential election. 2) The Constitution prohibits presidential appointments within two months of an election but also requires Supreme Court vacancies be filled within 90 days. 3) The Court dismissed petitions for certiorari and mandamus as premature but directed the JBC to resume proceedings and submit nominees to the incumbent president.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    De Castro vs.

    Judicial and Bar Council


    GR No. 191002, March 17, 2010

    Facts:   
    The compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno by May 17, 2010 occurs just days after the
    coming presidential elections on May 10, 2010. Even before the event actually happens, it is giving rise to
    many legal dilemmas.
    This dilemma is rooted in consideration of Section 15, Art VII of the Constitution prohibiting the President or
    Acting President from making appointments within two months immediately before the next presidential
    election and up to the end of his term, except when temporary appointments to executive positions when
    continued vacancies will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.
    However, Section 4 (1), Art VIII of the Constitution also provides that any vacancy in the Supreme Court shall
    be filled within 90 days from occurrence. The question leads to who should appoint the next Chief Justice and
    may the JBC resume the process of screening candidates should the incumbent president not prohibited to do
    so. May a mandamus lie to compel the submission of JBC’s nominees to the president?
    This issue at hand truly is impressed with transcendental importance to the Nation.
    A lot of petitions were received by the court from a mandamus to prohibitions. We limit our discussion with GR
    191002 for brevity.
     
    Issues:
    Whether or not the case at bar is an actual controversy.
    Whether or not the petitioners have legal standing to file said petition.
     
    Ratio Decidendi:
    The court held the case being premature because the Judicial and Bar Council has until May 17, 2010 at the
    least within which to submit the list of nominees to the President to fill the vacancy created by the compulsory
    retirement of Chief Justice Puno.
    The petitioner here asserts his right as citizen filing the petition on behalf of the public who are directly affected
    by the issue of the appointment. The question raised before the court is in fact of transcendental importance.
    The court dispels all doubt to remove any obstacle or obstruction to the resolution of the essential issue
    squarely presented. Standing is a peculiar concept to constitutional law because in some cases, suits are not
    brought by parties who have been personally injured by the operation of law or any other government act but
    by concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually sue in the public interest.
    The court dismissed the petitions for certiorari and mandamus in GR 191002 and GR 191149 and the petition
    for mandamus in GR no. 191057 for being premature; dismissal of the petitions for prohibition in GR 191032
    and GR 191342 for lack of merit; and grants the in AM No. 10-2-5-SC and accordingly directs the JBC to:
    resume proceedings for the nomination of candidates, prepare short list of nominees for the said position,
    submit to the incumbent President the short list of nominees, and to continue 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 this decision.

    You might also like