Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 352 views

    De Castro vs. Judicial Bar Council

    Uploaded by

    NCRE
    1) The Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition on appointments in Section 15 of Article VII of the Constitution does not apply to appointments to the Supreme Court or other judicial positions. 2) The Constitutional Commission intended Article VII to deal solely with the Executive Department and did not explicitly extend the prohibition to the judiciary. 3) Establishing the Judicial and Bar Council to handle nominations for judicial positions ensured appointments would not be politicized or made in haste.

    Copyright:

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

    De Castro vs. Judicial Bar Council

    Uploaded by

    NCRE
    352 views2 pages
    1) The Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition on appointments in Section 15 of Article VII of the Constitution does not apply to appointments to the Supreme Court or other judicial positions. 2) The Constitutional Commission intended Article VII to deal solely with the Executive Department and did not explicitly extend the prohibition to the judiciary. 3) Establishing the Judicial and Bar Council to handle nominations for judicial positions ensured appointments would not be politicized or made in haste.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition on appointments in Section 15 of Article VII of the Constitution does not apply to appointments to the Supreme Court or other judicial positions. 2) The Constitutional Commission intended Article VII to deal solely with the Executive Department and did not explicitly extend the prohibition to the judiciary. 3) Establishing the Judicial and Bar Council to handle nominations for judicial positions ensured appointments would not be politicized or made in haste.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    352 views2 pages

    De Castro vs. Judicial Bar Council

    Uploaded by

    NCRE
    1) The Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition on appointments in Section 15 of Article VII of the Constitution does not apply to appointments to the Supreme Court or other judicial positions. 2) The Constitutional Commission intended Article VII to deal solely with the Executive Department and did not explicitly extend the prohibition to the judiciary. 3) Establishing the Judicial and Bar Council to handle nominations for judicial positions ensured appointments would not be politicized or made in haste.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    DE CASTRO vs. JUDICIAL BAR COUNCIL G.R. No.

    191002 March 17, 2010 FACTS This present case is based on multiple cases revolving around the controversy that has arisen from the forthcoming compulsory requirement of Chief Justice Puno on May 17, 2010- seven days after the presidential election. On December 22, 2009, Congressman Matias V. Defensor, an ex officio member of the JBC, addressed a letter to the JBC, requesting that the process for nominations to the office of the Chief Justice be commenced immediately. In its January 18, 2010 meeting en banc, the JBC passed a resolution which stated that they have unanimously agreed to start the process of filling up the position of Chief Justice to be vacated on May 17, 2010 upon the retirement of the incumbent Chief Justice. Conformably with its existing practice, the JBC automatically considered for the position of Chief Justice the five most senior of the Associate Justices of the Court, namely: Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio; Associate Justice Renato C. Corona; Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales; Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.; and Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura. However, the last two declined their nomination through letters dated January 18, 2010 and January 25, 2010, respectively. Others either applied or were nominated. In its meeting of February 8, 2010, the JBC resolved to proceed to the next step of announcing the names of the following candidates to invite to the public to file their sworn complaint, written report, or opposition, if any, not later than February 22, 2010. Under Section 4(1), in relation to Section 9, Article VIII (Judicial Department), that "vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof" from a "list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy." The provision above mentioned is in conflict with Section 15, Article VII (Executive Department), which provides that 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 endanger public safety. All the petitions submitted before the Court pose as the principal legal question whether the incumbent President can appoint the successor of Chief Justice Puno upon his retirement. ISSUE: Whether or not Section 15, Article VII apply to appointments in the Supreme Court or to the Judiciary HELD: The Supreme Court answers in the negative. The prohibition under Section 15, Article VII does not apply to appointments to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court or to other appointments to the Judiciary

    Some Justification of the Supreme Court: I. The records of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission reveal that the framers devoted time to meticulously drafting, styling, and arranging the Constitution. Such meticulousness indicates that the organization and arrangement of the provisions of the Constitution were not arbitrarily or whimsically done by the framers, but purposely made to reflect their intention and manifest their vision of what the Constitution should contain. Article VII is devoted to the Executive Department. The presidential power of appointment is dealt with in Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Article. Had the framers intended to extend the prohibition contained in Section 15, Article VII to the appointment of Members of the Supreme Court, they could have explicitly done so. They would have easily and surely written the prohibition made explicit in Section 15, Article VII as being equally applicable to the appointment of Members of the Supreme Court in Article VIII itself, most likely in Section 4 (1), Article VIII. Moreover, the usage in Section 4(1), Article VIII of the word shall an imperative, operating to impose a duty that may be enforced should not be disregarded. Thereby, Sections 4(1) imposes on the President the imperative duty to make an appointment of a Member of the Supreme Court within 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy. The failure by the President to do so will be a clear disobedience to the Constitution. The 90-day limitation fixed in Section 4(1), Article VIII for the President to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court was undoubtedly a special provision to establish a definite mandate for the President as the appointing power. II. Section 15, Article VII does not apply as well to all other appointments in the Judiciary. There is no question that one of the reasons underlying the adoption of Section 15 as part of Article VII was to eliminate midnight appointments from being made by an outgoing Chief Executive. Given the background and rationale for the prohibition in Section 15, Article VII, we have no doubt that the Constitutional Commission confined the prohibition to appointments made in the Executive Department. The framers did not need to extend the prohibition to appointments in the Judiciary, because their establishment of the JBC and their subjecting the nomination and screening of candidates for judicial positions to the unhurried and deliberate prior process of the JBC ensured that there would no longer be midnight appointments to the Judiciary. Indeed, the creation of the JBC was precisely intended to de-politicize the Judiciary by doing away with the intervention of the Commission on Appointments. III. Of the 23 sections in Article VII, three (i.e., Section 14, Section15, and Section 16) concern the appointing powers of the President. Section 14, Section 15, and Section 16 are obviously of the same character, in that they affect the power of the President to appoint. The fact that Section 14 and Section 16 refer only to appointments within the Executive Department renders conclusive that Section 15 also applies only to the Executive Department. This conclusion is consistent with the rule that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e. that every part must be considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment.

    You might also like