G.R. No.

224302, November 29, 2016

2) For the 17th Sandiganbayan Associate Justice:
HON. PHILIP A. AGUINALDO, HON. REYNALDO A. ALHAMBRA, HON. DANILO
S. CRUZ, HON. BENJAMIN T. POZON, HON. SALVADOR V. TIMBANG, JR., AND Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 9 of the Constitution, the Judicial and Bar Council
THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP), Petitioners, (JBC) has the honor to submit the following nominations for the vacancy for the
vs. SEVENTEENTH ASSOCIATE JUSTICE of the SANDIGANBAYAN, with their
HIS EXCELLENCY PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, HON. respective votes:
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, HON. MICHAEL FREDERICK L.
MUSNGI, HON. MA. GERALDINE FAITH A. ECONG, HON. DANILO S.
SANDOVAL, HON. WILHELMINA B. JORGE-WAGAN, HON. ROSANA FE 1. CORPUS-MAÑALAC, MARYANN E. - 6 votes
ROMERO-MAGLAYA, HON. MERIANTHE PACITA M. ZURAEK, HON. ELMO M.
ALAMEDA, AND HON. VICTORIA C. FERNANDEZ-BERNARDO, Respondent. 2. MENDOZA-ARCEGA, MARIA THERESA V. - 6 votes

PETITION:
3. QUIMBO, RODOLFO NOEL S. - 6 votes
Before this Court is a Petition for Quo Warranto under Rule 66 and Certiorari and
Prohibition under Rule 65 with Application for Issuance of Injunctive Writs filed by 4. DIZON, MA. ANTONIA EDITA CLARIDADES - 5 votes
petitioners. The Petition assails President Aquino's appointment of respondents
Musngi and Econg as Associate Justices of the Sandiganbayan. 5. SORIANO, ANDRES BARTOLOME - 5 votes
FACTS:
3) For the 18th Sandiganbayan Associate Justice:
On July 20, 2015, the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) published in the Philippine Star
and Philippine Daily Inquirer and posted on the JBC website an announcement calling Your Excellency:
for applications or recommendations for the six newly created positions of Associate
Justice of the Sandiganbayan. The JBC submitted to President Aquino six shortlists Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 9 of the Constitution, the Judicial and Bar Council
contained in six separate letters, all dated October 26, 2015, which read: (JBC) has the honor to submit the following nominations for the vacancy for the
EIGHTEENTH ASSOCIATE JUSTICE of the SANDIGANBAYAN, with their respective
1) For the 16th Sandiganbayan Associate Justice: votes:
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 9 of the Constitution, the Judicial and Bar Council
(JBC) has the honor to submit the following nominations for the vacancy for the 1. BAGUIO, CELSO O. - 5 votes
SIXTEENTH ASSOCIATE JUSTICE of the SANDIGANBAYAN, with their respective
votes:
2. DE GUZMAN-ALVAREZ, MA. TERESA E. - 5 votes

1. AGUINALDO, PHILIP A. - 5 votes 3. FERNANDEZ, BERNELITO R. - 5 votes

2. ALHAMBRA, REYNALDO A. - 5 votes 4. PANGANIBAN, ELVIRA DE CASTRO - 5 votes

3. CRUZ, DANILO S. - 5 votes 5. SAGUN, FERNANDO JR. T. - 5 votes

4. POZON, BENJAMIN T. - 5 votes 6. TRESPESES, ZALDY V. - 5 votes

5. SANDOVAL, DANILO S. - 5 votes

6. TIMBANG, SALVADOR JR. - 5 votes

4) For the 19th Sandiganbayan Associate Justice:
6) For the 21st Sandiganbayan Associate Justice:
Your Excellency:
Your Excellency:
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 9 of the Constitution, the Judicial and Bar Council
(JBC) has the honor to submit the following nominations for the vacancy for the Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 9 of the Constitution, the Judicial and Bar Council
NINETEENTH ASSOCIATE JUSTICE of the SANDIGANBAYAN, with their respective (JBC) has the honor to submit the following nominations for the vacancy for the
votes: TWENTY-FIRST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE of the SANDIGANBAYAN, with their
respective votes:

1. GUANZON, FRANCES V. - 6 votes

1. JORGE-WAGAN, WILHELMINA B. - 6 votes

2. MACARAIG-GUILLEN, MARISSA - 6 votes

2. ECONG, GERALDINE FAITH A. - 5 votes

3. CRUZ, REYNALDO P. - 5 votes

3. ROMERO-MAGLAYA, ROSANNA FE - 5 votes

4. PAUIG, VILMA T. - 5 votes

4. ZURAEK, MERIANTHE PACITA M. - 5 votes

5. RAMOS, RENAN E. - 5 votes

5. ALAMEDA, ELMO M. - 4 votes

6. ROXAS, RUBEN REYNALDO G. - 5 votes

6. FERNANDEZ-BERNARDO, VICTORIA C. - 4 votes

5) For the 20th Sandiganbayan Associate Justice:
7. MUSNGI, MICHAEL FREDERICK L. - 4 votes
Your Excellency:

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 9 of the Constitution, the Judicial and Bar Council
(JBC) has the honor to submit the following nominations for the vacancy for the The controversy arose when the President eventually appointed two nominees who
TWENTIETH ASSOCIATE JUSTICE of the SANDIGANBAYAN, with their respective belong to the same shortlist — the list for the 21st cluster.
votes.
Petitioners; those who were listed in the 16th cluster, questioned the appointments.
The petitioners contended that the President could only choose one nominee from
1. MIRANDA, KARL B. - 6 votes each of the six separate shortlists for each specific vacancy and no other. The
appointment made in deviation of this procedure is a violation of the Constitution.
2. ATAL-PAÑO, PERPETUA - 5 votes
ISSUE:
3. BUNYI-MEDINA, THELMA - 5 votes
Whether or not the president violated the constitution in disregarding the clustering of
nominees into six separate shortlists for the six vacancies for Sandiganbayan
4. CORTEZ, LUISITO G. - 5 votes Associate Justice.

5. FIEL-MACARAIG, GERALDINE C. - 5 votes

6. QUIMPO-SALE, ANGELENE MARY W. - 5 votes

7. JACINTO, BAYANI H. - 4 votes

ARGUMENTS:

Petitioners Respondent

Petitioners base their instant Petition on the following arguments: The OSG interprets Article VIII, Section 9 of the 1987 Constitution differently from
petitioners. According to the OSG, said provision neither requires nor allows the JBC
PRESIDENT AQUINO VIOLATED SECTION 9, ARTICLE VIII OF THE 1987 to cluster nominees for every vacancy in the Judiciary; it only mandates that for every
CONSTITUTION IN THAT: vacancy, the JBC shall present at least three nominees, among whom the President
shall appoint a member of the Judiciary. As a result, if there are six vacancies for
(A) HE DID NOT APPOINT ANYONE FROM THE SHORTLIST SUBMITTED BY THE Sandiganbayan Associate Justice, the JBC shall present, for the President's
JBC FOR THE VACANCY FOR POSITION OF THE 16TH ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF consideration, at least 18 nominees for said vacancies. In the case at bar, the JBC
THE SANDIGANBAYAN; AND submitted 37 nominees for the six vacancies in the Sandiganbayan; and from said
pool of 37 nominees, the President appointed the six Sandiganbayan Associate
(B) HE APPOINTED UNDERSECRETARY MUSNGI AND JUDGE ECONG AS Justices, in faithful compliance with the Constitution.
ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN TO THE VACANCY FOR THE
POSITION OF 21ST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN. It is also the position of the OSG that the President has the absolute discretion to
determine who is best suited for appointment among all the qualified nominees. The
(C) THE APPOINTMENTS MADE WERE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE very narrow reading of Article VIII, Section 9 of the 1987 Constitution proposed by
SHORTLISTS SUBMITTED BY THE JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL FOR EACH petitioners unreasonably restricts the President's choices to only a few nominees
VACANCY, THUS AFFECTING THE ORDER OF SENIORITY OF THE ASSOCIATE even when the JBC recognized 37 nominees qualified for the position of
JUSTICES. Sandiganbayan Associate Justice. This gives the JBC, apart from its power to
recommend qualified nominees, the power to dictate upon the President which among
According to petitioners, the JBC was created under the 1987 Constitution to reduce the qualified nominees should be contending for a particular vacancy. By dividing
the politicization of the appointments to the Judiciary, i.e., "to rid the process of nominees into groups and artificially designating each group a numerical value, the
appointments to the Judiciary from the political pressure and partisan activities." [17] JBC creates a substantive qualification to various judicial posts, which potentially
impairs the President's prerogatives in appointing members of the Judiciary.
Article VIII, Section 9 of the 1987 Constitution contains the mandate of the JBC, as
well as the limitation on the President's appointing power to the Judiciary, thus: The OSG additionally points out that the JBC made a categorical finding that
respondents Musngi and Econg were "suitably best" for appointment as
Sec. 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be Sandiganbayan Associate Justice. The functions of the 16 th Sandiganbayan
appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Associate Justice are no different from those of the 17 th, 18th, 19th, 20th, or
Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation. 21st Sandiganbayan Associate Justice. Since respondents Musngi and Econg were
indubitably qualified and obtained sufficient votes, it was the ministerial duty of the
For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within ninety days JBC to include them as nominees for any of the six vacancies in the Sandiganbayan
from the submission of the list. It is the function of the JBC to search, screen, and presented for the President's final consideration.
select nominees recommended for appointment to the Judiciary. It shall prepare a list
with at least three qualified nominees for a particular vacancy in the Judiciary to be Furthermore, the OSG alleges that it is highly unjust to remove respondents Musngi
submitted to the President, who, in turn, shall appoint from the shortlist for said and Econg from their current positions on the sole ground that the nominees were
specific vacancy. Petitioners emphasize that Article VIII, Section 9 of the 1987 divided into six groups. The JBC announced "the opening/reopening, for application
Constitution is clear and unambiguous as to the mandate of the JBC to submit a or recommendation" of "six (6) newly-created positions of Associate Justice of the
shortlist of nominees to the President for "every vacancy" to the Judiciary, as well as Sandiganbayan." Respondents Musngi and Econg applied for the vacancy of
the limitation on the President's authority to appoint members of the Judiciary from "Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan." In its announcements for interview, the
among the nominees named in the shortlist submitted by the JBC. JBC stated that it would be interviewing applicants for "six (6) newly created positions
of Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan." It was only on October 26, 2015, the
Petitioners insist that President Aquino could only choose one nominee from each of date of submission of the shortlists, when the nominees had been clustered into six
the six separate shortlists submitted by the JBC for each specific vacancy, and no groups. The OSG notes that there are no JBC rules on the division of nominees in
other; and any appointment made in deviation of this procedure is a violation of the cases where there are several vacancies in a collegiate court. In this case, the OSG
Constitution. Hence, petitioners pray, among other reliefs, that the appointments of observes that there were no measurable standards or parameters for dividing the 37
respondents Musngi and Econg, who belonged to the same shortlist for the position of nominees into the six groups. The clustering of nominees was not based on the
21st Associate Justice, be declared null and void for these were made in violation of number of votes the nominees had garnered and the nominees were not evenly
Article VIII, Section 9 of the 1987 Constitution. distributed among the six groups.
HELD: RULING:

NO, President Aquino did not violate the Constitution or commit grave abuse of WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court DISMISSES the instant Petition
discretion in disregarding the clustering of nominees into six separate for Quo Warranto and Certiorari and Prohibition for lack of merit. The
shortlists for the six vacancies for Sandiganbayan Associate Justice. Court DECLARES the clustering of nominees by the Judicial and Bar
Council UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and the appointments of respondents Associate
President Aquino acted in accordance with the 1987 Constitution and well-within his Justices Michael Frederick L. Musngi and Geraldine Faith A. Econg, together with the
discretionary power to appoint members of the Judiciary when he disregarded the four other newly-appointed Associate Justices of the Sandiganbayan, as VALID.
clustering of nominees by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) into six separate
shortlists and collectively considered all 37 nominees named in said shortlists for the
six vacancies for Sandiganbayan Associate Justice.

The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed its decision striking down as unconstitutional
the clustering of shortlisted nominees made by the JBC in connection with
Sandiganbayan vacancies.

The power to recommend of the JBC cannot be used to restrict or limit the President's
power to appoint as the latter's prerogative to choose someone whom he/she
considers worth appointing to the vacancy in the Judiciary is still paramount. As long
as in the end, the President appoints someone nominated by the JBC, the
appointment is valid.

President Aquino was not obliged to appoint one new Sandiganbayan Associate
Justice from each of the six shortlists submitted by the JBC, especially when the
clustering of nominees into the six shortlists encroached on President Aquino's power
to appoint members of the Judiciary from all those whom the JBC had considered to
be qualified for the same positions of Sandiganbayan Associate Justice.

The JBC, in sorting the qualified nominees into six clusters, one for every vacancy,
could influence the appointment process beyond its constitutional mandate of
recommending qualified nominees to the President. Clustering impinges upon the
President's power of appointment, as well as restricts the chances for appointment of
the qualified nominees, because (1) the President's option for every vacancy is limited
to the five to seven nominees in the cluster; and (2) once the President has appointed
from one cluster, then he is proscribed from considering the other nominees in the
same cluster for the other vacancies. The said limitations are utterly without legal
basis and in contravention of the President's appointing power.

In view of the foregoing, President Aquino validly exercised his discretionary power to
appoint members of the Judiciary when he disregarded the clustering of nominees
into six separate shortlists for the different vacancies. This did not violate Article VIII,
Section 9 of the 1987 Constitution which requires the President to appoint from a list
of at least three nominees submitted by the JBC for every vacancy.
G.R. No. 224302, February 21, 2017 The JBC also points out that the acts invoked against the JBC are based on practice
or custom, but "practice, no matter how long continued, cannot give rise to any vested
HON. PHILIP A. AGUINALDO, HON. REYNALDO A. ALHAMBRA, HON. DANILO right." The JBC, as a constitutional body, enjoys independence, and as such, it may
S. CRUZ, HON. BENJAMIN T. POZON, HON. SALVADOR V. TIMBANG, JR., and change its practice from time to time in accordance with its wisdom.
the INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP),Petitioners
vs. ISSUE:
HIS EXCELLENCY PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, HON.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, HON. MICHAEL FREDERICK L. Whether or not the contention of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) is correct.
MUSNGI, HON. MA. GERALDINE FAITH A. ECONG, HON. DANILO S.
SANDOVAL, HON. WILHELMINA B. JORGE-WAGAN, HON. ROSANA FE HELD:
ROMERO-MAGLAYA, HON. MERIANTHE PACITA M. ZURAEK, HON. ELMO M.
ALAMEDA, and HON. VICTORIA C. FERNANDEZ-BERNARDO, Respondents No, the fact that the Court unanimously voted that in this case of six simultaneous
vacancies for Sandiganbayan Associate Justice, the JBC acted beyond its
FACTS: constitutional mandate in clustering the nominees into six separate short lists and
President Aquino did not commit grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the said
On November 29, 2016, the Court En Banc declared the clustering of nominees by clustering.
the Judicial and Bar Council UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and the appointments of
respondents Associate Justices Michael Frederick L. Musngi and Geraldine Faith A.
Econg, together with the four other newly-appointed Associate Justices of the The JBC invokes its independence, discretion, and wisdom, and maintains that it
Sandiganbayan, as VALID. deemed it wiser and more in accord with Article VIII, Section 9 of the 1987
Constitution to cluster the nominees for the six simultaneous vacancies for
The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) filed a Motion for Reconsideration (with Motion for Sandiganbayan Associate Justice into six separate short lists. The independence and
the Inhibition of the Ponente) on December 27, 2016 and a Motion for discretion of the JBC, however, is not without limits. It cannot impair the President's
Reconsideration-in-Intervention (of the Decision dated 29 November 2016) on power to appoint members of the Judiciary and his statutory power to determine the
February 6, 2017. seniority of the newly-appointed Sandiganbayan Associate Justices. The Court
cannot sustain the strained interpretation of Article VIII, Section 9 of the 1987
The Court, in a Resolution dated February 21, 2017, denied both Motions. Constitution espoused by the JBC, which ultimately curtailed the President's
appointing power.
Following this case, JBC filed the following motions: (a) Motion for Reconsideration of
the Resolution dated 21 February 2017 (MR-Resolution), filed on March 17, 2017; In its Decision dated November 29, 2016, the Court ruled that the clustering impinged
and (b) Motion to Admit Attached Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration of the upon the President's appointing power in the following ways: The President's option
Resolution dated 21 February 2017 and the Supplement to Motion for for every vacancy was limited to the five to seven nominees in each cluster. Once the
Reconsideration of the Resolution dated 21 February 2017 (Supplement-MR- President had appointed a nominee from one cluster, then he was proscribed from
Resolution) filed on March 24, 2017. considering the other nominees in the same cluster for the other vacancies. All the
nominees applied for and were found to be qualified for appointment to any of the
On the merits of the case, the JBC asserts that in submitting six short lists for six vacant Associate Justice positions in the Sandiganbayan, but the JBC failed to
vacancies, it was only acting in accordance with the clear and unambiguous mandate explain why one nominee should be considered for appointment to the position
of Article VIII, Section 9 of the 1987 Constitution for the JBC to submit a list for every assigned to one specific cluster only.
vacancy. Considering its independence as a constitutional body, the JBC has the
discretion and wisdom to perform its mandate in any manner as long as it is
consistent with the Constitution. According to the JBC, its new practice of "clustering," RULING:
in fact, is more in accord with the purpose of the JBC to rid the appointment process
to the Judiciary from political pressure as the President has to choose only from the WHEREFORE, premises considered, except for its motion/prayer for intervention,
nominees for one particular vacancy. Otherwise, the President can choose whom he which the Court has now granted, the Motion for Reconsideration (with Motion for the
pleases, and thereby completely disregard the purpose for the creation of the JBC. Inhibition of the Ponente) and the Motion for Reconsideration-in-Intervention (Of the
The JBC clarifies that it numbered the vacancies, not to influence the order of Decision dated 29 November 2016) of the Judicial and Bar Council are DENIED for
precedence, but for practical reasons, i.e., to distinguish one list from the others and lack of merit.
to avoid confusion.