Case Digest: Jardeleza v. CJ Sereno (G.R. No. 213181)

Jardeleza v. CJ Sereno | G.R. No. 213181 | Aug. 19, 2014 | Mendoza, J. | Topic: Article VIII, Section 8 |

Recit Ready Summary
The case at bar deals with the invocation of CJ Sereno of Sec. 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 against petitioner who is applying for the position in the Supreme Court which was due to the mandatory retirement of Associate Justice Robredo Abad. CJ Sereno invoked Sec. 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 on the grounds of the petitioner’s integrity. The invocation of JBC-009 resulted in the imposition of a higher voting requirement for the petitioner. Such requirement was not met and thus the petitioner was not included in the shortlist transmitted to the President. Petitioner filed for a petition for certiorari and mandamus to compel his inclusion in the transmitted shortlist mainly based on the grounds of the lack of due process on his part and the validity of the imposition of a higher voting requirement. The petition was granted and the petitioner was deemed to be included in the shortlist transmitted to the President.

FACTS:

• Before the compulsory retirement of Associate Justice Roberto Abad, the JBC announced the opening for application or recommendation for the vacant position. 
• Petitioner, incumbent Sol. Gen. of the Republic was nominated by Dean Danilo Concepcion.
• CJ Sereno manifested that she would be invoking Sec. 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 against the petitioner. Under the invoked rule, the petitioner’s integrity was questioned based on his 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. Subsequently, CJ Sereno included allegations of marital infidelity and insider trading as instances which dispute petitioner’s integrity.
• Petitioner was asked by the CJ is he wanted to defend himself against the allegations to which the petitioner replied that he would defend himself provided that due process would be observed. 
• Jardeleza’s request for deferment of the proceedings was denied and the JBC continued its deliberations and proceeded to vote for the nominees to be included in the shortlist. 
• The JBC released the shortlist which did not include Jardeleza. 
• Jardeleza filed the present petition for certiorari and mandamus seeking to compel the JBC to include him in the list of nominees for the Supreme Court Associate Justice on the grounds that CJ Sereno acted in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in excluding him, despite having garnered a sufficient number of votes to qualify for the position. However, by the time the petition was scheduled for deliberation by the Court en banc, the shortlist had already been transmitted to the Office of the President.
  

 Jardeleza’s position:
- CJ Sereno and the JBC violated Jardeleza’s right to due process in the events leading up to and during the vote on the shortlist.
- The JBC committed grave abuse of discretion in excluding Jardeleza from the shortlist of nominees, in violation of its own rules. The unanimity requirement provided under section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 does not find application when a member of the JBC raises an objection to an applicant’s integrity.
- Having secured the sufficient number of votes, it was ministerial on the part of the JBC to include Jardeleza in the subject shortlist.
- The unlawful exclusion of the petitioner from the subject shortlist impairs the President’s constitutional power to appoint.

ISSUES:
1. W/N the court can assume jurisdiction and give course to the petitioner for certiorari and mandamus? YES
2.W/N the issues raised against Jardeleza befit “questions or challenges on integrity” as contemplated under section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009? YES (for the allegations of marital infidelity and insider trading ONLY)
3. W/N the right to due process is available in the course of JBC proceedings in cases where an objection or opposition to an application is raised. YES
4. W/N petitioner Jardeleza may be included in the shortlist of nominees submitted to the President? YES

HELD:
1.     The court has constitutional bases to assume jurisdiction over the case

• The court was given supervisory authority over the JBC under Sec. 8, Art. VIII
• The court, however, does not have the discretion to modify or replace rules of the JBC. The court’s supervisory authority over the JBC is limited to ensuring that the laws and rules governing the conduct of a government authority are observed and complied with.
  

• Mandamus will not issue to control or review the exercise of discretion of a public officer where the law imposes upon such public officer the right and the duty to exercise his judgment in reference to any matter in which he is required to act.

• The remedy of Certiorari is available to the petitioner under the court’s exercise of expanded judicial power of review.

2.    Examining the unanimity rule of the JBC in cases where an applicant’s integrity is challenged

• Under Sec. 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009, when the integrity of a qualified applicant is challenged the affirmative vote of all the members of the Council must be obtained for the favorable consideration of his nomination thus adding a higher voting requirement for said applicant.

• To fall under the said rule, there must be a showing that the act complained of is, at least, linked to the moral character of the person and not his judgment as a professional.

• In Jardeleza’s case, the invocation of the such rule cannot be applied based on the grounds of his adoption of a specific legal strategy in the handling of a case. However, CJ subsequently raised issues of the petitioner’s alleged marital infidelity and insider trading. Based on these grounds, the petitioner’s morality may be questions.

3.    The availability of due process in the proceedings of the JBC

• JBC is not expected to strictly apply rules of evidence in its assessment of an object against an applicant. To hear the side of the person challenged complies with the dictates of fairness.

• The court cannot accept a situation where JBC is given a full rein on the application of a fundamental right whenever a person’s integrity is put to question. In such cases, an attack on the person of the applicant necessitates his right to explain himself.

• In Jardeleza’s case, he was not given a reasonable chance to muster a defense because he was merely asked to appear in a meeting where he would be, right then and there, subjected to an inquiry. Jardeleza was not given the idea that he should prepare to affirm or deny his past behavior.

• The sui generis character of JBC proceedings is not a blanket authority to disregard due process under JBC-010.

• Jardeleza was deprived of his right to due process when he was neither formally informed of the questions on his integrity nor provide a reasonable opportunity to prepare his defense.

4.    JBC’s internal rules

• The provision on the unanimity rule is vague and unfair and therefore can be misused or abused resulting in the deprivation of an applicant’s right to due process.

• While JBC proceedings are sui generis and need not be formal or trial type, they must meet the minimum requirements of due process. An applicant must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the charges against him or her, it there are any.

DISPOSITION: The petition is granted. Petitioner is deemed included in the shortlist submitted to the President for consideration as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court vice Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad.