Posted by: Diana Calipes Islo
FACTS:
Before the retirement of Associate Justice Roberto Abad on March 6, 2014, the JBC announced the opening for application or recommendation for the said vacated position.
On March 14, 2014, the JBC received a letter from Dean Danilo Concepcion of the UP nominating Francis H. Jardeleza, incumbent SolGen, for the said position. On May 29, 2014, Jardeleza was interviewed by the JBC.
Jardeleza received telephone calls from former CA Associate Justice and incumbent JBC member, Aurora Santiago Lagman, that Chief Justice and JBC ex-officio Chairperson, Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, manifested that she would be invoking Sec. 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 against him. Jardeleza was then directed to make himself available before the JBC on June 30, 2014, during which he would be informed of the objections to his integrity (for having an extra-marital relationship and insider trading).
Jardeleza filed a letter-petition (which was denied) praying that the Court, in the exercise of its constitutional power of supervision over the JBC, issue an order: directing the JBC to give him at least 5 working days written notice of any hearing of the JBC to which he would be summoned and the said notice to contain the sworn specifications of the charges against him by his oppositors xxx; allowing him to cross-examine his oppositors and supporting witnesses, if any, and the cross-examination to be conducted in public; directing the JBC to reset the hearing scheduled on June 30, 2014 to another date; directing the JBC to disallow CJ Sereno from participating in the voting on June 30, 2014 or at any adjournment thereof.
JBC denied Jardeleza's request for deferment of the proceedings. JBC excluded Jardeleza in the shortlist.
Jardeleza filed petition for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with TRO, seeking to compel the JBC to include him in the list of nominees for SC Associate Justice vice Associate Justice Abad, on the grounds that the JBC and 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.
ISSUES:
1)Whether or not the Court can assume jurisdiction and give due course to the subject petition for certiorari and mandamus (with application for a TRO.
2)Whether or not the issues raised against Jardeleza befit questions or challenges on integrity as contemplated under Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009
3)Whether or not 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.
4)Whether or not petitioner Jardeleza may be included in the shorlist of nominees submitted to the President.
HELD:
First Issue:
FACTS:
Before the retirement of Associate Justice Roberto Abad on March 6, 2014, the JBC announced the opening for application or recommendation for the said vacated position.
On March 14, 2014, the JBC received a letter from Dean Danilo Concepcion of the UP nominating Francis H. Jardeleza, incumbent SolGen, for the said position. On May 29, 2014, Jardeleza was interviewed by the JBC.
Jardeleza received telephone calls from former CA Associate Justice and incumbent JBC member, Aurora Santiago Lagman, that Chief Justice and JBC ex-officio Chairperson, Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, manifested that she would be invoking Sec. 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 against him. Jardeleza was then directed to make himself available before the JBC on June 30, 2014, during which he would be informed of the objections to his integrity (for having an extra-marital relationship and insider trading).
Jardeleza filed a letter-petition (which was denied) praying that the Court, in the exercise of its constitutional power of supervision over the JBC, issue an order: directing the JBC to give him at least 5 working days written notice of any hearing of the JBC to which he would be summoned and the said notice to contain the sworn specifications of the charges against him by his oppositors xxx; allowing him to cross-examine his oppositors and supporting witnesses, if any, and the cross-examination to be conducted in public; directing the JBC to reset the hearing scheduled on June 30, 2014 to another date; directing the JBC to disallow CJ Sereno from participating in the voting on June 30, 2014 or at any adjournment thereof.
JBC denied Jardeleza's request for deferment of the proceedings. JBC excluded Jardeleza in the shortlist.
Jardeleza filed petition for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with TRO, seeking to compel the JBC to include him in the list of nominees for SC Associate Justice vice Associate Justice Abad, on the grounds that the JBC and 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.
ISSUES:
1)Whether or not the Court can assume jurisdiction and give due course to the subject petition for certiorari and mandamus (with application for a TRO.
2)Whether or not the issues raised against Jardeleza befit questions or challenges on integrity as contemplated under Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009
3)Whether or not 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.
4)Whether or not petitioner Jardeleza may be included in the shorlist of nominees submitted to the President.
HELD:
First Issue:
1)As to petition for Mandamus: NO. As to petition for Certiorari: YES.
Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides for the creation of the JBC. The Court was given supervisory authority over it. Section 8 reads:
Sec. 8:
A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.
As a meaningful guidepost, jurisprudence provides the definition and scope of supervision. It 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. Supervising officials see to it that rules are followed, but they themselves do not lay down such rules, nor do they have the discretion to modify or replace them. If the rules are not observed, they may order the work done or redone, but only to conform to such rules. They may not prescribe their own manner of execution of the act. They have no discretion on this matter except to see to it that the rules are followed.
A writ of mandamus is not available. Mandamus lies to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, but not to compel the performance of a discretionary duty. Mandamus will not issue to control or review the exercise of discretion of a public officer where the law imposes upon said public officer the right and duty to exercise his judgment in reference to any matter in which he is required to act. It is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the court. There is no question that the JBC's duty to nominate is discretionary and it may not be compelled to do something.
The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law (Sec 1, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution). Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
It has been judicially settled that a petition for certiorari is a proper remedy to question the act of any branch or instrumentality of the government on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the government, even if the latter does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions.
Second Issue:
2)YES. In the performance of this sacred duty, the JBC itself admits, as stated in the "whereas clauses" of JBC-009, that qualifications such as "competence, integrity, probity and independence are not easily determinable as they are developed and nurtured through the years." Additionally, "it is not possible or advisable to lay down iron-clad rules to determine the fitness of those who aspire to become a Justice, Judge, Ombudsman or Deputy Ombudsman." Given this realistic situation, there is a need "to promote stability and uniformity in JBC's guiding precepts and principles." A set of uniform criteria had to be established in the ascertainment of "whether one meets the minimum constitutional qualifications and possesses qualities of mind and heart expected of him" and his office. Likewise for the sake of transparency of its proceedings, the JBC had put these criteria in writing, now in the form of JBC-009. True enough, guidelines have been set in the determination of competence, "probity and independence," "soundness of physical and mental condition, and "integrity."
As disclosed by the guidelines and lists of recognized evidence of qualification laid down in JBC-009, "integrity" is closely related to, or if not, approximately equated to an applicant's good reputation for honesty, incorruptibility, irreproachable conduct, and fidelity to sound moral and ethical standards. That is why proof of an applicant's reputation may be shown in certifications or testimonials from reputable government officials and non-governmental organizations and clearances from the courts, National Bureau of Investigation, and the police, among others. In fact, the JBC may even conduct a discreet background check and receive feedback from the public on the integrity, reputation and character of the applicant, the merits of which shall be verified and checked. As a qualification, the term is taken to refer to a virtue, such that, "integrity is the quality of person's character."
The element of "willingness" to linger in indelicate relationships imputes a weakness in one's values, self-control and on the whole, sense of honor, not only because it is a bold disregard of the sanctity of marriage and of the law, but because it erodes the public's confidence in the Judiciary. This is no longer a matter of an honest lapse in judgment but a dissolute exhibition of disrespect toward sacred vows taken before God and the law.
On the other hand, insider trading is an offense that assaults the integrity of our vital securities market. Manipulative devices and deceptive practices, including insider trading, throw a monkey wrench right into the heart of the securities industry. When someone trades in the market with unfair advantage in the form of highly valuable secret inside information, all other participants are defrauded. All of the mechanisms become worthless. Given enough of stock market scandals coupled with the related loss of faith in the market, such abuses could presage a severe drain of capital. And investors would eventually feel more secure with their money invested elsewhere. In its barest essence, insider trading involves the trading of securities based on knowledge of material information not disclosed to the public at the time. Clearly, an allegation of insider trading 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 Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009. They fall within the ambit of "questions on integrity." Hence, the "unanimity rule" may come into operation as the subject provision is worded.
Third Issue:
3)YES, the Court concludes that the right to due process is available and thereby demandable as a matter of right.
The fact that a proceeding is sui generis and is impressed with discretion, however, does not automatically denigrate an applicant's entitlement to due process. It is well-established in jurisprudence that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis in that they are neither purely civil nor purely criminal; they involve investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers, not the trial of an action or a suit.
Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who, by their misconduct, have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. In such posture, there can be no occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor.
On the whole, disciplinary proceedings are actually aimed to verify and finally determine, if a lawyer charged is still qualified to benefit from the rights and privileges that membership in the legal profession evoke.
Notwithstanding being "a class of its own," the right to be heard and to explain one's self is availing. The Court subscribes to the view that in cases where an objection to an applicant's qualifications is raised, the observance of due process neither negates nor renders illusory the fulfillment of the duty of JBC to recommend. This holding is not an encroachment on its discretion in the nomination process. Actually, its adherence to the precepts of due process supports and enriches the exercise of its discretion. When an applicant, who vehemently denies the truth of the objections, is afforded the chance to protest, the JBC is presented with a clearer understanding of the situation it faces, thereby guarding the body from making an unsound and capricious assessment of information brought before it. The JBC is not expected to strictly apply the rules of evidence in its assessment of an objection against an applicant. Just the same, to hear the side of the person challenged complies with the dictates of fairness for the only test that an exercise of discretion must surmount is that of soundness.
Fourth Issue:
4)YES. There was a misapplication of the "unanimity rule" under Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 as to Jardeleza's legal strategy in handling a case for the government.
While Jardeleza's alleged extra-marital affair and acts of insider trading fall within the contemplation of a "question on integrity" and would have warranted the application of the "unanimity rule," he was not afforded due process in its application.
The JBC, as the sole body empowered to evaluate applications for judicial posts, exercises full discretion on its power to recommend nominees to the President. The sui generis character of JBC proceedings, however, is not a blanket authority to disregard the due process under JBC-010.
Jardeleza was deprived of his right to due process when, contrary to the JBC rules, he was neither formally informed of the questions on his integrity nor was provided a reasonable opportunity to prepare his defense.
With the foregoing, the Court is compelled to rule that Jardeleza should have been included in the shortlist submitted to the President for the vacated position of Associate Justice Abad.
