Jardeleza vs Sereno

GR 213181 August 19, 2014

Facts:
Following Justice Abad’s compulsory retirement, the JBC announced the
application or recommendations for the position left by the Associate
Justice. Jardeleza, the incumbent Sol-Gen at the time, was included in the list
of candidates. However, he was informed through telephone call from some
Justices that the Chief Justice herself – CJ Sereno, will be invoking Sec 2,
Rule 10 of JBC-009 or the so-called “unanimity rule” against him. Generally,
the rule is that an applicant is included in the shortlist when s/he obtains
affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of the JBC. When
Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009, however, is invoked because an applicant’s
integrity is challenged, a unanimous vote is required. Jardeleza was then
directed to make himself available on June 30, 2014 before the JBC during
which he would be informed of the objections to his integrity.

Jardeleza wrote a letter-petition asking the SC to exercise its supervisory

power and direct the JBC to, among others, give Jardeleza a written notice and
sworn written statements of his oppositors or any documents in the JBC
hearings, and to disallow CJ Sereno from participating in the voting process for
nominees on June 30, 2014.

During the June 30, 2014 meeting of the JBC, Justice Carpio appeared and
disclosed a confidential information which, to CJ Sereno, characterized
Jardeleza’s integrity as dubious. Jardeleza demanded that CJ Sereno
execute a sworn statement specifying her objections and that he be afforded
the right to cross-examine her in a public hearing. He also requested
deferment of the JBC proceedings, as the SC en banc has yet to decide in his
letter-petition.

However, the JBC continued its deliberations and proceeded to vote for the
nominees to be included in the shortlist. Thereafter, the JBC released the
shortlist of 4 nominees. It was revealed later that there were actually 5
nominees who made it to the JBC shortlist, but 1 nominee could not be
included because of the invocation of the “unanimity rule”..

Jardeleza filed for certiorari and mandamus via Rule 65 with prayer for TRO to
compel the JBC to include him in the list of nominees on the grounds that the
JBC and CJ Sereno acted with grave abuse of discretion in excluding him,
despite having garnered a sufficient number of votes to qualify for the position.

Political Law
Issue: W/N the right to due process is demandable as a matter of right in JBC
proceedings
Yes. While it is true that the JBC proceedings are sui generis, it does not
mean that an applicant’s access to the rights afforded under the due process
clause is discretionary on the part of JBC.

The Court does not brush aside the unique and special nature of JBC
proceedings. Notwithstanding being “a class of its own,” the right to be heard
and to explain one’s self is availing. In cases where an objection to an
applicant’s qualifications is raised, the observance of due process neither
contradicts the fulfillment of the JBC’s duty 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 because
the only test that an exercise of discretion must surmount is that of soundness.

Consequently, 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. This consequence arose not from the
unconstitutionality of Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 per se, but from
the violation by the JBC of its own rules of procedure and the basic tenets of
due process. By no means does the Court intend to strike down the “unanimity
rule” as it reflects the JBC’s policy and, therefore, wisdom in its selection of
nominees. Even so, the Court refuses to turn a blind eye on the palpable
defects in its implementation and the ensuing treatment that Jardeleza
received before the Council. True, Jardeleza has no vested right to a
nomination, but this does not prescind from the fact that the JBC failed to
observe the minimum requirements of due process.

Remedial Law
Issue 1: W/N the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the case
Yes. Jardeleza’s allegations in his petitions merits the exercise of the Court’s
supervisory authority over the JBC. Under Sec 8, Art VIII of the Constitution,
the JBC shall function under the supervision of the SC. It follows that such
supervisory authority covers the overseeing of whether the JBC complies with
its own rules or not.

Issue 2: W/N a writ of mandamus is available against the JBC

No. The JBC’s duty to nominate is discretionary and it may not be compelled
to do something.

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.

Issue 3: W/N a writ of certiorari under Sec 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is
available against the JBC (which is not exercising quasi-judicial functions)
Yes. Under the expanded jurisdiction or expanded power of judicial
review vested to the SC by the 1987 Constitution, 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.