REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FERDINAND R. VILLANUEVA G.R. NO. 211833

Presiding Judge For: DECLARATION OF
MCTC-Compostela–New Bataan, UNCONSTITUTIONALITY,
Compostela, Valley Province, PROHIBITION, INJUNCTION
Petitioner, and MANDAMUS

-versus

JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL,

Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

REPLY TO SOLGEN COMMENT

(ON THE MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION )

COMES NOW, Petitioner, Judge FERDINAND R. VILLANUEVA ,

REPLY and avers that:

The Movant received the comment of the SolGen on February 1, 2016.

The SolGen missed the issue.

YES. It is CONSTITUTIONAL. BUT NO. IT IS NOT A

QUALIFICATION BUT ONLY A CRITERIA OR OTHER FACTORS
TO CONSIDER.

Simply Put. If you meet the qualification as provided by constitution and

congress or prima facie qualification then you should be included in the LONG
LIST.

THIS PRIMA FACIE QUALIFICATION IS A MUST JBC HAS

NO DISCRETION TO ADD. OTHERWISE, IF IT IS
DISCRETIONARY THEN THEY CAN ALSO DELETE SOME OF
THIS QUALIFICATION.

The SolGen is trying to impress that because it is discretionary for the

JBC to make their own policy, they can make any policy without limitation.
This is not the case their policy or rule making power is also limited, it should
not be repugnant to the law and statutes.

The only issue the movant raised in the partial reconsideration is to treat
the policy as a criteria and other factors to be considered in the
evaluation as ruled by the Supreme Court and it will not be the basis of
disqualification of applicants in the long list as long as he meets the

1
Constitutional and Statutory qualification.

PREFATORY STATEMENT

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know
the difference. (Reinhold Niebuhr)

The Movant hope against hope that he can effect change for good. The
movant seek redress to the very institution he serve and against an allies the
SolGen. The movant appeared on behalf of the SolGen in some special
proceedings when he was still a prosecutor and whose draft memorandum was
being used by the SolGen in criminal cases which the movants elevates to the
Court of Appeals. In short the movant is not an adversary but remains to be
an instrument in dispensing JUSTICE.

ARGUMENTS

The SOLGEN argues.

1. This Honorable Court correctly upheld the assailed Policy.

The movant submits that the policy is constitutional and is only a

criteria and other factors to be considered.

As argued by the movant the Supreme Court should differentiate what

is a qualification and criteria or factors. The SolGen did not argue on this issue.

It is settled that only congress can add to the qualification of a Judge. It

is also settled that the assailed policy is only a criteria or factors to be
considered as ruled by the Supreme Court in this case.

SO the JBC should treat it as it is . Yes it is constitutional but it should

be treated as criteria or factors only. NOT A QUALIFICATION.

The SolGen argues:

A. Adopting the Policy was an exercise of Discretion committed to

respondent JBC by the Constitution.

YES. By all means the JBC can exercise its DISCRITION legally.
No person is above the law.

We have no quarrel on the exercise of the JBC of its discretion, but

their discretion should not be whimsical and arbitrary nor in violation of the
constitution. The JBC should give the applicants who meet the prima facie
2
qualification set by the constitution and congress the opportunity to be heard.

A discretion that is whimsical, arbitrary, unlawful, biased and in violation

of the constitution they are bound to uphold and without limits is the very evil
to be avoided and the reason why the JBC was created. If it remains unchecked
the very existence of JBC is an EVIL resurrected.

This brings us now to answer this question. In what point in the

selection process the JBC exercise its discretion ? It should be in the
determination of the SHORT LIST after hearing and exams. The long list is
only mechanical it should not fall short of what is provided by constitution and
congress.

The movant is of the humble opinion that if the applicants who meets
the minimum qualification or prima facie qualification he should be included in
the long list.

The SOLGEN ERRED if in the determination of the long list the JBC
will already exercise its discretion. The qualification set by the constitution is
and congress is mandatory. Here is the checklist in evaluating who passed the
qualification set by the constitution, or what the JBC call it PRIMA FACIE
QUALIFICATION to wit:
RTC CONSTITUTIONAL LOWER COURT How
AND STATUTORY CONSTITUTIONAL DETERMINED
QUALIFICATION AND STATUTORY
QUALIFICATION
1. Natural Born Citizen. 1. Natural Born Citizen of SAME Birth Certificate or
Art. 8, Sec7(2) of the the Philippines (Art. 8, any other proof of
constitution Sec7(2) of the age and citizenship.
Section 15. of BP129 constitution and Sec. 26 Movant meet this
of BP129. minimum
requirement, when
he was appointed as
judge in lower court.
His parents are all
natural born
Pilipino. He was
born in Mawab,
comval.
2. At least 35 years old 2. At least 30 years old DIFFERENT Birth Certificate or
(additional qualification (additional qualification any other proof of
Sec 15, BP129-cited in Sec 26, BP129-cited in age and citizenship.
JBC Rule 009); JBC Rule 009); Movant meet this
qualification he is
already 56 years old.
3. Member of the 3. Member of the SAME Transcript of Law
Philippine Bar(Art. 8, Philippine Bar((Art. 8, School Records
Sec7(2) of the Sec7(2) of the Certificate of
constitution; constitution; Admission to the
Bar (with Bar
Rating). Movants
meets this
qualification. He
was admitted to bar
3-20-03

3
4. Engaged in the Practice
of Law for at least
ten(10) years. (additional
qualification Sec 15,
BP129-cited in JBC Rule
009);
4. Engaged in the Practice Certificate of
of Law for at least DIFFERENT Employment
five(5) years. (additional
qualification Sec 15, Date of admission
BP129-cited in JBC to the BAR.
Rule 009); Movants meets this
minimum
qualification. He is
almost 13 yrs
practice of law.
Including his almost
less four years as
lower Court Judge.

5. Of Proven 6. Of Proven NBI REPORT ON

competence, integrity, competence, integrity, SAME- THE
probity and probity and BACKGROUND
independence.. (Art. 8 independence. (Art. 8 If you are a INVESTIGATION.
Sec.7(2) of the Sec.7(2) of the lower court ** Clearances from
Constitution) Constitution) judges. This is the NBI and
already meet. Ombudsman Police
The arguments Clearance from
that it is place of residence *
measured by To be submitted
the five year only once. ** Not
policy is required of
erroneous. Members of the
Because all Judiciary. Clearance
applicants who and Certificate of
did not served Good Standing
5 yr as lower from the IBP
court judge will National Office
be disqualified.
The procedure how
to determine this
qualification is
stated in JBC rule
009.
Movants meets this
qualification when
appointed as MCTC
Judge.
7. Passed the Pre- 7.Passed the Pre-Judicature PRE-
Judicature program.( program. Additional SAME JUDICATURE
Additional Qualification, (Section 10 .
Qualification,-Section R.A. 8557, February 26, This was not Movant took Pre-
10 R.A. 8557, February 1998) implemented Jud Program on
26, 1998) the applicants SEPT. 5-1, 2011-
are not required And passed the
to submit pre- exam with 85.4
judicature percent rating.
rating.

The above qualification is set by the constitution and statutes. That is the
very basis of determining the prima facie qualification.

The following are other criteria or factors considered and set by JBC:

1. Written Exam;
2. Oral Interview;

4
 3. Psychological exam;
4. The assailed 5 yr. service as Judge in the lower court.
5. Performance rating;
6. Scholastic records; etc.

What is the difference of the qualification set by constitution and

statutes vs. criteria or other factors set by JBC?

Qualification set by the constitution and statutes is equivalent to

minimum qualification standard in Civil Service. It is the threshold qualification
before the JBC consider you as applicants and be included in the LONG LIST.
Qualification do not have score or weighted average or points. The applicants
must meet all this standards.

Criteria and factors set by JBC is considered only after meeting the
minimum qualification standard or prima facie qualification set by constitution
and congress. The criteria and other factors set by JBC should be rated with
percentage or weighted by points. In actual practice, exams and JBC interview
are done at the same time and same place. If the applicant pass the JBC exams
and JBC interview he may be included in the SHORT LIST, if included in the
shortlist but was not appointed by the president he may take again the exams
after it will prescribed.

The JBC and SolGen failed to define or Spell out what is the Prima Facie
qualification vis a vis criteria or other factors. The JBC and SolGen did not
object to the movants arguments that the prima facie qualification is what the
constitution and statutes has provided.

The SolGen said it is not mechanical or ministerial. On the contrary The

evaluation of the documents submitted and filling up of the above checklist
can be delegated to the JBC staff and the JBC should based their long list from
the above checklist prepared by their staff for JBC evaluation and approval.

In determining the long list, the JBC should be guided by the above
Prima facie or minimum qualification, and not whimsical, arbitrary and
capricious manner of selecting.

The SolGen argues that the case of Jadeleza V. Sereno is not applicable.

Why NOT? The main arguments of Hon. Justice Jardeleza is that the
JBC violates its own RULES. The objection against Justice Jardeliza is his
integrity. It was not measured on the five year service as a judge.

SAME HAPPENED TO THIS CASE. Why the movant was not treated
similarly? What is the difference? The movant will not speculate.

HOW DID THE JBC VIOLATES ITS OWN RULES?

5
 1. In this case the JBC rules provides that the experience in JUDICIAY
(as MCTC JUDGE) is included in the ten(10) year qualification to wit:

Under the JBC Rule 009 Rule 3 Sec 1 & 3 - Experience is only one of the
factors to be considered to determine Competence. But experience does not
only refer to experience in Government Service but includes as a Judge to wit:

a) Government service which include Judiciary, Legislative department,

Constitutional Commission, LGU and quasi-judicial bodies;
b) Private practice.. c) Others.

Why did the JBC separate the five year experience as a lower court judge
when it is part and parcel of the 10 year practice of law?

The SolGen further argues that the five year service as judge of first
level court requirement is an implementation of constitutional qualification that
(a) member of the Judiciary must be of proven competence, integrity, probity
and independence.

The SolGen wants to impress to the Honorable court that the movant
do not possess this qualification when he was appointed as a lower court Judge.

The SolGen erred you cannot be appointed as Judge even in the lower
court if you do not possess the above stated qualification.

If this is how competence, integrity, probity and independence is being

measured why not require the five(5) year service as lower court judge to all
applicants? If the JBC do this the movant will not object, this will mean only
that lower court Judges with five years experience will be the only applicants
left for promotion. The private practitioner and other Government lawyer who
do not have 5 yr experience as judge are all disqualified.

This policy should also be applied to all level of courts especially for
Justices.

The movant position is that this policy should be treated as criteria or

other factors. In so doing , the playing field is leveled.

That is what is practice in filling up the position of Justices the

constitution provides.

Sect. 7, Article VIII “JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT” of the constitution:

Section 7. (1) No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate
court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A Member of the Supreme
Court must be at least forty years of age, and must have been for fifteen years
or more, a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the
Philippines.

6
 IF 15 YEAR EXPERIENCE AS A JUDGE IS NOT MANDATORY OR IS
ONLY ALTERATIVE TO THE 15 YEAR PRACTICEOF LAW IN THE CASE OF
JUSTICES. THE 5 YR EXPERIENCE AS A JUDGE SHOULD NOT BE
MANDATORY OR IS ONLY AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE 10 YEAR PRACTICE
OF LAW IN RTC POSITION.

Unless the position of Justices is LESS IMPORTANT than the

RTC Judges. BUT IT IS NOT THE CASE. Thus it is more practicable
that the policy will only be treated as criteria where points will be
assigned.

This is a classic example of “KAMI PUEDE KAYO HINDI”:

Under Sec. 15 of BP 129 provides:

Section 15. Qualifications. – No persons shall be appointed Regional Trial Judge unless he
is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, at least thirty-five years of age, and for at least ten
years, has been engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines or has held a public office
in the Philippines requiring admission to the practice of law as an indispensable
requisite.

Public Office includes the position of a Judge no matter how

short.

Clearly the assailed policy is not a qualification it is only a criteria or

other factors as correctly ruled by the supreme court.

2. The process of how the JBC determines competence, integrity,

probity and independence was already provided in JBC-rule 009 AND
NOT the assailed policy to wit:

a. COMPETENCE -Rule 3,Section 1 to 5 of rule 009;

b. INTEGRITY- Rule 4,Section 1 – Integrity-xxx; Section 2.

Background check xxx; Section 3. Testimonies of parties; Section 4.
Anonymous Complaint.

c. DISQUALIFICATION-The assailed policy is not among the

enumerated disqualification under JBC-Rule 009.

1. Section 5 Disqualification; Section 6 other disqualification;

Non compliance of the assailed policy is not among the

disqualification enumerated in JBC Policy 009.

d. PROBITY AND INDIPENDENCE-RULE 5;Section

1xxx;Section 2xxx

7
 3. ANOTHER VIOLATION OF THE JBC is in the state policy
found in the whereas clause UNDER JBC-RULE 009;

WHEREAS, The council has been applying similar criteria in its

assessment of candidates to the judicial office or the Ombudsman or
deputy Ombudsman there is a need to put these criteria in writing to
insure transparency in its proceedings and promote stability and
uniformity in its guiding precepts and principle. (JBC-Rule 009);

The assailed Policy is unwritten it is a violation of the above cited JBC’s

rules.

Why should the unwritten policy prevail over the written policy.

The SolGen did not oppose the arguments of the movant that the
assailed policy was ordered by the SC to be published and thus it should not be
applied to the movant or it is not yet effective before its publication.

4. The SC is Correct. There is no special guidelines for nomination

to vacancy in the RTC. Only for Vacancy for CA; It is very clear in Rule 9
of JBC Rule 009 that it is only an additional criteria for nomination.

Nomination refers to short list where the JBC exercise their discretion
not the long list.

We are talking here on the very first step THE LONG LIST of
applicants. The PRIMA FACIE qualification. It does not mean that you will be
automatically be recommended. The JBC will still give exams, conduct
interview , validate the documents. What harm will it offer by giving the
applicants who meets the minimum qualification to be heard, to allow him to
take the exams, and to be interviewed.

The movant is the next in rank.

It is the movant position that the assailed policy was not uniformly
implemented by the JBC, in fact, the movant mentioned two SC Justices who
posted their profile at the SC web site:

a.Hon. Justice MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO was appointed as

Municipal Trial Court Judge of San Mateo, Rizal in 1989. He was
promoted to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City in 1992 or
short of 2 years by JBC’s long-standing policy.

b. Hon. Justice ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE was appointed as

Metropolitan Trial Court Judge of the Makati City, Br-66 in 1996. Four
years after, or one year short of the five-year JBC requirement, she was
promoted to the RTC-Makati City, Br-142. Then she was promoted to
the CA on March 15, 2004, again below the 5-year stay requirement.

8
 c. Hon. Chief Justice MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO was
appointed on August 16, 2010 as the 169th Justice. More or less two years later
she was appointed as the 24th Chief Justice.

The two justices were once a Lower Court Judge and was promoted to
RTC in less than the 5 years in violation of the assailed policy. Majority of the
Justices was never a Judge. Justice Leonin ruled that the movant failed to
adduce evidence. Is it not enough evidence when they themselves was not
required to be a judge in lower court at least for five years? They themselves is
the movants living and best evidence. The movant praised but regrets why
Chief Justice and other Justices who inhibits because they themselves was not
required to have a five year length of service as a lower court judge maybe
because of DELICADEZA. They could have voted in favor of the movant.

The movant prayed that the Supreme Court issue a subpoena duces
ticum ad testificandum to the Court Administrator and order him to bring the
list of RTC judges who did not meet the five year qualification, but was
recommended by the JBC and was appointed as RTC Judge. The Supreme
Court did not grant the prayer of the movant.

The above issue is not only legal but MORAL issue.

5. The Next in Rank Law – PD No. 807; ;

When the position of Chief Justice was open, the JBC consider all the
SC Justices as applicants. Why? Because of the next in rank law.

The SC did not address the applicability of the Next in Rank Law.

6. Limiting qualified applicants.

“Xxx Limiting qualified applicants to those judges with five years of

experience was an exercise of discretion by the JBC.”

The SolGen erred JBC did not limits applicants to Judges with five year
experience. This requirement was not applied to other applicants, to private
practitioner, to Prosecutors, to PAO Lawyer, and other Government Lawyer.
This is only applied to lower court judges who applied for RTC Judge Position.

“”ONCE AGAIN KAMI PUEDE KAYO HINDI”

It is very clear that said policy is discriminatory, why apply this policy
only to Judges? When it can be applied to all applicants by simply treating the
same as criteria or other factors and assign corresponding points?

9
 The Movant is not the only person who suffered discrimination but all
Judges in Lower Court below five years in service. This case is not for the
personal interest of the movant this is about what is right, moral and equity.

It is certain that the movant can overcome the five years ,God willing
but the injustice will remain in the SCRA and will be taught to all LAW student
if not rectified. By year 2017 the movant will now be five year as a lower court
judge, but the injustice to succeeding lower court judge will continue if not
corrected.

The JBC will likewise, continue to make Policy or rules contrary to

constitution and statutes by merely invoking their DISCRITIONARY
POWER.

The movant simply rely on the provision of the constitution under

Section 7 Article VIII to wit:

2. The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but
no person may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines
and a member of the Philippine Ba
The movant though the above provision of the constitution is simple
and elementary . Thus the movant is hoping against hope that he will prevail by
this time.

In the end, we can only be guided by what a respected Justice

of the Supreme Court had said: “For the rule of law to prevail
and for the people to respect it, there should be no perception
of a double standard where the application of the law is
colored by „good intention.‟ The law should apply to all or
none at all — to do otherwise can only lead this country on the
road to hell even if it is paved with good intentions.” (quoted
by BABE’S EYE VIEW By Babe Romualdez (The Philippine Star) | Updated
July 6, 2014 )

PRAYER

WHERFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that:

1. All applicants for RTC Judge position who meets the

constitutional and statutory qualification or prima facie qualification be
considered as an APPLICANT and included in the LONG LIST and
be allowed to go to the process of SELECTION (written exam,
psychological, panel interview by the JBC, etc.);
2. That the five year experience as a Judge in Lower Court will
be treated only as a criteria or other factors and will be part or included
of the ten(10) year practice of law as ruled by this court and define
under the JBC Rule 009; It should not be a ground for disqualification
of an applicant or candidate.
3. Considering further that the JBC policy was not yet

10
 published IT HAS NO RETRO ACTIVE EFFECT. The pending
application of the movant – petitioner for RTC Branch 56 in
Compostela, RTC Branch 3, in Nabunturan, and RTC Br. 57 in Mabini,
all of Compostela Valley be given due course and be considered as
applicants, be included long list and be allowed to undergo the selection
process in the JBC.
4. Implement fhe pre-judicature exam as provided by law.

Other reliefs and remedies which are just and equitable under the
premises is likewise prayed.

Respectfully submitted.

IN WITNESS HEREOF, I hereunto set my hand signature this

February 15,2016, at Nabunturan, Compostela Valley Province, Philippines.

JUDGE FERDINAND R. VILLANUEVA

Petitioner-Movant
Roll Number 47802

Copy furnished:

The Judicial and Bar Council,

Centinial, Bldg., Supreme Court
Padre Faura St., Manila

The Solicitor General

Office of the Solicitor General
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
Makati Manila

Office of the President

Manila

EXPLANATION

A copy hereof is served to this court and respondents on via registered

mail due to lack of time and field personnel, due to the urgency of filing the
same with this Honorable Office, and the distance of the office of the
respondents and the Petitioner-movant.

FERDINAND R. VILLANUEVA
Petitioner-Movant

11
Republic of the Philippines )
Province of Compostela Valley ) S.S.
x----------------------------------------x

VERIFIED DECLARATION

I FERDINAND R. VILLANUEVA, hereby declare that the documents

and annexes (no more annexes) thereof hereto submitted, electronically (CD)
in accordance with the efficient use of paper Rule are complete and true
copies of the documents (annexes) filed with the Supreme Court.

SGD. FERDINAND R. VILLANUEVA

Petitioner/ Declarant

12
 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 15th day of February,
2016, at Nabunturan, Compostela Valley Province, affiant exhibited to me his
SC ID 0120754 issued by the Supreme Court of the Philippines..

SGD. MARCO K. PINEDA

Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
OPP, Compostela Valley

13