REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FERDINAND R. VILLANUEVA G.R. NO. 211833

Presiding Judge
MCTC-Compostela-New Bataan For: Declaration of
Unconstitutionality,
Compostela, Valley Province, Prohibition, Injunction
and
Petitioner, Mandamus

REPLY TO JBC’s COMMENT

(On the Petitioner’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration)

Comes now the undersigned Petitioner unto this

Honourable Court respectfully reply on the comment of the JBC
and avers that:

The petitioner repleads its argument in its Motion for

partial reconsideration and its reply to Solgen Comment.

THE JBC’S ARGUMENTS

A) It is not an additional qualification but adherence to, or an

application of one of the stringent qualification standards
prescribed by the constitution that a judge should be of
“Proven Competence”. It can also provide evidence of the
integrity, probity and independence of Judges for promotion;

B) It is not criteria or other factors to be considered but a

qualification standard by which the JBC shall determine
proven competence of ALL applicants.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

The JBC now clearly assert that the assailed policy is not a
criteria or other factors to be considered in the evaluation of the
long list of applicants but a qualification by itself and part and
parcel of the constitutional requirement of proven competence,
integrity, probity and independence.

This constitutional requirement of PROVEN COMPETENCE,

INTEGRITY, PROVITY AND INDEPENDENCE is the same
requirement to all applicants for Judgeship Position in MCTC ,
RTC, Court of Appeals, Ombudsman, Justices of the Supreme
Court, etc.
The JBC’s position that the assailed policy is part and
parcel of the constitutional requirement of proven competence,
integrity and independence is erroneous for the following reason:

1. The experience as a Judge no matter how short or how

long is already part and parcel of to complete the
constitutional requirement of ten years experience in the
practice of law.
2. The measure of Competence, integrity, probity and
independence is already provided in JBC rule 009.

The living evidence to proved that the assailed policy is not

the standard of measurement to gauge COMPETENCE,
INTEGRITY, PROVITY AND INDEPENDENCE is HON. JUSTICE
JARDELIZA, HON. CHIEF JUSTICE SERENO and all other
Justices who did not comply with the five year experience as a
lower court Judge.

The Petitioner wonder why the Supreme Court did not grant
the Petitioners Prayer to order the SC Administrator to submit
under oath all the Regional Trial Judges who were appointed in
violation of the assailed policy of five year experience as a lower
court Judge. The petitioner can only mention the two Justices
who violates the same because their profiles was published in the
SC web site. The evidence is glaring and unassailable.

The Hon. Chiz Escudero said Discretion breeds corruption.

This is the very reason why JBC was created to limit the
discretion of the president in appointing Judges. The JBC wants
unlimited discretion. They should take precedence of the civil
service law recognizing the next in rank and assigning points on
established criteria to be more objective.
 The question now is that if the Petitioner did not posses this
qualification why he was appointed as MCTC Judge?

Are Judges appointed in higher courts including Justices

who did not meet the five (5) year length of service as Lower
Court Judge are all INCOMPETENT?

The answer in the above two (2) question is obvious. NO.

The five year experience is not the measure of competency,
integrity, probity and independence.

The JBC is partly correct that the five years experience is

not an additional qualification but adherence to, or an
application of standard prescribed by the constitution that an
RTC Judge should render ten (10) year practice of law to include
GOVERNMENT SERVICE in the JUDICIARY. But not a standards
for competency.

This is very clear in the written and published JBC Rule 009,
rule 3, sec 1 & 3 to wit:
a) Government Service which include Judiciary-
Legislative department, constitutional Commission, LGU
and quasi-Judicial bodies...

The JBC 009 Rules itself provides how competence,

integrity, probity and independence are determined.
(Competence Rule 4, Sec 1 to 5; Integrity –Rule 4 Section 1;
Probity and indepence (Rule 5, Section 1, Section 2.

If the JBC will insist on the five year experience as a

lower court judge as a standards or a qualification
under the constitutional requirement of COMPETENCE,
then it should be applied in ALL level of courts.
Everybody from the RTC judges up to the Supreme Court
Justice including CHIEF JUSTICE should have a five
year experience as lower court Judge for them to be
competent. As if competence, integrity, probity and
independence can only be measured by the assailed
unwritten policy of five year experience in the lower
court.

The Petitioner is asking the Supreme Court Justices

should asked themselves did they meet the constitutional
requirement of COMPETENCE . the answer of course is
YES they are competent . Did they comply with the
assailed policy? NO. Therefore, the assailed policy does
not measure the constitutional requirement of
COMPETENCY.

If the petitioner will resign as a Judge is he now

qualified having more or less 13 years practice of law
experience? Simply put he is competent if he was not
appointed as a lower court judge. In fact, he was ahead
of one year as a lawyer of his classmate who was newly
appointed as RTC Judge and his classmate was never a
Judge. A batch mate of the petitioner Judge was
previously a competent applicant who was short listed as
RTC Judge, before he was appointed as MCTC Judge .
Now he was disqualified and became INCOMPETENT
because he was appointed as lower court Judge.

An applicant may have five years experience as a

lower court judge or may not have as long as he meets
the ten(10) year practice of law , he should be
considered as applicant as long as he meets the other
prima facie qualification.

What then is the measure of COMPETENCY? It is

already define and lay down in JBC Rule 009.

What did the assailed policy measured or adhered

to? It is PART AND PARCEL of the ten year practice of
LAW.
 The Petitioner Hope by this time the Hon. Justice
Leonin will see the evidence in himself and other living
Justices. They are competent despite the fact that some
was never a Judge.

The JBC is now in estopel because it is the JBC who

recommended the petitioner to the president for his
appointment as a lower court judge whose constitutional
qualification requires him to be COMPETENT.
Hear ye

ANY ONE WHO HAVE NOT SIN. THEN CAST THE FIRST STONE
By doing so the SC dispense not only legal but moral Justice to the
petitioner.

THE JBC SHOULD FOLLOW THEIR OWN RULES which provides:

Rule 009, rule 3, sec 1 & 3 to wit:

b) Government Service which include Judiciary-

Legislative department, constitutional Commission, LGU
and quasi-Judicial bodies...

The JBC is correct the petitioners applications in RTC

Nabunturan and RTC Mabini all of Compostela Valley has
became moot and academic as the president has already
appointed new Judges. The Office of the President was not
ordered to intervene, nor enjoined unlike in the similar case. It is
unfortunate that the application of the Petitioner in RTC
Compostela was not given due course despite the fact that the
assailed policy has not yet became final and executory and was
not yet published. The petitioner is a next in rank being the
presiding Judge of MCTC Compostela-New Bataan where RTC
Compostela will be established.

He was part and parcel of efforts/ negotiation for the LGU

Compostela to donate the land where the Justice of Hall for both
MCTC and RTC presently stands. He is also part and parcel of
the efforts of the Congressional initiative in constructing the Hall
of Justice. Although portion of the building needs for budgetary
allotment .
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that:

1. The assailed Policy be considered as part of the ten(10) year

practice of law as provided by the constitution and JBC Rule
009;
2. In alternative the assailed policy be considered only as
criteria or other factors with corresponding weight or
points;
3. To consider the Petitioner as applicant in MCTC-
Compostela-New Bataan or in vacant position in RTC Tagum
City and RTC Davao City;

April 13, 2016

FERDINAND R. VILLANUEVA
Presiding Judge, MCTC Compostela-
New Bataan
Petitioner – Next in Rank

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
filed with the Supreme Court.

FERDINAND R. VILLANUEVA
Presiding Judge, MCTC Compostela-
New Bataan
 Petitioner – Next in Rank

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this April

13,2016, at Nabunturan, Compostela Valley Province, affiant
exhibited to me his SC ID 0120754 issued by the Supreme Court
of the Philippines.

____________________________

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, Ferdinand R. Villanueva, Petitioner, legal age, Filipino,

after having been duly sworn in accordance with law hereby
depose and say:

On _______________ sent one copy each of the above reply to

the JBC and Solicitor General in their respective addressee
stated above as evidence by the Registered Receipt issued by the
Philippine Postal Corporation, Nabunturan, Comval.

FERDINAND R. VILLANUEVA
Petitioner
Roll No. 47802

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 13th day of

April, 2016, affiant exhibited to me this SC I.D. No. 0120754
issued by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

____________________________

EXPLANATION
 A copy hereof is send to this Court and respondents via
registered mail due to lack of time and field personnel and due to
the urgency of filing the same with this Honorable Court and the
distance of the Office of the Respondent and the Petitioner-
Movant.

FERDINAND R. VILLANUEVA
Petitioner
Roll No. 47802