MAINES,JULIANNE M.

De Castro, et. al. v. JBC

G.R. No. 191002 April 20,2010
FACTS:
On March 17,2010, the Court promulgated its decision dismisses the petition for
certiorari and mandamus in G.R No.199149, and the petition for mandamus in G.R.
No.191057 for being premature. The said decisions direct the Judicial and Bar Council to
resume its proceedings for the nomination of candidates to fill the vacancy created by the
compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno by May 17,2010, and to prepare
the short list of nominees and submit to the incumbent President. The compiled cases
which led to this case and the petitions of intervenors called either the prohibition of the
JBC to pass the shortlist, or the act of appointing the next Chief Justice by midnight
appointment. Movants argue that the disputed constitutional provision, Art. VII, Sec. 15
and Ar.VIII, Sec. 4 (1), clearly intended the ban on midnight appointments to cover the
members of the judiciary, and they contend that the principle of stare decisis is controlling
and insisted that the court erred in disobeying or abandoning the Valenzuela ruling.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there is justiciable controversy that is for Judicial determination.

RULING:
There is justiciable issue. The court holds that the petition set forth an actual case
or controversy that is for judicial determination. The reality is that the JBC already
commenced the proceedings for the selection of nominees to be included in a short list
to be submitted to the President for consideration of which of them will succeed Chief
Justice Puno as the next Chief Justice. Although the position is not yet vacant. The JBC
began the process of nomination pursuant to its rules and practices, although it has yet
to decide whether to submit the list of nominees to the incumbent outgoing President or
to the next President, makes the situation ripe for judicial determination, because thye
next steps are the public interview of the candidates, the preparation of the shortlist of
candidates, and interview of constitutional experts, as may be needed. The resolution of
the controversy will surely settle withg finality the question that are preventing JBC from
moving on with the process that it already began, or that are reasons persuading the JBC
to desist from the rest of the process. Judicial decisions assume the same authority as a
statute itself and, until authoritavely abandoned , necessarily become, to the extent that
they are applicable , the criteria that must control the actuations, not only of those called
upon to abide by them.