Case Name Jardeleza v Sereno

GR No. | Date G.R. No. 213181| August 19, 2014

Topic Appointments and Qualifications

Judicial and Bar Council – Power of Review over the JBC

Doctrine While it is true that the JBC proceedings are sui generis (a class of its own), it does not
automatically denigrate an applicant’s entitlement to due process.

Parties involved FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA, petitioner, vs. CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO, THE
JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL AND EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.,
respondents.

Ponente MENDOZA, J.

General Summary Associate Justice Roberto Abad was about to retire and the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC)
announce an opening for applications and recommendations for the said vacancy. Solicitor
General Francis H. Jardeleza (Jardeleza), incumbent Solicitor General of the Republic was
included in the list of candidates. Hence, he was interviewed. However, he received calls from
some Justices that the Chief Justice herself – CJ Sereno, will be invoking a unanimity rule
against him. It is invoked because Jardeleza’s integrity is in question. During the meeting,
Justice Carpio disclosed confidential information which characterized Jardeleza’s integrity as
dubious. Jardeleza answered that he would defend himself provided that due process would
be observed. His request was denied and he was not included in the shortlist. Hence,
Jardeleza filed for certiorari and mandamus with prayer for TRO to compel the JBC to include
him in the list 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. 

Facts
 Before the compulsory retirement of Associate Justice Roberto Abad, the JBC announced the opening for
applications or recommendations for the said position.
 Solicitor General Francis H. Jardeleza was one of the nominees. His nomination however was questioned by
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno on account of questions about the former’s integrity involving the handling
of an international arbitration case of the government, alleged extra-marital affair, and acts of insider-trading.
 He thereafter received a call from the Court of Appeals Associate Justice Aurora Lagman informing him that the
Chief Justice would invoke Rule 10, Section 2 of JBC-009. Jardeleza was then directed to “make himself
available” before the JBC on June 30, 2014, to inform him the objections to his integrity.
o Rule 10, Section 2 of JBC-009. Votes required when integrity of a qualified applicant is challenged. – In
every case when the integrity of an applicant who is not otherwise disqualified for nomination is raised
or challenged, the affirmative vote of all the members of the Council must be obtained for the favorable
consideration of his nomination.
 During the JBC meeting on June 30, 2014, Jardeleza was asked by Chief Justice Sereno if he wanted to defend
himself against integrity issues raised against him.
 He answered yes, provided that due process is observed. He also requested that Chief Justice Sereno and
Associate Justice Carpio execute a sworn statement specifying their objections and that he be afforded the right
to cross-examine them.
 When asked to explain further, he refused to do so as this equates to a waiver of rights. Jardeleza then
requested the JBC to defer its meetings but it was denied and the JBC proceeded with the deliberations.
  In the shortlist of nominees, Jardeeleza’s name was not included due to failure to obtain a unanimous vote as
stipulated in Rule 10, Section 2 of the JBC rules.

Issue/s
1. Whether the court has power of supervision over JBC
2. Whether the constitutional right to due process is available in JBC proceedings
3. Whether the observance of due process is discretionary on the part of JBC
4. Whether the application of the “unanimity rule” violated Jardeleza’s constitutional right to due process

Ruling
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. No.
4. Yes.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, it is hereby declared that Solicitor General Francis I-I. Jardeleza is
deemed INCLUDED in the shortlist submitted to the President for consideration as an Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court vice Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad.
The Court further DIRECTS that the Judicial and Bar Council REVIEW, and ADOPT, rules relevant to the observance of due
process in its proceedings, particularly JBC-009 and JBC-010, subject to the approval of the Court.
This Decision is immediately EXECUTORY. Immediately notify the Office of the President of this Decision.

Reasoning
1. Yes, the court has a power of supervision over the JBC. Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Section 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
SupremeCourt, and a representative of the private sector.

Based on previous rulings, the court held that supervising officials’ task is to see to it that rules are followed.
They do not have the power to prescribe rules or the power to modify or replace them. If they find that the rules
are not observed, they may order that the work be done or redone but only in order to conform to the rules.
They have no power to prescribe their own manner of execution of the act. Thus, the supervisory authority of
the Court over the JBC covers the overseeing of compliance with its rules. In the present case, Jardeleza’s
principal allegations in his petition merit the exercise of a supervisory authority

2. Yes, the constitutional right to due process is available in JBC proceedings. Notwithstanding being “sui generis
(a class of its own),” the right to be heard and 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 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.
3. No, the observance of due process is NOT discretionary on the part of JBC. It is unsound to say that, all
together, the observance of due process is a part of JBC's discretion when an opposition to an application is
made of record. While it may so rely on "other means" such as character clearances, testimonials, and discreet
investigation to aid it in forming a judgment of an applicant's qualifications, the Court cannot accept a situation
where JBC is given a full rein on the application of a fundamental right whenever a person's integrity is put to
question. In such cases, an attack on the person of the applicant necessitates his right to explain himself.

The JBC’s own rules convince the Court to arrive at this conclusion. The subsequent issuance of JBC-010
unmistakably projects the JBC’s deference to the grave import of the right of the applicant to be informed and
corollary thereto, the right to be heard. The provisions of JBC-010, per se, provide that:
 any complaint or opposition against a candidate may be filed with the Secretary within ten
(10) days thereof the complaint or opposition shall be in writing, under oath and in ten (10) legible
copies
 the Secretary of the Council shall furnish the candidate a copy of the complaint or opposition against
him
 the candidate shall have five (5) days from receipt thereof within which to file his comment to the
complaint or opposition, if he so desires and the candidate can be made to explain the complaint or
opposition against him.

The Court may not close its eyes to the existence of JBC-010 which, under the rules of statutory construction,
bears great weight in that:
a. it covers "any" complaint or opposition;
b. it employs the mandatory term, "shall"; and
c. most importantly, it speaks of the very essence of due process.

While JBC-010 does not articulate a procedure that entails a trial-type hearing, it affords an applicant, who faces
"any complaint or opposition," the right to answer the accusations against him. This constitutes the minimum
requirements of due process.

4. Yes, after careful calibration of the case, the Court has reached the determination the application of the
"unanimity rule" on integrity resulted in Jardeleza's deprivation of his right to due process.
As threshed out beforehand, due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and in all situations
require a trial-type proceeding. Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and
given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. Even as Jardeleza was verbally informed of the invocation of
Section Rule 10 of JBC-009 against him and was later asked to explain himself during the meeting, these
circumstances still cannot expunge an immense perplexity that lingers in the mind of the Court. What is to
become of the procedure laid down in JBC-010 if the same would be treated with indifference and disregard? To
repeat, as its wording provides, any complaint or opposition against a candidate may be filed with the Secretary
within ten days from the publication of the notice and a list of candidates.

Surely, this notice is all the more conspicuous to JBC members. Granting ex argumenti, that the 10-day period is
only applicable to the public, excluding the JBC members themselves, this does not discount the fact that the
invocation of the first ground on the June 5, 2014 meeting would have raised procedural issues. To be fair,
several members of the Council expressed their concern and desire to hear out Jardeleza but the application of
JBC-010 did not form part of the agenda then. It was only during the next meeting on June 16, 2014, that the
Council agreed to invite Jardeleza, by telephone, to a meeting that would be held on the same day when a
resource person would shed light on the matter.

What precisely set off the protest of lack of due process was the circumstance of requiring Jardeleza to appear
before the Council and to instantaneously provide those who are willing to listen an intelligent defense. Was he
given the opportunity to do so?
 The answer is yes, in the context of his physical presence during the meeting. Was he given a reasonable chance
to muster a defense? No, because he was merely asked to appear in a meeting where he would be, right then
and there, subjected to an inquiry. It would all be too well to remember that the allegations of his extra-marital
affair and acts of insider trading sprung up only during the June 30, 2014 meeting. While the said issues became
the object of the JBC discussion on June 16, 2014, Jardeleza was not given the idea that he should prepare to
affirm or deny his past behavior. These circumstances preclude the very idea of due process in which the right to
explain oneself is given, not to ensnare by surprise, but to provide the person a reasonable opportunity and
sufficient time to intelligently muster his response. Otherwise, the occasion becomes an idle and futile exercise.

Separate Opinions (if any)