MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC) could nullify the recent appointments in the Sandiganbayan reportedly done in violation of the law, an insider said yesterday.
The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to lack of authority to speak for the judiciary, told The STAR that the high court has the power to void actions of the executive branch that would be proven to be unconstitutional.
The insider cited previous rulings of the high tribunal voiding appointments made by the Chief Executive, including the midnight appointments during the previous administration.
But the source stressed that the SC would not be able to act on the issue if there is no petition filed by a party that stands to suffer damage from the questionable appointments.
The STAR reported earlier this week that there might be a violation of the Constitution in the appointment of six associate justices last week by the Chief Executive for two new branches in the anti-graft court.
The law requires the President to choose the appointee to a judicial post from a shortlist submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).
Article VIII Section 9 of the Constitution requires that “members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy.”
But this requirement was not followed by President Aquino, according to insiders.
The JBC submitted to the Palace in October last year six separate shortlists for each of the vacancies in the Sandiganbayan.
Last week, the President appointed the six new justices of the anti-graft court – Assistant Solicitor General Karl Miranda, Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno’s staff lawyer Zaldy Trespeses, Palace undersecretary Reynaldo Cruz, Palace undersecretary for special concerns Michael Frederick Musngi and judges Geraldine Faith Econg and Ma. Theresa Mendoza-Arcega.
The STAR learned, however, that Musngi and Econg belonged to the same shortlist.
In one of the six shortlists submitted by JBC, none of the nominees – judges Philip Aguinaldo, Reynaldo Alhambra, Danilo Cruz, Benjamin Pozon, Danilo Sandoval and Salvador Timbang Jr. – was chosen.
Another controversy was raised on the case of Arcega.
She was included in one of the six shortlists for six vacancies in Sandiganbayan in October last year despite having insufficient number of votes from the seven-member council tasked to vet appointees to judicial posts.
Section 2, Rule 10 of its Resolution No. JBC-007 requires unanimous approval of all seven members of the council before a nominee with an opposition to nomination could be included in the shortlist.
Records showed that the JBC received two oppositions to Arcega’s nomination – one from lawyer Pedro Principe and her relative Mario Samonte – questioning her integrity and impartiality.
But during deliberations, Arcega got six votes from the seven JBC members. Despite not having the required seven votes, she was still included in the shortlist by the JBC.
The Office of the President was informed about the violation of JBC rules in Arcega’s nomination in a letter in December last year from the Philippine Trial Lawyers Association Inc.