9/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 835

G.R. No. 224302. August 8, 2017. *

 
HON. PHILIP A. AGUINALDO, HON. REYNALDO A. ALHAMBRA, HON. DANILO
S. CRUZ, HON. BENJAMIN T. POZON, HON. SALVADOR V. TIMBANG, JR., and the
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP), petitioners, vs. HIS EXCELLENCY
PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
PAQUITO N. OCHOA, HON. MICHAEL FREDERICK L. MUSNGI, HON. MA.
GERALDINE FAITH A. ECONG, HON. DANILO S. SANDOVAL, HON.
WILHELMINA B. JORGE-WAGAN, HON. ROSANA FE ROMERO-MAGLAYA, HON.
MERIANTHE PACITA M. ZURAEK, HON. ELMO M. ALAMEDA, and HON.
VICTORIA C. FERNANDEZ-BERNARDO, respondents.
JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL, intervenor.

Judicial and Bar Council; Clustering of Nominees; MR-Resolution and Supplement-MR-

Resolution lack merit given the admission of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) itself in its previous
pleadings of lack of consensus among its own members on the validity of the clustering of nominees
for the six (6) simultaneous vacancies in the Sandiganbayan, further bolstering the unanimous
decision of the Supreme Court (SC) against the validity of such clustering.—Presently for resolution
of the Court are the following Motions of the JBC: (a) Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution
dated 21 February 2017 (MR-Resolution), filed on March 17, 2017; and (b) Motion to Admit
Attached Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated 21 February 2017 and
the Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated 21 February 2017
(Supplement-MR-Resolution) filed on March 24, 2017. The aforementioned MR-Resolution and
Supplement-MR-Resolution lack merit given the admission of the JBC itself in its previous pleadings
of lack of consensus among its own members on the validity of the clustering of nominees for the six
simultaneous vacancies in the

_______________

*  EN BANC.

 
 
344

344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Aguinaldo vs. Aquino III

Sandiganbayan, further bolstering the unanimous decision of the Court against the validity of
such clustering. The lack of consensus among JBC members on the validity of the clustering also
shows that the ponente’s decision in this case did not arise from personal hostility — or any other
personal consideration — but solely from her objective evaluation of the adverse constitutional
implications of the clustering of the nominees for the vacant posts of Sandiganbayan Associate
Justice.
Judges; Disqualification and Inhibition of Judges; There is no factual or legal basis for the
ponente to inhibit herself from the present case.—It bears to stress that the Court also unanimously
held in its Resolution dated February 21, 2017 that there is no factual or legal basis for the ponente to
inhibit herself from the present case. Worth reiterating below is the ponente’s explanation in the
Resolution dated February 21, 2017 that there was no conflict of interest on her part in rendering
judgment in this case, and even in her voting in Jardeleza v. Sereno, 733 SCRA 279 (2014),
considering that she had absolutely no participation in the decisions made by the JBC that were
challenged before this Court in both cases.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174b680bde19c34c5a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/4
9/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 835
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of the Resolution dated 21 February 2017 filed on
March 17, 2017; and MOTION TO ADMIT Attached Supplement to Motion for
Reconsideration of Resolution dated 21 February 2017 filed on March 24, 2017.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
   Vicente M. Joyas for petitioners.
   The Solicitor General for respondents.

RESOLUTION
 
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
 
In its Decision dated November 29, 2016, the Court En Banc held:
 
 

345

VOL. 835, AUGUST 8, 2017 345

Aguinaldo vs. Aquino III

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court DISMISSES the instant Petition for Quo
Warranto and Certiorari and Prohibition for lack of merit. The Court DECLARES the clustering of
nominees by the Judicial and Bar Council UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and the appointments of
respondents Associate Justices Michael Frederick L. Musngi and Geraldine Faith A. Econg, together
with the four other newly-appointed Associate Justices of the Sandiganbayan, as VALID. The Court
further DENIES the Motion for Intervention of the Judicial and Bar Council in the present Petition,
but ORDERS the Clerk of Court En Banc to docket as a separate administrative matter the new rules
and practices of the Judicial and Bar Council which the Court took cognizance of in the preceding
discussion as Item No. 2: the deletion or noninclusion in JBC No. 2016-1, or the Revised Rules of the
Judicial and Bar Council, of Rule 8, Section 1 of JBC-009; and Item No. 3: the removal of incumbent
Senior Associate Justices of the Supreme Court as consultants of the Judicial and Bar Council,
referred to in pages 35 to 40 of this Decision. The Court finally DIRECTS the Judicial and Bar
Council to file its comment on said Item Nos. 2 and 3 within thirty (30) days from notice.

 
The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) filed a Motion for Reconsideration (with Motion for
the Inhibition of the Ponente) on December 27, 2016 and a Motion for Reconsideration-in-
Intervention (of the Decision dated 29 November 2016) on February 6, 2017.
The Court, in a Resolution dated February 21, 2017, denied both Motions in this wise:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, except for its motion/prayer for intervention, which the
Court has now granted, the Motion for Reconsideration (with Motion for the Inhibition of the
Ponente) and the Motion for Reconsideration-in-Intervention (Of the Decision dated

 
 
346

346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Aguinaldo vs. Aquino III

29 November 2016) of the Judicial and Bar Council are DENIED for lack of merit.1 (Underscoring
supplied)

 
Presently for resolution of the Court are the following Motions of the JBC: (a) Motion
for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated 21 February 2017 (MR-Resolution), filed on
March 17, 2017; and (b) Motion to Admit Attached Supplement to Motion for
Reconsideration of the Resolution dated 21 February 2017 and the Supplement to Motion
for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated 21 February 2017 (Supplement-MR-
Resolution) filed on March 24, 2017.
The aforementioned MR-Resolution and Supplement-MR-Resolution lack merit given
the admission of the JBC itself in its previous pleadings of lack of consensus among its own
members on the validity of the clustering of nominees for the six simultaneous vacancies in
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174b680bde19c34c5a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/4
9/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 835
the Sandiganbayan, further bolstering the unanimous decision of the Court against the
validity of such clustering. The lack of consensus among JBC members on the validity of
the clustering also shows that the ponente’s decision in this case did not arise from personal
hostility — or any other personal consideration — but solely from her objective evaluation
of the adverse constitutional implications of the clustering of the nominees for the vacant
posts of Sandiganbayan Associate Justice.
The JBC contends in its MR-Resolution that since JBC consultants receive monthly
allowance from the JBC, then “[o]bviously, JBC consultants should always favor or take
[the] side [of] the JBC. Otherwise, there will be conflict of interest on their part.”2 While
the ponente indeed received monthly allowance from the JBC for the period she served as
consultant, her objectivity would have been more questionable and more of a ground for
her inhibition if she had received the allowance and decided the instant case in favor of the
JBC.

_______________

1  Rollo, p. 358.
2  Id., at p. 384.

 
 

347

VOL. 835, AUGUST 8, 2017 347

Aguinaldo vs. Aquino III

It bears to stress that the Court also unanimously held in its Resolution dated February
21, 2017 that there is no factual or legal basis for the ponente to inhibit herself from the
present case. Worth reiterating below is the ponente’s explanation in the Resolution dated
February 21, 2017 that there was no conflict of interest on her part in rendering judgment in
this case, and even in her voting in Jardeleza v. Sereno,3 considering that she had absolutely
no participation in the decisions made by the JBC that were challenged before this Court in
both cases:

As previously mentioned, it is the practice of the JBC to hold executive sessions when taking up
sensitive matters. The ponente and Associate Justice Velasco, Jr. incumbent Justices of the Supreme
Court and then JBC consultants, as well as other JBC consultants, were excluded from such executive
sessions. Consequently, the ponente and Associate Justice Velasco, Jr. were unable to participate in
and were kept in the dark on JBC proceedings/decisions, particularly, on matters involving the
nomination of candidates for vacancies in the appellate courts and the Supreme Court. The matter of
the nomination to the Supreme Court of now Supreme Court Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza
(Jardeleza), which became the subject matter of Jardeleza v. Sereno, was taken up by the JBC in such
an executive session. This ponente also does not know when and why the JBC deleted from JBC No.
2016-1, “The Revised Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council,” what was Rule 8, Section 1 of JBC-
009, the former JBC Rules, which gave due weight and regard to the recommendees of the Supreme
Court for vacancies in the Court. The amendment of the JBC Rules could have been decided upon by
the JBC when the ponente and Associate Justice Velasco, Jr. were already relieved by Chief Justice
Sereno of their duties as consultants of the JBC. The JBC could have similarly taken up and decided
upon the clustering of nominees for the six vacant posts of Sandiganbayan Associate Justice

_______________

3  741 Phil. 460; 733 SCRA 279 (2014).

 
 

348

348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Aguinaldo vs. Aquino III

during one of its executive sessions prior to October 26, 2015.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174b680bde19c34c5a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/4
9/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 835
Hence, even though the ponente and the other JBC consultants were admittedly present during the
meeting on October 26, 2015, the clustering of the nominees for the six simultaneous vacancies for
Sandiganbayan Associate Justice was already fait accompli. Questions as to why and how the JBC
came to agree on the clustering of nominees were no longer on the table for discussion during the said
meeting. As the minutes of the meeting on October 26, 2015 bear out, the JBC proceedings focused
on the voting of nominees. It is stressed that the crucial issue in the present case pertains to the
clustering of nominees and not the nomination and qualifications of any of the nominees. This
ponente only had the opportunity to express her opinion on the issue of the clustering of nominees for
simultaneous and closely successive vacancies in collegiate courts in her ponencia in the instant case.
As a Member of the Supreme Court, the ponente is duty-bound to render an opinion on a matter that
has grave constitutional implications.4

 
Since all the basic issues raised in the case at bar had been thoroughly passed upon by
the Court in its Decision dated November 29, 2016 and Resolution dated February 21,
2017, the Court need not belabor them any further.
Considering the foregoing, the Court resolves to DENY for lack of merit the Motion for
Reconsideration of the Resolution dated 21 February 2017 and Supplement to Motion for
Reconsideration of the Resolution dated 21 February 2017 of the Judicial and Bar Council.
No further pleadings will be entertained.
Let entry of judgment be made in due course.

_______________

4  Rollo, pp. 343-344.

 
 

349

VOL. 835, AUGUST 8, 2017 349

Aguinaldo vs. Aquino III

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Mendoza, Perlas-Bernabe,

Jardeleza, Martires and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.
Sereno, CJ., and Tijam, J., No part.
Leonen, J., See Separate Opinion in the main decision.
Caguioa, J., See Separate Opinion in the main case.

Motions denied.

Notes.—Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court provides for when a judge is
mandatorily disqualified and when a judge may voluntarily inhibit from a case. (Castro vs.
Mangrobang, 789 SCRA 67 [2016])
The rule on inhibition of judges contemplates a scenario in which judges are tasked to
review their own decisions on appeal, not when their decisions are being appealed to
another tribunal. (Paramount Life & General Insurance Corporation vs. Castro, 790 SCRA
363 [2016])
 
——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174b680bde19c34c5a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/4