This is a three-part series by VERA Files which we hope you will find useful as we monitor the selection of the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
JBC partly to blame for problems in judiciary
(First of three parts)
The Judicial and Bar Council is now the focus of national attention as it begins the process of recommending a replacement for ousted Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona. The process, if done right, is expected to help restore public confidence in the High Tribunal.
Yet many in the legal profession and in the judiciary, as well as in civil society, say the JBC needs reforming, because it is partly responsible for the problems in the judiciary, exemplified by the rise and fall of Corona, a “midnight appointee” who was eventually impeached and convicted for violating the Constitution and betraying public trust.
The 1987 Constitution vested in the JBC the responsibility of nominating qualified candidates to the judiciary, including the Chief Justice, to the appointing power, the President. It was supposed to remove politics from the appointments processes of the past. From 1972 to 1986, judicial appointments rested solely in the hands of then President Ferdinand Marcos. In the pre-martial law era, appointments to the judiciary made by the President passed through the Commission on Appointments, a bicameral body composed of members of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Please click here (http://verafiles.org/jbc-partly-to-blame-for-problems-in-judiciary/) for the rest of the article.
Despite JBC, few limits to president’s power of judicial appointment
(Second of three parts)
The Judicial and Bar Council represents the first and crucial step in the judicial appointments process. Ultimately, however, the person responsible for appointments of all the country’s judges and justices is the President.
For every vacancy the JBC must submit to the President a shortlist of at least three names, after it has investigated and evaluated applicants. The Constitution limits the President to the list officially transmitted to him or her.
But sending back the list if there is no name in it he or she wishes to appoint is one of the many prerogatives of the Chief Executive. The framers of the 1987 Constitution acknowledged this possibility even back then, with some expressing apprehension over the potential abuse of this power.
Please click here http://verafiles.org/few-limits-to-presidents-power-of-judicial-appointment/ for the rest of the article.
For better judiciary, reforms in appointment process needed
(Conclusion)
Two decades after its creation by the Constitution, the Judicial and Bar Council remains an institution critics say is riddled with “systemic deficiencies” and even defects, and is badly in need of reforms.
While some of the reforms being proposed by lawyers, judges and civil society would require amendments to the 1987 Constitution, others can be implemented with simple policy issuances, especially by the President.
Some of proposed reforms involve altering the composition of the JBC, while others have to do with improving its processes. Still others stress the need to rethink the question who could best appoint the country’s justices and judges in a transparent and competent manner and to ensure their independence.
Please click here http://verafiles.org/for-better-judiciary-reforms-in-appointment-process-needed/for the rest of the article
very nice! now ko lang naintindihan ang JBC!
Looks like it’s going to be Kim Henares based on palace pronouncements. But isn’t she going to have problem like Justice Greg Ong’s? I think I’ve read somewhere that her parents are Chinese. I may be wrong though. Maybe Ms. Ellen can investigate?
8 heads are better than 6…
—–
An octogenarian who is already 15 years old in the JBC is now at the helm of the Council. Epitome of the Old Boys Club.
—–
The implementing rule of the Constitutionally-created Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) states:
The JBC is a 7-membered constitutional body left with a great and important task. The implementers probably found the task so great and important that they included two ex officio Members from Congress: somehow an addition.
Will inhibition signify consideration of a great and important task?
Will inhibition demonstrate a high regard for a great and important function?
Will personal interest for a higher calling be greater and more important than constitutional duty?
Inhibition means subtraction. Warts and all, we are stuck with the JBC as the initial determinant of Judicial selection and each Council member should always be ready to face the challenge.
But, must the JBC succumb to a loss in its membership just because of personal ambition of some?
Athough both ACJ Carpio and SOJ de Lima inhibited in the early phase of the process to fulfill the JBC’s principal function, there could still be remedies to offset the possible loss in the JBC composition.
For one, both of them may just forget personal ambition and participate in the coming JBC deliberations.
If not, SOJ de Lima may just resign her post in the DOJ and allow her successor to sit in the Council. She may then be free in fulfilling the recommendation to the CJ post the VACC bestowed upon her.
The pivotal role of the Acting Chief Justice may also come into play. The JBC is under the supervision of the SC. With his authority, ACJ Carpio may just convene the Supreme Court en banc to decide on his possible replacement to the Council. Definitely, the Court’s authority supersedes his own.
Presently, ACJ Carpio has not signified his intention yet in accepting his nomination to the CJ post but the situation calls for a swift action on his part. Let us see how good a Justice he is as some believed him to be the perfect CJ.
He must not wait for June 18 to decide for he must stay in the JBC or find a replacement pronto. After all, it is recognized that his authority now as head of the Judiciary albeit temporary has a vital role in the JBC:
It is understandable that the JBC is under scrutiny and subject of harsh criticism, now that JBC is in the process of screening the candidates for Chief Justice to replace Corona.
There really is no problem with JBC as an institution. JBC simply accepts the application and documentary requirements, schedules the interviews and some tests and by voting of the members, come up with a shortlist of nominees and then submit the list to the Office of the President.
JBC was simply prostituted during the time of Erap and GMA wherein those “endorsed” by politicians earned additional points during voting.
Hindi sa JBC ang problema, nasa appointing power or sa President ang problem lalong lalo na nung panahon ni GMA Kahit na may limang nashort list with ranking pa based on qualifications, ang inaappoint ni GMa ay yung mababa ang ranking pero may “endorsement” ng politicians. sometimes a candidate will go after the mayor, governor and congressman just to get an “endorsement”. Bukod sa written endorsement, mas mabigat ang “bulong endorsement” ng politiko kay GMA dati. Kaya naman, hindi pa nasusubmit ng Malacanang sa Supreme Court ang appointment papers, nagkukumahog na ang mga appointees pumunta sa Malacanan para pirmahan ang appointment papers at baka may politikong bumulong kay GMA at ma snowpake pa ang pangalan.
Sa panahon ni Aquino, hindi na uso ang endorsement. Ibinalik ang matrix system ng search committee at mas nililigwak ang sinomang magsubmit ng “endorsement” ng politicians.
Karamihan ng members ng JBC ay appointees pa rin ni GMA. mas mabuti na rin yung JBC to President ang process kaysa naman idaan ang mga appointed judges sa CA para paglaruan ng mga politicians. Kawawa namang ang mga na appoint na judges kung kasama pa si Brenda sa CA.
Additional info lang, before Marcos took it upon himself to appoint judges, the SEcretary of justice has the appointing power to fill up vacancies in the judiciary subject to confirmation of the CA.
Sa panahon din ni Aquino, may actual background check ang search committee sa mga applicants without the applicants knowing it. An applicant will be subjected to quality control by the NBI before an NBI clearance is issued.
REgarding the nomination of Corona by the JBC, Mr. Macasaet has an article about what possibly happened. the then cheif justice Puno retired several days before his 70th birthday na May 17in order to convene the JBC and choose the nominees. Kung nag retire si Puno ng May 17, dun pa lang uumpisahan ang pag screen ng nominees at aabutan na ng June 30, 2010 ang pag appoint ng new chief justice.
May magsasabi na tama lang na iconvene ni Puno ang JBC bago siya mag retire at Chairman ng JBC ang chief Justice. tama ang observation ni Mr. Macasaet na kahit mag retire si Puno ng May 17, 2010, the most senior SC justice will be the acting chief justice to convene the JBC. I think kahapon o nung tuesday article na yun ni Mr. Macasaet.
I agree fully that the JBC is not an Independent, Impartial Vetting body in selecting the Individuals for recommendation for appointment…the process should have been undertaken by a group of individuals who are professionals and expert in this field and pick the best candidates for the appointing power…and in order not to Politically embarass or compromise the appointing power, the committee on selections shoult take the utmost Due Delligence in the vetting process.
Of course we do have the Judicial Council and it is composed of individuals in a permanent positions and not appointed or selected…they are the Chief Justices of all Supreme Courts, Court of Appeals and Superior Courts and its job is to investigate complaints against the Justices and Judges and if evidence so warrant reccomend the Removal by vote of majority by the Peoples Representatives, the Members of the House of Commons…The Tenure of Justices and Judges is up to Retirement for GOOD BEHAVIOUR…
Vic, ang mga members ng JBC with terms are appointed by the President. Yung iba mga ex officio tulad ng chief justice, si De Lima as DOJ secretary at si Escudero from congress.
Pag dating naman sa mga complaint against judges and CA justices, finafile sa Office of Court Administrator which is under the Supreme Court. Hindi ako in favor na ilalagay sa mga congressmen ang pag disiplina o pag alis ng judges. Judges should be free from partisan politics.
Oblak, the Judicial Council will be the one to decide if there is enough evidence for the removal and that would be after the process as established by law, for Conduct or Behaviour not suited to continue to hold office and the Judicial Council membership is automatic whoever occupied the positions of Chief Justices of Different Courts…And since the Justices are given the Mandate to be administratively Independent, there is no political influence in their decision…but since the Power in a Democracy resides with the People, it is always the People to decide Through their Elected Representatives…but so Far, NONE of our Justices been recommended for Removal since it was Established more than l4 years ago..we will be celebrating our 145th birthday this July 1st…
And although the Power and Authority to appoint the Justices Resides with the Cabinet, (the sitting PM is given the Honour) the vetting process is done by professional committees which has nothing to do with politics and if you look at the Resumee of our CJ she never holds any position other than related to her Training and Profession…Lawyer and Judge. So far this process has not arisen in any issue between the branches of government and has not caused any lost of Confidence in our Judiciary…Our SC is still the Court of Last Resort, the FINAL arbiter which decisions are well respected.
I agree with Oblak.
In any position, it can be used for the good of the nation or the good of one.
I find it odd that people say there must be more, pero there are only a handful that was nominated.
Nasan yung ibang nominees?
The president actually had the firsthand for JBC composition.
http://jbc.judiciary.gov.ph/
The president actually had the firsthand for JBC composition.
http://jbc.judiciary.gov.ph/index.php/about-the-jbc