Jardeleza V. Sereno Case Digest 4j1z5j

ARTICLE 8 SECTION 8 JARDELEZA vs. SERENO

CASE 2 OF 4

c.

IMPORTANT RULING RELATED TO THE PROVISION/DOCTRINE: 1987 Consti deleted Congress’ subsidiary and corrective power in SEC 5(5) ART 8 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

March 6, 2014: opening for application & recommendation for position vacated after compulsory retirement of Assoc Justice Abad a. UP Dean Danila Concepcion nominated Francis H. Jardeleza June 16/17: Jardeleza received phone calls from former CA Assoc Justice (incumbent JBC) Lagman who informed him that CJ Sereno was invoking SEC 2 RULE 10 JBC-009 against him a. Was directed to be available on June 30 where he would be informed of objections of his integrity i. Jardeleza filed letter-petition to Court to exercise constitutional power of supervision over JBC June 30: Carpio (resource person to shed light on classified legal memorandum) clarified objection to Jardeleza’s integrity a. Sereno questioned his ability to discharge the duties of his office over his handling of int’l arbitration case for the govt b. NOTE: Jardeleza not present but was directed to Court’s anterooms where DOJ Sec de Lima informed him that Carpio appeared before JBC and disclosed confidential info which made his integrity dubious Told Sereno he would defend himself only if provided due process a. Demanded Sereno execute a sworn statement specifying her objections and that he be allowed to cross-examine her i. Same directive to Carpio b. Gave written statement re views on situations and requested JBC to defer its meeting considering that Court En Banc would meet the next day to act on his pending letter-petition JBC continued deliberations and voting for nominees for short list (4) a. INQUIRER: Court’s Spokesman Atty Theodore Te revealed there were 5 nominees but 1 could not be included because of invocation of RULE 10 SEC 2 JBC RULES Present petition for certiorari + mandamus + TRO to compel JBC to include him in short list since he garnered sufficient votes (4 out of 6) JARDELEZA POSITIONS: a. Sereno and JBC violated his right to due process in events leading up to and during vote on short list last June 30 i. Sereno did not afforded him opportunity to be heard + acted as prosec/witness/judge in case (grave abuse) ii. JBC simply ordered him to be available for June 30 meeting and that objections be made known that day iii. Didn’t even know identity of his accs (except for verbal info that Carpio testified against him) b. JBC committed grave abuse of discretion in excluding him from short list of nominees, in violation of its own rules i. Claimed UNANIMITY REQUIREMENT doesn’t apply when JBC member raises objection to integrity 1. Lone objector part of body set to vote (unfair)

8.

ISSUES: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Ministerial on JBC to include Jardeleza on short list i. MAJORITY VOTE should apply d. Unlawful exclusion of petitioner from short list impairs Pres’s constitutional power to appoint i. Constrained to choose among 4 instead of 5 JBC COMMENTS: a. Certiorari only available against tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions b. Mandamus cannot compel discretionary act i. Inclusion in short list discretion of JBC c. No denial of due process prior to voting process i. Lagman + de Lima talked to him but he refused to shed light on allegations against him come June 30 ii. Cross-examine not a demandable right in case since JBC not a factfinding body, nor a court/agency iii. Hearing to determine veracity also discretionary d. Applicant included in short list when obtains affirmative vote of all of JBC except when SEC 2 RULE 10 invoked and integrity is challenged (unanimous vote required) i. Sereno’s vote was not counted e. Violated Code of Professional Responsibility and Code of Professional Ethics when sued as SolGen (defender of govt) f. Pres has until Aug 20 to appoint :. Can’t be restrained by TRO W/N Court has jurisdiction YES W/N Issues against Jardeleza befit “Q or challenges on integ” YES W/N right to due process available for JBC proceedings in general YES W/N Jardeleza should be included in short list YES

NOTE: not a Q of constitutionality of JBC Rule but on its APPLICATION RULING: 1. THE COURT HAS POWER OF SUPERVISION OVER JBC a. SEC 8 ART 8 Consti: creation of JBC + supervision by SC b. SUPERVISION: power of oversight or authority to see that subordinate officers perform their duties (oversight powers) i. See to it that rules are followed but themselves do not lay down such rules nor do they have discretion to modify or replace them (may order it done/redone) c. HOWEVER, cannot file for writ of mandamus (just certiorari) i. Mandamus will not issue to control/review discretion of public officer where law imposes upon same the right and duty to exercise his judgment ii. Certiorari is proper remedy to question act of branch or instrumentality of govt on ground of grave abuse

A. Even if the latter does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions

2.

EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIR AND INSIDER-TRADING VALID “Q OF INTEGRITY” BUT NOT HIS HANDLING OF CASE a. There must be a showing that the act complained of is, at least, linked to moral character of the person b. OG INVOCATION: “inability to discharge duties of his office as shown in a legal memorandum related to his manner of representing the govt in a legal dispute” i. Sereno shared with JBC details of Jardeleza’s chosen manner of framing govt’s position in a case and how this could have been detrimental to nat’l interest

i.

d.

A. Sereno disagreed with his legal strategy as expressed by ii.

group of international lawyers Discretion as a lawyer has no connection to treacherous intent to trounce upon country’s interests or betray constitution (no bearing on moral choices)

A. “A lawyer is not an insurer of victory for clients he c.

3.

represents. An infallible grasp of legal principles and techniques by a lawyer is a utopian ideal.” AFFAIR + INSIDER-TRADING: invoked for first time ONLY during June 30 meeting from newspaper reports that Sereno might raise issues of “immorality” against Jardeleza i. Incidents when Jardeleza was still the General Counsel of San Mig Corp ii. However, there are standards of morality/decency which every member of the Judiciary must adhere iii. IMMORALITY: includes conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant, or shameless conduct showing indiff to opinions of respectable community and inconsiderate attitude towards good order/pub welfare

DUE PROCESS RIGHT AVAILABLE AND DEMANDABLE a. The fact that a proceeding is SUI GENERIS and impressed with discretion does not automatically denigrate an applicant’s entitlement to due process i. SUI GENERIS (context: disciplinary proceedings): neither purely civil nor criminal; involve investigations by the Court into conduct of one of its officers, not the trial of an action or a suit. ii. Disciplinary proceedings (as a whole) are aimed to and finally determine, if a lawyer charged is still qualified to benefit from rights and privileges that in legal profession invoke. b. Observance of due process neither negates nor renders illusory the fulfillment of the duty of JBC to recommend i. Not expected to strictly apply rules of evidence in assessment of an objection. But to hear the side of the person challenged complies with dictates of fairness for the only test that an exercise of discretion must surmount is that of soundness c. Subsequent issuance of JBC-010 puts grave import of right of applicant to be informed and, corollary, the right to be heard

4.

JBC-010: “any complaint or opposition against a candidate may be filed with the Secretary within 10 days thereof; the complaint/opposition shall be in writing, under oath, and in 10 legible copies; the Sec of Council shall furnish the candidate a copy of the complaint or opposition against him; the candidate shall have 5 days from receipt thereof within which to file his comment to the complaint/opposition, if he so desires; and the candidate can be made to explain the complaint or opposition against him.” Jardeleza was denied of due process in denial of right to be informed of charges against him and riht to answer the same with vigorous contention and active participation in the proceedings

SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN SHORT LIST FOR VIOLATION BY JBC OF ITS OWN RULES AND PROCEDURE AND THE BASIC TENETS OF DUE PROCESS a. NOTE: ruling is not an endorsement of Jardeleza’s appointment as member of Court since President still remains the ultimate judge of a candidate’s worthiness

NOTE: UNANIMITY RULE VALID by express provision of JBC-009 o SEC 2 RULE 10: “In every case where integrity of an applicant who is not otherwise disqualified for nomination is raised or challenged, the affirmative vote of all of Council must be obtained for favorable consideration of his nomination” THERE IS A NEED TO REVISIT JBC’S INTERNAL RULES o Provision on unanimity rule is vague and unfair and can be misused or abused resulting in the deprivation of an applicant’s right to due process  Invocation of unanimity rule is effectively a veto power over the collective will of majority. Any assertion by a member after voting seems to be unfair since it effectively gives him/her veto power over the collective votes of the other  Integrity as a ground needs to be defined.  It should explicitly provide who can invoke it as a ground against a candidate (outsider or member)  Must still meet minimum req of due process o Altho it is still up to JBC to fine-tune rules considering the peculiar nature of its function.