PHILIP AGUINALDO v BENIGNO AQUINO 5) 20th

GR 224302 a. Miranda
Petition for quo warranto and certio and prohi w appli for inssuance of injunctive writs filed by b. Atal-pano
pet c. Bunyi-medina
d. Cortez
FACTS e. Fiel-macaraig
6/11/78- marcos issued 1468 (creating sandiganbayan- composed of pres judge and 8 AJ f. Quimpo-sale
apptd by pres wc shall have juris over criminal and civil cases in graft and corruption and other g. Jacinto
offenses by PO/ees and in those GOCC) 6) 21th
12/10/78- marcos issued PD 1606 wc elevated rank of mems of sandiganbayan fr judges to a. Jorge-wagan
justices, co-equal in rank justices of CA prov that SB shall sit in 3 divisions of 3 justices each. b. Econg
RA 7975- was approved into law and it increased composition of SB from 9 to 15 justices who c. Romero-maglaya
would sit in 5 divisions of 3 mems each. d. Zuraek
4/16/15- RA 10660 enacted, created 2/m divisons of SB w 3 justices each, thereby resulting in e. Alameda
6 vacant positions. f. Fernandez-bernando
g. Musngi
7/20/15- JBC announced calling for applications/ recommendations for 6 newly created pos of
AJ of SB. 1/20/15- Pres Aquino issued apptment papers for 6 new SB AJ
Here are the lists: 1. Resp Musngi
1) For the 16th SB AJ 2. Justice Reynaldo Cruz
Pursuant to A8,S9-JBC has the honor to submit ff nominations for vacancy (5 votes 3. Resp Econg
each) 4. Justice Mendoza-Arcega
a. Aguinaldo, Philip 5. J. Miranda
b. Alhambra 6. J. Trespeses
c. Cruz 1/15/16- apptment papers were transmitted to 6 new SB AJ who took their oaths
d. Puzon
e. Sandoval PETS ARGUMENTS (Aguinaldo, cruz, pozon and timbang- nominees in shortlist for 16th SB AJ)
f. Timbang asserted they possess legal stdg/ locus standi to file petition since they suffered a direct inj fr
2) For the 17th Aquinos failure to appoint any of them as 16th
a. Corpus-Manalac
b. Mendoza-arcega PET IBP avers- it comes < this court thru taxpayers suit, wc taxpayers may assail illegal official
c. Quimbo action where there is a claim that pub funds illegal disbursed, deflected to an improper use/
d. Dizon wasted thru enforcement of invalid/ uncosnti law.
e. Soriano -maintains that it has locus standi- cos petition involves issue of transcendental
3) 18th importance to people as a whole, an assertion of pub right and SM of pub int
a. Baguio -and as assoc of all lawyers in ph, w purp of safeguarding admin of justice, it has
b. Deguzman-alvarez direct int in validity of apptments of mems of judiciary
c. Fernandez
d. Panganiban PETS BASED THEIR PETITION ON FF ARGUMENTS
e. Sagun 1. Aquino violated S9,A8: that he did x appoint anyone fr
f. Trespeses shortlist submitted by JBC for vacancy for pos of 16th AJ of
4) 19th SB
a. Guanzon 2. He apptd undersec Musngi and Judge Econg as AJ for 21th
b. Macaraig-guillen pos of AJ SB
c. Cruz 3. Appointments made were x in accord w shortlists
d. Pauig submitted by JBC for each vacancy, thus affecting order of
e. Ramos seniority of AJ
f. Roxas
Accdg to pets- JBC was created to reduce policization of apptmnts to judi
A8,S9- mems of SC and judges of lower court shall be apptd by pres fr list of <3 nominees
prepared by JBC for every vacancy. Such apptments need no confirmation.
-for LC, pres shall issue apptments within 90days fr submission of the list
(JBC fxn- search, screen and select nominees recommended for apptment to judi. Shall
prepare list w <3 qualified nominees submitted to pres who in turn shall appoint)
In the case, JBC submitted 6 sepa lists w 5-7 nominees each for 6 vacancies 16-21th AJ.
PETS CONTEND: only nominees for pos of 16th SB AJ may be appointed as 16th SB AJ same goes
to 17-21th
Howev, 1/20/16- Aquino issued apptmt papers for 6 new SB AJ
VACANCY IN P APPTD SHORTLISTED
SB FOR
16th Musngi 21
17th Cruz 19
18th Econg 21
19th Mendoza-Arcega 17
20th Miranda 20
21th Trespeses 18
PETS INSIST that Aquino could only choose 1 nominee fr each of 6 sepa shortlists and no other
and apptment made in deviation of this procedure- in vio of cosnti
Musngi and Econg- who belonged to same shortlistas 21st be NV in vio of A8S9
ARGUMENTS OF RESPS
OSG, behalf of pres, seeks to dismiss petition on procedural and substantive grounds
On matters of procedure:
1. Aquino should be dropped as resp in case on ground of his immunity fr suit
2. Pets Aguinaldo et al x institute action for quo warranto bec usurpation of pub
office, pos/ franchise is a pub wrong and not a private inj. Hence, only state can file
such action thru SG/ pub prosec.
-as an excptn: individual may commence quo warranto if he/she claims
entitlement to pub office/ pos. BUT, he must prove he suffered direct
injury as result of usurpation of pub office/ pos and that he has clear
right and not merely preferential right to the contested office/pos.
Pets here failed to show they are entitled to pos, had only
given them possibility and not certainty of apptment of SB
Pets only had an expectant right bec their appmtnt to SB
still be dependent upon Pres discretionary power
3. Pet IBP can only institute certio and prohi case but x quo warranto against resps
Musngi and Econg bec it x comply w direct inj req for latter
*Pet IBP justifies its locus standi to file for certio and prohi invoking exer by this
court of its expanded power of jud rev and seeking to oust resps M&E as SB AJ
based on unconsti of their apptmnts and not on claim of usurptn of pub office
(based on topacio v ong- petition for certio/ prohiis a collateral attack on POs title wc x be
permitted; title to pub office can be contested only directly in quo warranto)
(JBC, and x pet IBP has legal stdg to file suit cos dispute here is bet JBC and OP)
(QUES: WON JBC CAN CORRAL THE DISCRETN OF PRES TO APPOINT, A CORE CONSTITUTL
PREROGATIVE BY DESIGNATING QUALIFIED NOMINEES W/IN SPECIFIC, ARTIFICIAL NUMERICAL
CATEGORIES AND FORCING PRES TO APPT IN ACCORD W THOSE ARTIFICIAL NUMERICAL
CATEG)court is barred fr deciding ques cos JBC is not a party therein
4. Pets erroneously included Jorge- Wagan, Maglaya, Zuraek, Alameda and
Fernandez-Bernardo as unwilling co-pets in petion. Jorge-wagan- do not claim
entitlemtn to pos occupied by M&E (non apptd nominees for pos 16 anf 21 x
simultaneously claim right to assume 2 vacancies in court)
5. Pets disregarded hierarchy of courts by directly filing instant petition for quo
warrant and certio and prohi < this court (where court is vested w orig juris, it
remains a last resort not of CFI)
OSG SUBMITS CORE ARGUMENT OF PETS STEMS FR ERRONEOUS PREMISE THAT THERE ARE
EXISTING NUMERICAL POS IN SB. 1st being Presiding Justice, 2nd onwards being AJ.
OSG ASSERTS THAT SB IS COMPOSED OF PRESIDING J AND 20 AJ WO NUMERICAL
DESIGNATIONS (nos are used to refer to seniority/ order of precedence of AJ)
-CONTENDS THAT ORDER OF PRECEDENCE OF AJ IS REPOSED IN PRES (as part of
constitutional power to appoint)
PD1606- order of precedence of AJ be accdg to order of their
apptments- dates of respective commissions/ if 2/m comms bear same
date, accdg to order in wc their commsns had been issued by pres
-constitutional power of JBC to reco nominees for aptmnt to judix include power
to deter their seniority
(Aquino correctly disregarded order of precedence in shortlist given by JBC)
OSG interprets A8S9 diff.- provi neither requires nor allows JBC to cluster nominees for every
vacancy in judi; only mandates that every vacancy JBC shall present <3 nominees for each
vacant pos.
In the case, 37 nominees for 6 vacancies (pres complied when he apptd 6 SB AJ)
(By dividing nominees into grps-JBC creates substantive qualif wc impairs pres prerogatives in
appting mems of judi)
*NOMINATION X = TO APPTNMENT
*even assuming certio is proper- Econg contends that pets had only 60 days to file petn fr
1/20/16 (date she and Musngi were apptd), pets filed their petn < court on 5/17/16
ANS: 1/5/16- apptmnt papers were transmitted to and received by 6
newly apptd- appt process came complete and effective this date
WHIHCH IS START OF 60 DAY REGLEMENTARY PD, it expired on 3/25/16
(GEN)
EXCPTN: of 60day pd for filing petn for certio:
 1. Most persuasive and weighty reas
2. To relieve litig fr injustice x commensurate w his failure
to comply w presc procedure
3. GF of defaulting p by immediately paying w/in rea time
fr time of default
4. Existence of spl/ compelling circs
5. Merits of case
6. Cause x entirely attributable to fault/ negli of p favored
by suspension of rules
7. Lack of any showing that review sought is merely
frivolous and dilatory
8. Other p will x be unjustly preju thereby
9. Fraud, accident, mistake/ inexcu negli wo appellants
fault
10. Peculiar legal and equitable circs attendant to each
case
11. In the name of substl justice and fair play
12. Importance of issues involved
13. Exer oc sound discretion by judge guided by all
attendant circs
*there must rea explanation for his failure to comply w rules tho
In case, it justifies relaxation of 60day pd count from day pets obtained
copies of all 6 shrtlist
ISSUE: 1. WON AQUINO VIO A8S9 AND GAD POWER TO APPOINT MEM OF JUDI WHEN HE
DISREGARDED CLUSTERING BY JBC OF NOMINEES FOR EACH SPECIFIC VACANT POS OF SB AJ-
N Since petn at bar involves ques of constitutionality- court must deter locus standi of pets
2. WON AQUINO WAS LTD TO APPOINT ONLY FR NOMINEES IN SHORTLIST BY JBC
FOR EACH SPECIFIC VACANCY- N
HELD
1. Controversy arose in this case bec of RA 10660, creating 2 new divs of SB w 3
mems each, there were 6 simultaneous vacancies for AJ of said collegiate court and
that HBC submitted 6sepa shortlists for vacancies for 16-21th SB AJ
2. -Power of JBC x be used to restrict/ limit pres power to appoint as its his prero
who to choose
-PRES APPOINTS SOMEONE NOMINATED BY JB-VALID
-JBC x by clustering nominees designate a numerical order of seniority of
prospective appointees
-SB, a collegiate court, is composed of presiding justice and 20 AJ divided into 7
divisions w 3 mems each
-Numerical order of seniority/ order of preference of 20 Aj is deter pursuant to law
by date and order of their apptment/ commsn by pres(s1 PD 1606)--- deter til by
actual apptment by pres
-clustering by JBC done arbitrarily there being no clear basis, stds/ guidelines for
the same. No of nominees was not even equally distributed among the clusters
*37 total nominees: all appts are valid
RULING
Court takes cognizance of present petition despite several procedural infirmities given the
transcendental importance of constitutl issue raised
Petn at bar is for QW (R66) and certio and prohi (R65)
QW- proper remedy to deter the right/ title to contested pub office/ to oust the holder fr its
enjoyment. Its brought against p who is alleged to have usurped, intruded into/ unlawfully
held/ exer the pub office and may be commenced by SG/ pub prosec as case may be or by any
p claiming to be entitled to pub office/ pos usurped/ unlawfully held/ exer by another
-Pets as nominees for 16th did not have clear right to said pos thus not proper parties to QW.
Being included in list had given them only possibility but not certainty of being apptd to pos,
given the discretionary power of pres in making judicial apptmns.
-IBP- x initiate QW to oust ME x qualified under R66 S5 as indiv claiming to be entitled to the
pos in ques
CERTIO AND PROHI- wc alleges that pres vio S9A8 and commited GAD amtg to lack/ excess of
juris in his apptment of resps ME as SB AJ
-petn for C&P- proper remedy to ques act of branch/ instru of govt on ground of GAD even if
latter x exer judi/ quasi-judi/ ministerial fnxs
*A8,S1 vests upon court expanded power of jud rev- settle actual contro involving rights wc
are legally demandable and enforceable and to deter WON GAD on part of govt
Certio- valid. Court finds it proper to drop Aquino as resp taking into acct that when this petn
was filed on 5/12/16 he was still pres who enjoyed immunity fr suit
GEN must have int wc mist be personal and x one based on desire to vindicate
constitl right of some T and unrelated party
EXCPTN: he has to make out a suff int in vindication of pub order and securing of
relief as cit (inst of pub concern)/ taxpayer (affected by expenditure of pub funds)
*being a mere procedural technicality, req of locus standi may be waived by court in exer of its
discre
*Even if pets failed to show direct inj- they have allowed to sue under principle of
transcendental importance
TP,voters, cits, legislators be accorded standing to sue prov req:
a. Cases involve constitutional issues
b. TP- be claim of illegal disbur of pub funds/ tax mea is unconsti
c. Voters- showing of obvious int in validity of election law in ques
d. Concerned cits- showing that issues raised are of transc imp wc be settled early
e. Legislators- claim that official action complained of infringes upon their
prerogatives as legislators
WHILE NEITHER PETS NOR IBP HAVE LEGAL STDG TO FILE QW, THEY HAVE LEGAL STDG TO
INSTITUTE A PETN FOR CERTIO
Clustering of nominees by JBC wc pres did x follow couldve caused all nominees direct inj thus
vesting them personal and substantial int
One of IBPs purp- improve admin of justice how can thet discharge their fxns if they entertain
doubts or lost their faith in judges/ justices thus in trascen impt and of pub int courts hsall
accord them legal stdg

HEIRARCHY OF COURTS
GEN Lower courts before SC
EXCPTN: when direct resort to SC is allowed
1. There are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at most
immediate time
2. Issues are of transc imp
3. Cases of 1st impression
4. When constitl issues raised are best decided by this court
5. When time element presented in case x be ignored
6. When petition reviews the act of constitutional organ
7. When there is no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy in ordinary course of law
8. When pub welfare and advancement of pub policy so dictates/ when demanded by
broader int of justice
9. When order complained of are patent nullities
10. When appeal is considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy

PETITION AT BAR INVOLVES CONSTITL QUES OF TRASNC IMP AND OF 1ST IMPRESSION and
demanded by broader int of justice and court resolves to exer primary juris over the same

COURT DENIES MOTION FOR INTERVENTION OF JBC IN THIS PETITON

**intervening in a case is x a matter of right but og sound discre of court

Intervention of JBC will just delay in reso of the case
JBC failed to attach its complain-in-intervntn to its motion for intervntn but also failed to
provide explanation for such failure (more than 6mos delayed)
Silence of 11 mos deemed acquiescence to press appt of resp ME
A8S8- JBC fxn- recommend appointees to judi and be under supervision of court that it may
exer such other fxns and duties as SC may assign to it
Supervision- power of mere oversight over an inferior body; x include any restraining autho
over such body

DISMISSED PETITION FOR QW AND CERTIO AND PROHI FOR LACK OF MERIT
CLUSTERING OF NOMINEES- UNCOSNTI
APPTMENTS- VALID
MOTION FOR INTERVENTION OF JBC-DENIED

COURT ORDERS CLERK OF COURT EN BANC TO DOCKET AS SEPARATE ADMINISTRATIVE

MATTER NEW RULES AND PRACTICES OF JBC WC TOOK COGNI OF PRECEDING DISCUSSION AS:
1ITEM: DELETIONN IN JBC NO 2016-1
2ITEM: REMOVAL OF INCUMBENT SENIOR AJ OF SC AS CONSULTANTS OF JBC