Macalinao, Romielyn P.

Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Topic: The Judicial and Bar Council
Title: JARDELEZA vs SERENO
Reference: G.R. No. 213181

August 19, 2014

FACTS

Following

Justice

Abads

compulsory

retirement,

the

JBC

announced the application or recommendations for the position left by

the Associate Justice. Jardeleza, the incumbent Sol-Gen at the time,
was included in the list of candidates.

However, he was informed

through telephone call from some Justices that the Chief Justice
herself CJ Sereno, will be invoking Sec 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 or the
so-called unanimity rule against him. Generally, the rule is that an
applicant is included in the shortlist when s/he obtains affirmative vote
of at least a majority of all the members of the JBC. When Section 2,
Rule 10 of JBC-009, however, is invoked because an applicants
integrity is challenged, a unanimous vote is required.

Jardeleza was

then directed to make himself available on June 30, 2014 before the
JBC during which he would be informed of the objections to his
integrity.
Jardeleza wrote a letter-petition asking the SC to exercise its
supervisory power and direct the JBC to, among others, give Jardeleza
a written notice and sworn written statements of his oppositors or any
documents in the JBC hearings, and to disallow CJ Sereno from
participating in the voting process for nominees on June 30, 2014.
During the June 30, 2014 meeting of the JBC, Justice Carpio
appeared and disclosed a confidential information which, to CJ Sereno,
characterized Jardelezas integrity as dubious.

Jardeleza demanded

that CJ Sereno execute a sworn statement specifying her objections

and that he be afforded the right to cross-examine her in a public
hearing. He also requested deferment of the JBC proceedings, as the
SC en banc has yet to decide in his letter-petition.
However, the JBC continued its deliberations and proceeded to
vote for the nominees to be included in the shortlist. Thereafter, the
JBC released the shortlist of 4 nominees.

It was revealed later that

there were actually 5 nominees who made it to the JBC shortlist, but 1
nominee could not be included because of the invocation of the
unanimity rule..
Jardeleza filed for certiorari and mandamus via Rule 65 with
prayer for TRO to compel the JBC to include him in the list of nominees
on the grounds that the JBC and CJ Sereno acted with grave abuse of
discretion in excluding him, despite having garnered a sufficient
number of votes to qualify for the position.
ISSUES
Whether or not the right to due process is demandable as a
matter of right in JBC proceedings?
RULINGS
Yes. While it is true that the JBC proceedings are sui generis, it
does not mean that an applicants access to the rights afforded under
the due process clause is discretionary on the part of JBC.
The Court does not brush aside the unique and special nature
of JBC proceedings.

Notwithstanding being a class of its own, the

right to be heard and to explain ones self is availing. In cases where

an objection to an applicants qualifications is raised, the observance of
due process neither contradicts the fulfillment of the JBCs duty to
recommend. This holding is not an encroachment on its discretion in
the nomination process. Actually, its adherence to the precepts of due
process supports and enriches the exercise of its discretion. When an
applicant, who vehemently denies the truth of the objections, is
afforded the chance to protest, the JBC is presented with a clearer
understanding of the situation it faces, thereby guarding the body from
making an unsound and capricious assessment of information brought
before it. The JBC is not expected to strictly apply the rules of
evidence in its assessment of an objection against an applicant. Just
the same, to hear the side of the person challenged complies with the
dictates of fairness because the only test that an exercise of discretion
must surmount is that of soundness.
Consequently, the Court is compelled to rule that Jardeleza
should have been included in the shortlist submitted to the President

for the vacated position of Associate Justice Abad. This consequence

arose not from the unconstitutionality of Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009
per se, but from the violation by the JBC of its own rules of procedure
and the basic tenets of due process. By no means does the Court
intend to strike down the unanimity rule as it reflects the JBCs policy
and, therefore, wisdom in its selection of nominees. Even so, the Court
refuses

to

turn

blind

eye

on

the

palpable

defects

in

its

implementation and the ensuing treatment that Jardeleza received

before the Council. True, Jardeleza has no vested right to a
nomination, but this does not prescind from the fact that the JBC failed
to observe the minimum requirements of due process.