JARDELEZA  V.  SERENO  

G.R.  No.  213181  |  Mendoza,  J.  |  19  August  2014  
Supreme  Court:  Jurisdiction  
 
 
RELEVANT  FACTS  
 
•   March   2014:   Before   Associate   Justice   Roberto   Abad’s   retirement,   the   JBC,   in   accordance   to   its   rules,  
announced  the  opening  for  application  or  recommendation  for  the  said  vacated  position.  Subsequently,  the  
JBC   received   a   letter   from   Dean  Danilo  Concepcion  of  the  University  of  the  Philippines  nominating  petitioner  
Francis  H.  Jardeleza,  incumbent  Solicitor  General  of  the  Republic,  for  the  said  position.  Upon  acceptance  of  the  
nomination,  Jardeleza  was  included  in  the  names  of  candidates,  as  well  as  in  the  schedule  of  public  interviews.    
 
•   June   16-­‐17,   2014:   Jardeleza   received   telephone   calls   from   former   Court   of   Appeals   Associate   Justice   and  
incumbent  JBC  member,  Aurora  Santiago  Lagman,  who  informed  him  that  during  the  meetings,  Chief  Justice  
and  JBC  ex-­‐officio  Chairperson,  Maria  Lourdes  P.A.  Sereno,  manifested  that  she  would  be  invoking  Section  2,  
Rule  10  of  JBC-­‐009  against  him.  Consequently,  Jardeleza  filed  a  letter-­‐petition.    
 
•   June  30,  2014:  Incumbent  Associate  Justice  Antonio  T.  Carpio  appeared  at  the  meeting  of  the  JBC  as  a  resource  
person  to  shed  light  on  a  classified  legal  memorandum  that  would  clarify  the  objection  to  Jardeleza’s  integrity  
as  posed  by  Chief  Justice  Sereno.   According  to  the  JBC,  Chief  Justice  Sereno  questioned  Jardeleza’s  ability  to  
discharge   the   duties   of   his   office   as   shown   in   a   confidential   legal   memorandum   over   his   handling   of   an  
international  arbitration  case  for  the  government.  
 
After   the   briefing,   Jardeleza   was   summoned   by   the   JBC   at   around   2:00o’clock   in   the   afternoon.   Jardeleza  
alleged  that  he  was  asked  by  Chief  Justice  Sereno  if  he  wanted  to  defend  himself  against  the  integrity  issues  
raised   against   him.   He   answered   that   he   would   defend   himself   provided   that   due   process   would   be   observed  
and  specifically  demanded  that  Chief  Justice  Sereno  execute  a  sworn  statement  specifying  her  objections  and  
that  he  be  afforded  the  right  to  cross-­‐examine  her  in  a  public  hearing.    
 
Later   in   the   afternoon   of   the   same   day,   and   apparently   denying   Jardeleza’s   request   for   deferment   of   the  
proceedings,  the  JBC  continued  its  deliberations  and  proceeded  to  vote  for  the  nominees  to  be  included  in  the  
shortlist.  Thereafter,  the  JBC  released  the  subject  shortlist  of  four  (4)  nominees  which  did  not  include  Jardeleza.    
 
•   Jardeleza  filed  the  present  petition  for  certiorari  and  mandamus  under  Rule  65  of  the  Rules  of  Court   with  prayer  
for  the  issuance  of  a  Temporary  Restraining  Order  (TRO),  seeking  to  compel  the  JBC  to  include  him  in  the  list  of  
nominees  for  Supreme  Court  Associate  Justice.  
 
JARDELEZA’S  POSITION:    
 
1.   Chief  Justice  Sereno  and  the  JBC  violated  Jardeleza’s  right  to  due  process  in  the  events  leading  up  to  and  during  
the  vote  on  the  shortlist  last  June  30,  2014.    
Ø   Chief  Justice  Sereno  did  not  inform  him  of  the  nature  and  cause  of  the  accusations  against  him  and  
subsequently,  did  not  give  him  the  opportunity  to  be  heard.    
Ø   JBC   simply   ordered   to   make   himself   available   on   the   June   30,   2014   meeting   and   was   told   that   the  
objections  to  his  integrity  would  be  made  known  to  him  on  the  same  day.    
 
2.   The  JBC  committed  grave  abuse  of  discretion  in  excluding  Jardeleza  from  the  shortlist  of  nominees,  in  violation  
of  its  own  rules.    
Ø   The  "unanimity  requirement"  provided  under  Section  2,  Rule10  of  JBC-­‐009  does  not  find  application  
when  a  member  of  the  JBC  raises  an  objection  to  an  applicant’s  integrity.  
  

 
3.   Having  secured  the  sufficient  number  of  votes,  it  was  ministerial  on  the  part  of  the  JBC  to  include  Jardeleza  in  
the  subject  shortlist  pursuant  to  Section  1,  Rule  10  of  JBC-­‐009.  
   
4.   The  unlawful  exclusion  of  the  petitioner  from  the  subject  shortlist  impairs  the  President’s  constitutional  power  
to  appoint.  

COMMENT  OF  THE  JBC:    

 
1.   Certiorari  is  only  available  against  a  tribunal,  a  board  or  an  officer  exercising  judicial  or  quasi-­‐judicial  functions.  
 
2.   The  remedy  of  mandamus  is  incorrect.  Mandamus  does  not  lie  to  compel  a  discretionary  act.  For  it  to  prosper,  
a   petition   for   mandamus   must,   among   other   things,   show   that   the   petitioner   has   a   clear   legal   right   to   the   act  
demanded.  
 
3.   The  JBC  mainly  denied  that  Jardeleza  was  deprived  of  due  process.  
Ø   Justice  Lagman  and  Secretary  De  Lima  informed  him  about  the  content  of  the  impending  objection  
against  his  application.  
Ø   His  request  for  a  sworn  statement  and  opportunity  to  cross-­‐examine  is  not  supported  by  a  demandable  
right.  The  JBC  is  not  a  fact-­‐finding  body.  
 
4.   As  a  general  rule,  an  applicant  is  included  in  the  shortlist  when  he  or  she  obtains  an  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  
applicant’s  integrity  is  challenged,  a  unanimous  vote  is  required.  Thus,  when  Chief  Justice  Sereno  invoked  the  
said  provision,  Jardeleza  needed  the  affirmative  vote  of  all  the  JBC  members  to  be  included  in  the  shortlist.  In  
the  process,  Chief  Justice  Sereno’s  vote  against  Jardeleza  was  not  counted.  
 
5.   Jardeleza  sued  the  respondents  in  his  capacity  as  Solicitor  General.  In  effect,  he  sued  the  respondents  to  pursue  
a  purely  private  interest  while  retaining  the  office  of  the  Solicitor  General  which  is  in  clear  violation  of  the  Code  
of  Professional  Responsibility  and  Code  of  Professional  Ethics.    

 
ISSUE  
 
WHETHER  OR  NOT  THE  COURT  CAN  ASSUME  JURISDICTION  AND  GIVE  DUE  COURSE  TO  THE  SUBJECT  PETITION  FOR  
CERTIORARI  AND  MANDAMUS  –  YES  
 
 
RATIO  DECIDENDI  
 
Yes,  the  Court  has  constitutional  bases  to  assume  jurisdiction  over  the  case.    
 
I.   THE  COURT’S  POWER  OF  SUPERVISION  OVER  THE  JBC  
 
Section  8,  Article  VIII  of  the  1987  Constitution  provides  for  the  creation  of  the  JBC.  The  Court  was  given  supervisory  
authority   over   it.   Based   on   this,   the   supervisory   authority   of   the   Court   over   the   JBC   covers   the   overseeing   of  
compliance   with   its   rules.   In   this   case,   Jardeleza’s   principal   allegations   in   his   petition   merit   the   exercise   of   this  
supervisory  authority.  
 
 
  

II.   AVAILABILITY  OF  THE  REMEDY  OF  MANDAMUS  

 
The  Court  agrees  with  the  JBC  that  a  writ  of  mandamus  is  not  available.  Mandamus  lies  to  compel  the  performance,  
when  refused,  of  a  ministerial  duty,  but  not  to  compel  the  performance  of  a  discretionary  duty.  Mandamus  will  not  
issue  to  control  or  review  the  exercise  of  discretion  of  a  public  officer  where  the  law  imposes  upon  said  public  
officer  the  right  and  duty  to  exercise  his  judgment  in  reference  to  any  matter  in  which  he  is  required  to  act.  It  is  his  
judgment  that  is  to  be  exercised  and  not  that  of  the  court.  There  is  no  question  that  the  JBC’s  duty  to  nominate  is  
discretionary  and  it  may  not  be  compelled  to  do  something.  
 
III.   AVAILABILITY  OF  THE  REMEDY  OF  CERTIORARI    
 
Under   Section   1   of   Rule   65,   a   writ   of   certiorari   is   directed   against   a   tribunal   exercising   judicial   or   quasi-­‐judicial  
function.    It  asserts  that  in  the  performance  of  its  function  of  recommending  appointees  for  the  judiciary,  the  JBC  
does  not  exercise  judicial  or  quasi-­‐judicial  functions.  Hence,  the  resort  to  such  remedy  to  question  its  actions  is  
improper.    
 
However,  in  this  case  Jardeleza  argues  that  although  he  earned  a  qualifying  number  of  votes  in  the  JBC,  it  was  
negated  by  the  invocation  of  the  "unanimity  rule"  on  integrity  in  violation  of  his  right  to  due  process  guaranteed  
not  only  by  the  Constitution  but  by  the  Council’s  own  rules.  For  said  reason,  the  Court  is  of  the  position  that  it  can  
exercise  the  expanded  judicial  power  of  review  pursuant  to  Section  1,  Article  VIII  of  the  1987  Constitution:    
 
Judicial  power  includes  the  duty  of  the  courts  of  justice  to  settle  actual  controversies  involving  rights  which  are  legally  demandable  and  
enforceable,  and  to  determine  whether  or  not  there  has  been  a  grave  abuse  of  discretion  amounting  to  lack  or  excess  of  jurisdiction  on  
the  part  of  any  branch  or  instrumentality  of  the  Government.  
 
It  has  been  judicially  settled  that   a  petition  for  certiorari  is  a  proper  remedy  to  question  the  act  of  any  branch  or  
instrumentality   of   the   government   on   the   ground   of   grave   abuse   of   discretion   amounting   to   lack   or   excess   of  
jurisdiction  by  any  branch  or  instrumentality  of  the  government,  even  if  the  latter  does  not  exercise  judicial,  quasi-­‐
judicial  or  ministerial  functions.  In  a  case  like  this,  where  constitutional  bearings  are  too  blatant  to  ignore,  the  Court  
does  not  find  passivity  as  an  alternative.  
 
 
RULING  

WHEREFORE,   the   petition   is   GRANTED.   Accordingly,   it   is   hereby   declared   that   Solicitor   General   Francis   I-­‐I.   Jardeleza   is  
deemed  INCLUDED  in  the  shortlist  submitted  to  the  President  for  consideration  as  an  Associate  Justice  of  the  Supreme  
Court  Vice  Associate  Justice  Roberto  A.  Abad.  

The  Court  further  DIRECTS  that  the  Judicial  and  Bar  Council  REVIEW,  and  ADOPT,  rules  relevant  to  the  observance  of  
due  process  in  its  proceedings,  particularly  JBC-­‐009  and  JBC-­‐010,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Court.  

This  Decision  is  immediately  EXECUTORY.  Immediately  notify  the  Office  of  the  President  of  this  Decision.  

SO  ORDERED.