Powers | Judicial and Bar Council | Appointments to the Judiciary | JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

XI. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

D. Appointments to the Judiciary

2. Judicial and Bar Council (JBC)

b. Powers

The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) is a constitutionally created body under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Its primary function is to assist the President in the appointment of members of the Judiciary. Under Section 8, Article VIII of the Constitution, the JBC is tasked with recommending appointees to the judiciary to ensure transparency, meritocracy, and insulation from political influence. The Council plays a pivotal role in maintaining the integrity and independence of the judicial branch.

Below is a detailed examination of the powers of the JBC:

1. Primary Function: Recommendation of Nominees

The principal function of the JBC is to submit a list of at least three (3) nominees to the President for every vacancy in the judiciary. The positions covered include:

• Justices of the Supreme Court
• Judges of lower courts (Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts)
• Members of the Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, and Sandiganbayan
• Other judicial positions created by law

The JBC ensures that those nominated possess the necessary qualifications as mandated by the Constitution and relevant laws. The President is mandatorily bound to appoint only from the list submitted by the JBC. This power is crucial in ensuring that political considerations do not unduly influence judicial appointments.

2. Screening of Applicants

The JBC has the authority to screen and evaluate applicants for judicial positions. This involves:

• Application and Nomination Process: Individuals aspiring for judicial office may apply or be nominated by third parties. The JBC opens applications and nominations for every vacant position.
• Public Interviews: The JBC conducts public interviews of the applicants, allowing both transparency and public scrutiny.
• Psychological and Medical Examinations: The JBC subjects applicants to thorough psychological, psychiatric, and medical examinations to assess their fitness for the role.
• Background Investigation: The JBC conducts an investigation of each applicant's background, including any pending criminal or administrative cases, character, and ethical standards.
• Public Comments: The JBC also invites the public to submit any opposition, complaint, or comment on the applicants, ensuring that the selection process is inclusive and takes into account public sentiment.

3. Setting of Standards and Criteria

The JBC has the discretion to set criteria for the selection of judicial appointees, including:

• Integrity, Competence, and Independence: The JBC gives high importance to the ethical integrity, legal competence, and independence of the applicants.
• Seniority: For positions like the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, seniority among incumbent justices can also be considered, though it is not determinative.
• Qualifications: The JBC ensures that applicants meet the constitutional qualifications for the judiciary, such as natural-born citizenship, age, and years of legal practice or judicial experience.

The JBC evaluates each applicant against these standards, considering factors like legal expertise, knowledge of jurisprudence, work ethic, and judicial temperament.

4. Investigative Powers

In the performance of its screening duties, the JBC has the power to investigate any allegations or complaints against applicants. This power includes:

• Conducting hearings or meetings where witnesses may be presented
• Issuing subpoenas and requiring the submission of documents pertinent to its investigation
• Resolving and dismissing baseless or unfounded complaints

This investigative power allows the JBC to maintain the highest standards in the selection of nominees by ensuring that applicants are free from any allegations of misconduct or unfitness.

5. Rule-Making Power

The JBC has the authority to promulgate its internal rules of procedure for the effective performance of its functions. The JBC's Rules of Procedure, as currently implemented, outline its processes for accepting applications, conducting interviews, handling complaints, and submitting the shortlist to the President.

The JBC's rule-making power is essential for providing a clear and transparent framework for its operations, ensuring that its processes are fair, systematic, and aligned with its constitutional mandate.

6. Administrative Powers

In addition to its primary function of nominating judges, the JBC has the power to manage its administrative affairs, including:

• The appointment of its own personnel
• Management of its budget and resources
• Overseeing its internal operations to ensure the efficient discharge of its duties

The JBC is an autonomous constitutional body and, as such, it operates independently from other government departments or agencies, including the Judiciary and the Executive.

7. Quasi-Judicial Powers

While primarily a recommending body, the JBC exercises certain quasi-judicial functions in relation to the evaluation and selection of candidates, particularly in:

• Resolving oppositions and complaints: The JBC may act on formal oppositions to an applicant’s candidacy by weighing evidence and making determinations based on its investigation.
• Disqualification of Applicants: The JBC has the power to disqualify candidates from being considered for judicial office based on findings of misconduct, lack of qualifications, or other reasons.

8. Submission of Shortlist to the President

After completing its evaluation process, the JBC submits a list of at least three (3) nominees for each vacancy to the President. The President is constitutionally required to choose from this list when making judicial appointments. Failure of the President to select from the list would constitute a breach of constitutional protocol, as the JBC's role is designed to prevent the arbitrary appointment of judges.

9. Independent Functioning

The JBC operates independently of both the Executive and Judicial branches. While it assists the President in judicial appointments, it is not subject to the President’s direct control or supervision. Similarly, the Supreme Court, while headed by the Chief Justice who serves as the ex-officio chairman of the JBC, does not exercise control over its functions.

10. Composition and Role in Ensuring Judicial Independence

The composition of the JBC as prescribed by Article VIII, Section 8(1) of the Constitution ensures a balanced and diverse body. It is composed of:

• The Chief Justice as ex-officio chairman
• The Secretary of Justice as ex-officio member
• A representative from Congress (alternating between a Senator and a House member)
• A representative of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
• A professor of law
• A retired member of the Judiciary
• A representative of the private sector

This composition ensures that the JBC reflects a broad spectrum of interests and perspectives, while preventing the dominance of any one sector or branch of government. This design reinforces the principle of judicial independence and insulates the judiciary from political influence.

Conclusion

The JBC plays a critical role in ensuring that appointments to the judiciary are based on merit, integrity, competence, and independence. Its powers, including the ability to screen applicants, investigate complaints, and recommend nominees, are essential to preserving the impartiality and integrity of the judicial branch. By limiting the President’s choice to a shortlist of vetted candidates, the JBC acts as a safeguard against the politicization of the judiciary, ensuring that judges are chosen based on their qualifications rather than political affiliations or connections.

Powers | Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments | LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments: Powers under the Legislative Department

A. Electoral Tribunals

Electoral Tribunals are bodies established by the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines to resolve disputes involving the election, returns, and qualifications of members of Congress. Specifically, the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) for Senators and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) for members of the House of Representatives. These tribunals are vested with exclusive jurisdiction over electoral contests relating to their respective chambers.

1. Constitutional Basis

• Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) and House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) are created under Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution.

  • Section 17: The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members.
  • Each tribunal is composed of nine members: three from the Supreme Court, designated by the Chief Justice, and six from the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, chosen based on proportional representation from the political parties and party-list organizations.

2. Powers and Functions of the Electoral Tribunals

• Exclusive Jurisdiction: The Electoral Tribunals have the exclusive authority to hear and decide electoral contests concerning members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. No other entity can assume jurisdiction over these matters.

  • Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET): Exercises exclusive jurisdiction over all contests related to the election, returns, and qualifications of Senators.
  • House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET): Exercises exclusive jurisdiction over all contests related to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives.

• Judicial Function: The Tribunals function in a quasi-judicial capacity. They are independent of the legislative functions of Congress and act as quasi-judicial bodies that review evidence and legal arguments.

• Scope of Authority:

  • The tribunals can inquire into the qualifications of candidates, such as citizenship, age, residency, and other eligibility requirements under the Constitution.
  • They review issues concerning the election process, including fraud, vote-buying, and errors in the counting and canvassing of votes.
  • Proclamation Disputes: They can invalidate the proclamation of a winning candidate if evidence shows irregularities.

• Decisions: The decisions of the Electoral Tribunals are final and executory. These decisions are generally not appealable, except in cases of grave abuse of discretion, which may be subject to review by certiorari by the Supreme Court under its expanded judicial power (Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution).

3. Composition and Process

• Three Justices of the Supreme Court, designated by the Chief Justice, and six members of the Senate or the House, selected based on proportional representation.

• Impartiality: The tribunal members must act impartially, even though a majority are from the legislative body. A balance is maintained by the presence of justices from the Supreme Court.

• Quorum and Decision: A majority of the members of the Electoral Tribunal constitutes a quorum for its meetings, and decisions are rendered by a majority vote of all its members.

---

B. Commission on Appointments

The Commission on Appointments (CA) is a constitutional body vested with the power to confirm certain appointments made by the President of the Philippines. It acts as a check on the executive branch by ensuring that presidential appointments meet the requirements of competence, integrity, and fitness for office.

1. Constitutional Basis

• Article VI, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution provides for the creation of the Commission on Appointments.

  • Section 18: The Commission on Appointments consists of the President of the Senate, as ex officio chairman, and twelve Senators and twelve members of the House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties or organizations therein. The Chairman of the Commission shall vote only in case of a tie.

2. Powers and Functions of the Commission on Appointments

• Power of Confirmation: The primary power of the CA is to approve or disapprove certain appointments made by the President. The positions requiring confirmation include:

  • Heads of executive departments (i.e., Cabinet members).
  • Ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls.
  • Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain.
  • Heads of government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) or their subsidiaries, as provided by law.

• Appointments that Do Not Require Confirmation: The following appointments do not require confirmation by the CA:

  • The Vice President (when appointed to a Cabinet position).
  • Judges and justices (whose appointments are under the purview of the Judicial and Bar Council, Article VIII, Section 9).
  • Career officials whose promotions are based on merit and seniority, as required by law.

• Scope of Review: The CA reviews the qualifications and fitness of the appointees. This involves an assessment of the appointees' qualifications, ethical standards, track record, and integrity. Appointees must undergo confirmation hearings where they may be asked to answer questions about their background and qualifications.

• Decision-Making Process:

  • The CA votes in plenary after hearings conducted by its committees. Appointees must receive a majority vote of all the members of the CA present in the session for their appointment to be confirmed.

  • Rejection of Appointments: The CA has the power to reject an appointment. Once rejected, the President may no longer reappoint the same individual to the same position unless the CA reverses its decision.

• Voting and Powers of the Chair: The Senate President serves as the ex officio chairman of the Commission and votes only in the case of a tie.

3. Checks and Balances

• The Commission on Appointments is an essential part of the checks and balances mechanism in the Philippine government. It ensures that the executive branch does not have unchecked power over appointments and that only qualified and competent individuals are appointed to sensitive positions in the government.

4. Confirmation Process

• The Commission exercises its power through its committees, each of which handles specific categories of appointments (e.g., foreign affairs, defense, etc.). Appointees appear before these committees for public hearings, during which members of the Commission may question them about their qualifications and fitness for the position.

5. Decisions and Appeals

• The decisions of the CA, like those of the Electoral Tribunals, are final and binding. Once the CA confirms or rejects an appointment, the decision is effective immediately. There is no higher authority to appeal CA decisions on confirmations.

C. Interrelationship and Key Jurisprudence

• The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the independence of both the Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments as essential mechanisms of checks and balances.

• The Electoral Tribunals are considered quasi-judicial bodies, and their decisions can only be reviewed by the Supreme Court under the narrow ground of grave abuse of discretion (e.g., Cayetano v. Monsod and Francisco v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal).

• The Commission on Appointments, on the other hand, is a political body, and its decisions, especially on the rejection of appointments, are generally considered political questions and are not subject to judicial review.

D. Conclusion

Both the Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments play critical roles in the Philippine constitutional system. They serve as independent entities that ensure the proper functioning of the democratic processes related to elections and appointments in government. These bodies safeguard against abuses of power and uphold the constitutional principles of checks and balances.