Is Associate Justice Renato Corona’s
appointment as Chief Justice valid or invalid?
Facts
1. On January 20, 2010,
the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) formally announced “the opening for application or recommendation, of the position of CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT,
which will be vacated on 17 May 2010 upon the retirement of the incumbent Chief
Justice, HON. REYNATO S. PUNO.”
2. Subsequently, on May 5, 2010, the JBC submitted a
short list of four (4) nominees, namely Supreme Court Associate Justices Arturo Brion, Teresita Leonardo-de Castro,Renato Corona, and Sandiganbayan
Acting Presiding Justice Edilberto
Sandoval, to the Office of the
President. Earlier, the JBC excluded two (2) other nominees – Senior Associate
Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales – who had
maintained that Mrs. Arroyo is barred by the 1987 Constitution from appointing Chief
Justice Puno’s successor, and that they would not accept such an appointment
from her. SRG
3. On the morning of May 17,
2010, Mr. Justice Renato Corona took his oath as the 23rd Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court before Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo at the Malacañang Palace.
The Law
4. The 1987 Constitution
materially provides that: “The Members
of the Supreme Court… shall be appointed by the President from a list of at
least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy…”
(Sec. 9, Art. VIII).
5. Under the
Constitution, the Supreme Court is composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen
(14) Associate Justices. They are the fifteen (15) Members of the Court.
6. The “vacancy” cited by the law refers to the
position of “Member” of the Court.
7. The law mandatorily
requires “at least three nominees”
for every such “vacancy”.
8. In other words, the
JBC appears to have committed a misstep in its aforementioned announcement.
Instead of referring to the position of “Member”
of the Supreme Court, as expressly provided by law, it erroneously referred to
the position of “CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT”.
9. The parties’ intention
is clear. The JBC, Mrs. Arroyo, and Mr. Justice Corona all intended to follow
the cited provision of the Constitution.
10. Did the JBC submit “at least three nominees” for the
vacant position of “Member” of the
Supreme Court?
11. The answer is NO. While it submitted the names of
four nominees, only Justice Sandoval of the Sandiganbayan could be appointed to
fill the vacancy. The other three are already Members of the High Court.
12. Under the Civil Code,
acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself
authorizes their validity (Art. 5).
In the JBC’s case, the exception does not apply. The law itself does not
authorize the validity of the questioned nominations.
13. According to the
Supreme Court, VOID means: “no legal
existence” (Velasco v. Lopez, 1 Phil 720). Consequently, (a) the JBC’s void
list of nominees, which was acted upon by Mrs. Arroyo and Mr. Justice Corona,
also has “no legal
existence”, and (b) Mrs. Arroyo and Mr.
Justice Corona had acted without legal basis.
14. Dura lex sed
lex. The law may be harsh to some, but that is the law.
15. Mr. Justice Corona’s appointment as Chief Justice is,
therefore, INVALID.
