On December 20 of this year, Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario
G. Davide, Jr. will reach the mandatory retirement age of seventy
years old. His retirement will pave the way for the appointment of
his successor, the 21st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the
appointment of a new associate justice who will fill up the seat
vacated by Chief Justice Davide in the fifteen-member Supreme Court.
Under the Constitution, the authority to nominate appointees to the
Judiciary is vested in the Judicial and Bar Council. From among a
list of at least three nominees, the President makes appointments to
vacant judicial positions. Such appointments need no confirmation.
Direct citizens' participation in the appointment process can be
seen in the presence of four regular members of the JBC - a
representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired
Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private
sector. (The non-regular, i.e. ex officio, members of the JBC are
the Chief Justice, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of
Congress.) Aside from the participation of the four regular members
in the JBC processes, however, there has been no significant civil
society involvement in the process of appointment of the Chief
Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court.
In 2002, the Transparency and Accountability Network successfully
implemented the "Ombudsman Watch," a project that monitored the
selection and appointment of the Ombudsman. The project launched a
campaign for a transparent and credible appointment process, and
stressed the importance of civil society vigilance in ensuring that
a person of competence, integrity and independence would be chosen
for the post.
With the success of the "Ombudsman Watch," the challenge for civil
society groups is to sustain the gains achieved in the selection of
the Ombudsman and extend the work to cover appointments to other key
public positions.
This project directly responds to that challenge and takes advantage
of the upcoming opportunity to work for enhanced citizens'
participation in the selection and appointment of the next Supreme
Court Chief Justice and Associate Justice.
Goals and Objective
The project's ultimate goal is to work for greater
transparency and accountability of the process for the selection and
appointment of the next Chief Justice and the new Associate Justice.
In line with this goal, the project shall have the following major
objectives:
To enhance venues for citizen's participation in the process
of selection and appointment of the next Supreme Court Chief
Justice and Associate Justice
To raise the level of public awareness about the appointment
process for the Supreme Court Chief Justice and Associate
Justices.
To contribute to the formulation of institutional mechanisms
that enhance the transparency and accountability of the
appointment process for the Chief Justice and the members of
the Supreme Court
Project Activities
The project shall have the following major components:
Participation in the Appointment Process. The project consortium
shall actively participate in the Judicial and Bar Council's
processes in the selection of the nominees for the vacant positions.
The consortium will work for the improvement of existing processes
in the JBC, with the goal of introducing or enhancing mechanisms for
civil society's participation in the appointment process. The
consortium shall actively monitor the JBC's screening of the
nominees and the President's final appointment of the selected
nominees to the vacant positions.
Public Information Campaign. The public information campaign, which
will be conducted nationwide, shall be three-pronged. First, it will
focus on increasing the public's awareness about the appointment
process. Second, the campaign will educate the public on how they
can participate in the appointment process. Third, the campaign will
inform the public about the candidates to the vacant positions.
The public information campaign will include public fora,
preparation and distribution of information materials, media
campaign, website development and other modes of information
dissemination.
OPEN
LETTER TO CONCERNED CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS:
November 7, 2005
Dear
Partners and Friends,
Greetings!
On
November 4, the Judicial and Bar Council made an announcement
opening the position of the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court which will be vacated by Chief Justice Hilario G.
Davide, Jr. upon his retirement on
December 20 this year. According to such announcement, the deadline
for submission of applications/
recommendations is November 10, 2005. Automatic nominees are the
first five senior incumbent Justices, as
follows:
Hon. Reynato S. Puno
Hon. Artemio V. Panganiban
Hon. Leonardo A. Quisumbing
Hon. Consuelo Ynares-Santiago
Hon. Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez
The
Transparency and Accountability Network, Alternative Law Groups,
Inc., Association of Law Students of the Philippines, Integrated Bar
of the
Philippines, Lawyers’ League for Liberty and Philippine Association
of Law Schools through a project “Supreme Court Appointments Watch”
will be
conducting public information campaign activities to ensure greater
transparency and to encourage civil society participation in the
appointment process.
It is
in this light that we are calling for your participation by
submitting nominations to the Judicial and Bar Council.
Please
be informed that you may also participate in the appointment process
by submitting negative/positive reports on the applicants/nominees.
Reports are to be submitted to the Judicial and Bar
Council, whose complete address is as follows, on or before the
deadline (to be announced) set by the JBC:
The Secretariat
Judicial and Bar Council
Second Floor, Centennial Building
Supreme Court, Padre Faura
Manila
Fax No: 525-3208
Tel: 552-9598 and 552-9512
TAN URGES JBC TO CONDUCT PUBLIC INTERVIEWS FOR CJ POST
In a
letter to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), the Transparency and
Accountability Network (TAN) urged the screening body “to abide by
its own rules” and conduct public interviews of the candidates for
the Chief Justice position. In its letter, TAN said that the public
interviews would serve to bring the Supreme Court closer to the
public, improve public perception of and demystify the chamber, and
improve the credibility of the process, among others.
Last
year, upon the retirement of then Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr.,
the JBC announced that it would not conduct public interviews of the
candidates for chief justice. The announcement came on the heels of
a letter signed by 12 associate justices of the Supreme Court
requesting that the JBC not conduct public interviews of the three
candidates because it “depart(ed) from…established practice,” and
the judicial philosophies of the candidates are well known. In its
press release, the JBC said that it would not conduct interviews
“solely on the ground that only three have been considered for
nomination and since the Constitution requires that at least three
names should be submitted to Malacañang, it necessarily follows that
these three have to be recommended by the JBC. The interview is moot
and academic.” The JBC also said that the non-conduct of public
interviews would “not be a precedent for future action, where more
than three are nominated…”
TAN
along with Alternative Law Groups, Association of Law Students of
the Philippines, the Philippine Association of Law Schools and
Lawyer’s League for Liberty have undertaken the Supreme Court
Appointments Watch Project to raise public and media awareness of
the Supreme Court appointment process and push for more openness and
transparency.
Press Release
October 30, 2006
A consortium of civil society
groups has cautioned against declaring a premature victory in the
Supreme Court’s 8-7 vote junking the controversial people’s
initiative to revise the Constitution. “The Supreme Court decision
on the People’s Initiative was a very narrow victory for the
people,” Vincent Lazatin, Chairman and Executive Director of the
Transparency and Accountability Network, says. Lazatin warns however
that the people should not be complacent in this early victory.
“Remember, it’s an 8-7 decision.
The high court should be closely watched at as it is being pressured
by various interest groups within and outside government. It should
be noted that the court’s disposition is very vulnerable as
Panganiban retires on December 7,” Lazatin adds.
However, TAN lauded the recent
decisions of the Supreme Court that it considers shows independence
from Malacañang. “The Supreme Court flexed some independence muscles
in its rulings on Executive Order 464, Calibrated Preemptive
Response, and Presidential Proclamation 1017,” Lazatin said in
praise of the high court. Executive Order 464 was a policy that
prohibited senior executive and military officials from appearing
before Congress without the president’s permission. Calibrated
Preemptive Response was another executive policy that
banned street protests without permits. And
Presidential Proclamation 1017 was the government’s
declaration of a national state of emergency in February 2006.
The Transparency and
Accountability Network (TAN) and other law groups monitor very
closely the appointment process of the Supreme Court through the
Supreme Court Appointments Watch (SCAW) project. Other members of
the SCAW consortium are the Alternative Law Groups, Association of
Law Students of the Philippines, Lawyers’ League for Liberty, and
Philippine Association of Law Schools.
The SCAW consortium finds the
appointment process vulnerable to political influence now especially
considering the high court’s critical role in deciding on matters of
national and transcendental importance. “We in the Supreme Court
Appointments consortium are calling on the public and media to
closely watch the appointment process of the Supreme Court. The
people should be vigilant in ensuring that the Supreme Court will
remain an independent institution despite all these political
movements,” Lazatin says.
SCAW Attends JBC Consultation Forum in
Cagayan de Oro
October 4, 2006
The Judicial and Bar Council
conducted a consultation seminar at the Pryce Hotel in Cagayan de
Oro City, which was attended by lawyers and judges in Region 12.
The Supreme Court Appointments Watch
consortium was represented during such forum by Atty. Luie Guia,
President of the Lawyers' League for Liberty, and Toix Cerna from
the Transparency and Accountability Network.
VELASCO NAMED NEW ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
OF THE SUPREME COURT
(Announcement made on March 27, 2006)
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PRESBITERO
VELASCO'S PROFILE
1. Birthday:
August 8, 1948, Pasay City
2. Sex:
Male
3. Civil Status:
Married
4. Name of Spouse:
Lorna Q. Velasco ( Insurance Underwriter)
5. Citizenship:
Natural Born
6. Address:
#20 Kalaw Hill, Tandang Sora, Quezon City (Home)
3rd Floor, Old Supreme
Court Bldg., Taft Avenue, Manila (Office)
J. Sumulong
Elementary School, 1954-1960, First Honorable Mention
Secondary
U.P Preparatory
School, 1960-1964
College
University of the
Philippines, AB Political Science, 1964-1967
Post Graduate
University of the
Philippines, LLB, 1967-1971, 8th in 1971, Graduating
Class
14. Bar Examination,
1971, 89.85% Rating
15. Record of
In-Service Seminars, Scholarship, and Fellowship Grants
a. 1st
Orientation Session for Newly Appointed, 12-18-98 (8 hours), Phil.
Judicial Academy
b.
Justices of the Court of Appeals
c.
Forum: White Collar Crimes
d.
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, 01-10-01 (8 Hours)
16. Service Record
1972-1992, Private
Practice
1993-1995, Regular
Member, Judicial and Bar Council, Co-terminus
1995 (April 6, 1998),
Undersecretary, Department of Justice, Co-terminus
1998-September 11,
2001, Assocaite Justice, Court of Appeals, Co-terminus
Septemer 11, 2001 to
Present, Court Administrator, Supreme Court, Co-terminus
17. Describe Jobs
Above
Heads of
the Office of the Court Administrator and has the primary function of
the administration and supervision of all lower court under the
Supreme Court
18. Other
Qualifications:
Philippines Columbian Association; Philippine Bar Association;
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and Others. Golf and Tennis.
19. Is there any
pending civil, criminal, or administrative (including disbarment) case
or complaint filed against you pending before any court, prosecution
office, and other office, agency or instrumentality of the government,
or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines? None
20. Have you ever been charged with
or convicted of or otherwise imposed a sanction for the violation of
any law, decree, ordinance or regulation by any court, tribunal, or
any other government office, agency or instrumentality in the
Philippines or in foreign country, or found guilty of an
administrative offense or imposed any administrative sanction?
Charged for alleged non-payment of fees to the
Quezon City government for operation of a business managed by his wife
and the information was filed without benefit of preliminary
investigation. Peple vs Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Criminal Case No.
XL-14838, MTC, Br. XL, Quezon City. Case Dismissed Per Court Order
Dated January 8, 1985.
21. Have you ever been retired,
dismissed or forced to resign from employment?
No
22. REFERENCES
(Persons not related by consanguinity or affinity to
applicant/appointee; preferably those who have knowledge of
applicant’s professional performance)
Pres. Jose Anselmo Cadiz,
c/o IBP, Don Julia Vargas Ave., Ortigas Center, Pasig City, 631-3014
Judge Romeo O. Barza,
RTC, Br. 61, Makati City, 896-6855
Cardinal Ricardo Vidal,
Archdiocese of Cebu, 032-2533382
23. Residences for the
last 10 years. #20 Kalaw Hill, Tandang Sora, Quezon City
24. Are you related in
any way to anyone in the Judiciary in the Region where you seek to be
appointed? If so, please specify his/her name, place of assignment,
nature of employment, and nature of the relationship. No
25. Name, address and
telephone number of immediate supervisor, where applicable:
Chief Justice
Artemio V. Panganiban
SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL
Manila
Pursuant to
Section 1, Rule 7 of the Rules of the Judicial and Bar
Council
(JBC-OO9)a, s amended, the public is hereby notified of the Panel
Interview of the following applicants/recommendees for the position
of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court at the Old Supreme Court
Session Hall, Third Floor, Old Supreme Court Building, Taft Avenue,
Manila:
As stated in
the amended rule, the interviews shall be conducted in public.
January
30,2006..
(SGD)
MA. LUISA D.
VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Ex Officio
Secretary
Supreme Court of
the Philippines
Judicial and Bar Council
Manila
The
following are the candidates for the position of ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
OF THE SUPREME COURT which was vacated by Justice Artemio V.
Panganiban when he was appointed Chief Justice on December 20, 2005:
Any information,
written report, sworn complaint or opposition against any of the
aforesaid candidates must be received on or before FRIDAY,
FEBRUARY 3, 2006, by:
The Secretariat, Judicial and Bar
Council
Supreme Court, Padre Faura, Manila
Tel No. 552-9598 Fax
No. 525-3208
23 January 2006.
SGD
MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Ex-Officio Secretary
PRESS
RELEASE (December 1, 2005)
On the cancellation of public interviews
The Council, voting 6 in favor and
one against, with the Chief Justice abstaining, granted the request
contained in the letter dated 28 November 2005 of the 12 SC Associate
Justices NOT TO CONDUCT INTERVIEW but with vigorous and serious
objections to the substantive grounds relied upon.
The grant is solely on the ground that only three have been considered
for nomination and since the
Constitution requires that at least three names should be submitted to
Malacañang, it necessarily follows
that these three have to be recommended by the JBC. The interview is
moot and academic.
One of the letter-writers is the third Member of the Court to be
considered for nomination.
This is only pro hac vice, not to be a precedent for future
action, where more than three are nominated or
where outsiders are nominated, the Council shall proceed with the
public interview.
The JBC shall submit to Malacañang at the earliest opportunity three
names to be considered for the
position of Chief Justice in alphabetical order.
(Read by Chief Justice Hilario
G. Davide, Jr. as ex-officio Chairman
of the Judicial and Bar Council, on December 1, 2005 at about 1:30
p.m., after the oath-taking of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez)
LETTER REQUEST BY THE 12 SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICES
28 November 2005
Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
Supreme Court
Manila
Dear Chief,
We write to express our alarm at the
departure from established practice, one that has become part of our
judicial tradition, in the selection of nominees for Chief Justice. We
refer to the plan of the Judicial and Bar Council to interview, for
the first time, sitting Justicesof the Supreme Court
nominated for Chief Justice.
We do not agree with the new procedure for the
following reasons:
1.Since the adoption of the 1987
Constitution, the JBC never interviewed nominees who were already
incumbent Justices of the Supreme Court. Thus, the JBC did not
interview Chief Justices Fernan, Narvasa and you. There is no sound
reason to depart from this established practice.
2.The ostensible reason for interviewing
the nominees is to find out how they intend to manage or administer
the Judiciary, the assumption being the Chief Justice is the Chief
Executive of the Judiciary. This assumption is a gross misconception.
The Chief Justice is not the Chief Executive of the
Judiciary or even of the Supreme Court.
Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution is
clear. “The Supreme Court shall have administrative
supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.” Section 6
of the same Article also states: “The Supreme Court shall
have the following powers: x x x (6) Appoint all officials and
employees of the Judiciary in accordance with Civil Service Law.”
Section 11 of the same Article further provides:
“x x x The Supreme Court en banc shall have the
power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal
by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.”
Thus, the Supreme Court en banc, not the
Chief Justice, manages and administers the Judiciary. The Supreme
Court en banc, not the Chief Justice, appoints and
disciplines personnel, other than judges and justices, of the
Judiciary.
If the JBC intends to interview the nominees to find
out they intend to manage or administer the Judiciary, then such
interview is pointless. Besides, there are only three nominees. The
JBC will have to recommend all of them in any event since the
President must choose from at least three nominees.
3.The JBC should instead examine the
judicial philosophy of the nominees. Sitting Justices of the
Supreme Court express their judicial philosophy in their written
decisions, including dissents. The JBC should find out whether the
nominee’s judicial philosophy is what is best for the nation. The
Chief Justice “leads” the Court and the Judiciary, not as an executive
manager for he is not one, but as an intellectual leader as expressed
in his judicial philosophy.
Sitting Justices nominated for Chief Justice are unlike
appellate court justices nominated for the Supreme Court. A sitting
Justice of the Supreme Court expresses his judicial philosophy in his
written decisions. The JBC does not need to interview a sitting
Justice of the Supreme Court to find out his judicial philosophy. All
that the JBC needs is to scrutinize the decisions of the nominees. The
JBC either agrees with the nominee’s judicial philosophy or not. A
one-hour interview with the nominee will not change the nominee’s
judicial philosophy.
In contrast, an appellate court justice does not
necessarily express his own judicial philosophy in writing his
decisions because whether he likes it or not he is bound, under
stare decisis, to follow decisions of the Supreme Court. Thus,
the JBC needs to interview appellate court justices to find out their
own judicial philosophy, and whether such judicial philosophy is for
the best interest of the nation.
4.Lastly, the JBC is under the
supervision of the Supreme Court. Section 8(1), Article VIII
of the 1987 Constitution states: “A Judicial
and Bar Council id hereby created under the supervision of the
Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex-officio
Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the
Congress as ex-officio Members, a representative of the Integrated
Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a
representative of the private sector.”
There is something inherently wrong when members of a
subordinate body can accept or reject as nominees of a superior body
supervising such subordinate body, on a matter involving the choice of
presiding officer of the superior body, when the nominees all come
from the superior body. Such a situation is inconsistent with the
order of hierarchy found in the 1987 Constitution when they placed the
JBC under the supervision of the Supreme Court. The established
practice of automatically nominating the three most senior members of
the Court for Chief Justice is more in accord with the constitutional
provision placing the JBC under the supervision of the Supreme Court
Consequently, we respectfully request the Chief Justice
to convey to the Judicial and Bar Council, our views on this important
matter which we believe will have a lasting impact on the independence
of the Supreme Court, a principle the 1987 Constitution zealously
protects.
