Jardeleza V CJ Sereno
Jardeleza V CJ Sereno
Jardeleza V CJ Sereno
CJ Sereno
GR 213181
Facts:
The present case finds its genesis from the compulsory retirement of Associate Justice Abad last May 22, 2014.
Before his retirement, on March 6, 2014, the JBC announced the opening for application or recommendation for the
said vacated position.
Petitioner Jardeleza was nominated for the said position, was included in the names of candidates, and was
interviewed by the JBC.
JBC ex-officio Chairperson CJ Sereno, manifested that she would be invoking Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009
against Jardeleza, and he would be informed before the JBC of the objections to his integrity on June 30, 2014.
Jardeleza filed a letter-petition praying that the Court, in the exercise of its constitutional power of supervision over
the JBC, to direct the JBC to, among others give him written notice of any hearing of the JBC to which he would be
summoned containing the sworn specifications of the charges against him by his oppositors, and to disallow Chief
Justice Sereno from participating in the voting for the nominees for the position vacated by Associate Justice Abad.
Associate Justice Carpio appeared before the JBC and disclosed confidential information which, to Chief Justice
Sereno, characterized Jardaleza’s 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
requested that the same directive should also be imposed on Associate Justice Carpio.
Jardeleza then put into record a written statement expressing his views on the situation and requested the JBC to
defer its meeting considering that the Court en banc would meet the next day to act on his pending letter-petition.
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 four nominees. It was later revealed that there were actually five
nominees who made it to the JBC shortlist, but one could not be included because of the invocation of Rule 10,
Section 2 of the JBC rules.
In its Resolution, the Court noted Jardeleza’s letter petition in view of the transmittal of the JBC list of nominees to
the Ofafice of the President, "without prejudice to any remedy available in law and the rules that petitioner may still
wish to pursue."
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, on the grounds that the JBC and Chief Justice Sereno acted in grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in excluding him, despite having garnered a sufficient
number of votes to qualify for the position.
Jardeleza’s resort to judicial intervention hinges on the alleged illegality of his exclusion from the shortlist due to the
deprivation of his constitutional right to due process.
Issue:
1. W/N the court can assume jurisdiction and give due course to the subject petition for certiorari and mandamus –
YES
2. W/N the right to due process is available in the course of JBC proceedings in cases where an objection or
opposition to an application is raised – NO
Held:
1. Yes, the Court has constitutional bases to assume jurisdiction over the case
2. No, Jardeleza was not given a reasonable chance to muster a defense. He was merely asked to appear in a
meeting where he would be, right then and there, subjected to an inquiry.
The Court, however, does not accept the argument that an applicant’s access to the rights afforded under the due
process clause is discretionary on the part of the JBC. While the facets of criminal and administrative due process
are not strictly applicable to JBC proceedings, their peculiarity is insufficient to justify the conclusion that due
process is not demandable.
The JBC, as the sole body empowered to evaluate applications for judicial posts, exercises full discretion on its
power to recommend nominees to the President. The sui generis character of JBC proceedings, however, is not a
blanket authority to disregard due process.
Jardeleza’s grievance is not an imagined slight but a real rebuff of his right to be informed of the charges against
him and his right to answer the same with vigorous contention and active participation in the proceedings which
would ultimately decide his aspiration to become a magistrate of this Court.