Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Jardeleza v. Sereno

    Uploaded by

    Man2x Salomon
    1) Francis Jardeleza was nominated to fill an Associate Justice vacancy but the Chief Justice invoked an objection to his integrity during the JBC proceedings. 2) Jardeleza filed a petition requesting due process during the JBC proceedings, including written notice of charges, opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and recusal of the Chief Justice. 3) The Supreme Court ruled it has supervisory authority over the JBC to ensure rules and due process are followed. It also ruled that while JBC proceedings are unique, applicants still have a right to be heard and explain themselves. Jardeleza's right to due process was violated when he was not informed of questions on his integrity and not given reasonable time to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Jardeleza v. Sereno

    Uploaded by

    Man2x Salomon
    1K views2 pages
    1) Francis Jardeleza was nominated to fill an Associate Justice vacancy but the Chief Justice invoked an objection to his integrity during the JBC proceedings. 2) Jardeleza filed a petition requesting due process during the JBC proceedings, including written notice of charges, opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and recusal of the Chief Justice. 3) The Supreme Court ruled it has supervisory authority over the JBC to ensure rules and due process are followed. It also ruled that while JBC proceedings are unique, applicants still have a right to be heard and explain themselves. Jardeleza's right to due process was violated when he was not informed of questions on his integrity and not given reasonable time to

    Original Description:

    This is a case digest of the case of: Jardeleza v. Sereno

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Francis Jardeleza was nominated to fill an Associate Justice vacancy but the Chief Justice invoked an objection to his integrity during the JBC proceedings. 2) Jardeleza filed a petition requesting due process during the JBC proceedings, including written notice of charges, opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and recusal of the Chief Justice. 3) The Supreme Court ruled it has supervisory authority over the JBC to ensure rules and due process are followed. It also ruled that while JBC proceedings are unique, applicants still have a right to be heard and explain themselves. Jardeleza's right to due process was violated when he was not informed of questions on his integrity and not given reasonable time to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Jardeleza v. Sereno

    Uploaded by

    Man2x Salomon
    1) Francis Jardeleza was nominated to fill an Associate Justice vacancy but the Chief Justice invoked an objection to his integrity during the JBC proceedings. 2) Jardeleza filed a petition requesting due process during the JBC proceedings, including written notice of charges, opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and recusal of the Chief Justice. 3) The Supreme Court ruled it has supervisory authority over the JBC to ensure rules and due process are followed. It also ruled that while JBC proceedings are unique, applicants still have a right to be heard and explain themselves. Jardeleza's right to due process was violated when he was not informed of questions on his integrity and not given reasonable time to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    JARDELEZA V.

    SERENO
    [GR. No. 213181; August 19, 2014]
    Facts:
    • Due to compulsory retirement of Associate Justice Roberto Abad, the Judicial and Bar Council announced
    the opening for the vacated position. Francis H. Jardeleza, incumbent Solicitor General of the Republic was
    nominated for the said position.
    • On June 16 and 17, 2014, Jardeleza received telephone calls informing him that during the meetings held on
    June 5 and 16, 2014, Chief Justice and JBC ex-officio Chairperson, Maria Lourdes P.A.Sereno manifested that
    she would be invoking Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-0093 against him. Jardeleza was directed to "make himself
    available" on June 30, 2014 as he would be informed of the objections as to his integrity.
    • In a letter-petition, Jardeleza prayed that the Court issue an order:
    “1) directing the JBC to give him at least five (5) working days written notice of any hearing of the JBC to
    which he would be summoned; and the said notice to contain the sworn specifications of the charges against
    him by his oppositors, the sworn statements of supporting witnesses, if any, and copies of documents in
    support of the charges; and notice and sworn statements shall be made part of the public record of the JBC; 2)
    allowing him to cross-examine his oppositors and supporting witnesses, if any, and the cross-examination to be
    conducted in public, under the same conditions that attend the public interviews held for all applicants; 3)
    directing the JBC to reset the hearing scheduled on June 30, 2014 to another date; and 4) directing the JBC to
    disallow Chief Justice Sereno from participating in the voting on June 30, 2014 or at any adjournment thereof
    where such vote would be taken for the nominees for the position vacated by Associate Justice Abad.”
    • On June 30, 2014, Jardeleza was directed to one of the Court’s ante-rooms. Department of Justice Secretary
    Leila M. De Lima informed him that Associate Justice Carpio appeared before the JBC and disclosed
    confidential information to which Sereno characterized his integrity as dubious. After the briefing, Jardeleza
    was summoned by the JBC.
    • Jardeleza alleged that Sereno asked him if he wanted to defend himself against the integrity issues raised
    against him. He replied in the affirmative provided that due process would be observed. Jardeleza demanded
    that Sereno executes a sworn statement specifying her objections and that in a public hearing, he be afforded
    the right to cross-examine her. He requested that the same be imposed on Carpio.
    • Jardeleza in a written statement expressed his views on the situation and requested the JBC to defer its
    meeting since the Court en banc would meet the next day to act on a pending letter-petition submitted by
    him. Jardeleza was then excused.

    • Later in the afternoon of the same day, 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 shortlist to which Jardeleza was not included.
    Issues:
    1. WON the court has power of supervision over the JBC.
    2. WON 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.
    Held:
    1. YES. The court has power of supervision over the JBC as stated in Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987
    Constitution which provides:
    Section 8. A Judicial and Bar Council is 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.
    Based on previous rulings, the court held that supervising officials’ task is to see to it that rules are followed.
    They do not have the power to prescribe rules or the power to modify or replace them. If they find that the
    rules are not observed, they may order that the work be done or redone but only inorder to conform to the
    rules. They have no power to prescribe their own manner of execution of the act.
    Thus, the supervisory authority of the Court over the JBC covers the overseeing of compliance with its rules.
    In the present case, Jardeleza’s principal allegations in his petition merit the exercise of a supervisory
    authority.
    2. YES. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers involve investigations by the Court into the conduct of one
    of its officers, not the trial of an action or a suit. There is no complainant or prosecutor to speak of. Thus, JBC
    proceedings are unique and special in nature. However, notwithstanding being "a class of itsown," the right to
    be heard and to explain one’s self is availing. Thus the court ruled that, “… where an objection to an
    applicant’s qualifications is raised, the observance of due process neither negates nor renders illusory the
    fulfillment of the duty of JBC to recommend. “
    In the present case, Jardeleza’s right to due process was violated when he was neither formally informed of
    the questions on his integrity nor was provided a reasonable chance to muster a defense. He was asked to
    appear in a meeting where he would be, right then and there, subjected to an inquiry. Jardeleza was not
    given the idea that he should prepare to affirm or deny his past behavior.

    You might also like