Palace ordered to answer IBP accusations vs appointments

The Supreme Court ordered Malacañang to respond to the allegations by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) that two of its appointees were made in violation of the 1987 Constitution.

The high court’s Public Information Chief Atty. Theodore Te said at a press conference on Tuesday that the Palace had 10 days to submit its comment.

Required to comment were the Office of the President and Executive Secretary Pacquito Ochoa Jr. as well as Sandiganbayan Associate Justices Geraldine Faith Econg and Michael Frederick Musngi.

READ: IBP wants SC to void Aquino’s choice of 2 Sandigan associate justices

The IBP, in its petition, said Econg and Musngi should be restrained from exercising their duties and functions as Sandiganbayan justices.

In appointing the two, the IBP said President Benigno Aquino III violated Section 9, Article VIII of the Constitution, which provides that “members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy.”

The IBP said Mr. Aquino’s act is considered a “culpable violation of the Constitution,” which is a ground for the impeachment of a President.

“In the questioned appointments, President Aquino violated Section 9, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution when he did not appoint anyone from the shortlist submitted by the JBC for the vacancy for the 16th associate justice of the Sandiganbayan; and appointed Undersecretary Musngi and Judge Econg, whose names were from the same shortlist submitted for the position of the 21st associate justice of the Sandiganbayan,” it argued.

After Mr. Aquino signed into law Republic Act 10660 or the Act Strengthening Further for Functional and Structural Organization of the Sandiganbayan, two more divisions have been added to the original five anti-graft divisions, thus creating six vacancies for associate justice.

READ: 6 new Sandigan justices take oath of office

The JBC submitted six separate shortlists with Mr. Aquino choosing one from each of the list.

Mr. Aquino, however, disregarded one of the five shortlists and appointed two from another shortlist.

“While the Constitution grants the President leeway to exercise his discretion in appointments to the judiciary by requiring the JBC to submit a list of at least three nominees for every vacancy, this discretion is necessarily restricted by requiring him to select only from the list submitted and to select only a single nominee considering the vacancy is similarly solitary,” the petition stated.

“To be sure, the acts of respondents set a dangerous precedent which opens the door to abuse and oppression. These are the very evils proscribed by our Constitution, and are a clear act of grave abuse of discretion subject to the Honorable Court’s review,” it stressed. RAM/rga