FASAP VS. PAL RETRENCHMENT CASE NEW AND OLD TIMELINES

NEW TIMELINE FROM JUNE 15, 1998 TO MARCH 26, 2018 TIMELINE: PAL-FASAP retrenchment case, and what happened in 20 years REFERENCE FROM RAPPLER The Supreme Court en banc's March 2018 decision on a retrenchment case favors Philippine Airlines and sets aside two earlier rulings favoring flight attendantsMANILA, Philippines – The 20-year-old retrenchment row between the Philippine Airlines (PAL) and the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP)ended as the Supreme Court en banc voted in favor of the flag carrier. Voting 7-2, SC affirmed the 2006 decision of the Court of Appeals, which ruled that the dismissal of 5,000 workers implemented by the the Lucio Tan-owned airline was legal. The high court, in its decision, said that the retrenchment was done by PAL in good faith since the company adhered to their Collective Bargaining Agreement. (READ: SC votes after 20 years: PAL wins in retrenchment case vs FASAP) The retrenchment happened in 1998 and the case reached the SC in 2008. JUNE 15, 1998 Philippine Airlines lays off a total of 5,000 employees, including 1,400 cabin crew personnel, as part of its cost-cutting measure after the company allegedly incurred P90 billion in liabilities during the 1997 Asian financial crisis. JUNE 22, 1998 The Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) files with the National Labor Relations Commissions (NLRC) a complaint of illegal retrenchment against PAL and Patria Chiong, assistant vice president for cabin services. JULY 21, 2000 Labor arbiter Jovencio Mayor rules in favor of FASAP, ordering PAL to reinstate the employees. MAY 31, 2004 After PAL has filed an appeal, NLRC reverses its previous decision. FASAP brings the case to the Court of Appeals. AUGUST 23, 2006 Court of Appeals (CA) affirms the NLRC's 2004 decision, which said PAL didn't have to consult FASAP for its criteria for its retrenchment program. MAY 29, 2007 CA denies FASAP's motion for reconsideration. The case goes to the Supreme Court. JULY 22, 2008 The Supreme Court special 3rd division rules in favor of FASAP and orders PAL to reinstate 5,000 employees retrenched in 1998. AUGUST 20, 2008 PAL files motion for reconsideration. OCTOBER 2, 2009 The SC’s 3rd division affirms the 2008 decision, which declared illegal the retrenchment of the FASAP members. The high court denies the motion for reconsideration filed by PAL for lack of merit. It also does not accept PAL’s justification for the retrenchment that it was suffering from financial distress after a pilots’ strike in 1998. “We find this argument untenable. The strike was a temporary occurrence that did not necessitate the immediate and sweeping retrenchment of 1,400 cabin or flight attendants,” the SC says in its decision. NOVEMBER 3, 2009 PAL files motion for reconsideration for the October 2009 decision and second motion for reconsideration for the 2008 decision. The FASAP case is raffled off to SC second division because members of the special 3rd division have retired. SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 The SC second division dismisses PAL’s second motion for reconsideration. SEPTEMBER 2011 PAL lawyer Estelito Mendoza sends a series of letters to the Supreme Court's Clerk of Court regarding the case. He sent a total of 4 letters. In one letter, Mendoza points out a “misapplication of the rules.” He cites Section 4(3), Article VIII, of the Constitution, which states that cases “heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such members.” OCTOBER 4, 2011 The Supreme Court en banc recalls the second division’s decision which junked PAL’s motion. The decision comes after the court took cognizance of a letter submitted by Mendoza, PAL’s legal counsel. Then spokesperson (and now court administrator) Jose Midas Marquez says the SC committed an "honest mistake” because the case should have been handled by the high court’s special 3rd division, not the second division. OCTOBER 17, 2011 In a motion for reconsideration, FASAP asks the Supreme Court to set aside its October 4, 2011, resolution. MARCH 26, 2018 The SC en banc affirms the 2006 decision by the Court of Appeals that validated the retrenchment implemented by PAL, setting aside two existing decisions which were in favor of FASAP. Seven justices voted in favor of PAL, 2 dissented, 5 took no part, while Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno is on indefinite leave. OLD TIMELINE FROM JUNE 15, 1998 TO OCTOBER 17, 2011 Timeline: FASAP-PAL case Key events relating to the case between the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines and the Philippine Airlines REFERENCE FROM RAPPLER Purple S. Romero Published 8:52 PM, February 07, 2012 Updated 4:40 PM, February 08, 2012 MANILA, Philippines - In the Articles of Impeachment lodged against him before the Senate, Chief Justice Renato Corona is charged with culpable violation of the constitution and betrayal of public trust for failing to meet and observe the stringent standards under Art. VIII, Section 7 (3) of the Constitution, which provides that "a member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence."  Specific issues Corona is charged with include his role in supposedly allowing theSupreme Court "to act on mere letters filed by a counsel which caused the issuance of a flip-flopping decision in final and executory cases." These cases include the row between the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) and the Philippine Airlines (PAL). Below are key events relating to this case: June 15, 1998 - Philippine Airlines (PAL) retrenches 5,000 employees, including 1,400 cabin crew personnel as a cost-cutting measure. PAL said it incurred P90-B in liabilities during the 1997 Asian financial crisis. The retrenchment takes effect on July 15.  June 22, 1998 - The Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) files a complaint against PAL and Patria Chiong, the Assistant Vice President for Cabin Services of PAL, for illegal retrenchment at the National Labor Relations Commission. July 23, 1998 - The labor arbiter rules in favor of FASAP and issues a preliminary injunction stopping PAL from implementing retrenchment program. He also orders the parties to issue a position paper.  Sept. 4, 1998 - PAL chairman Lucio Tan dangles shares of stock to employees and 3 seats in its board of directors, but, in exchange, the collective bargaining agreement would be suspended for 10 years. The employees dismiss the offer.  Sept. 23, 1998 - PAL stops operations and terminates employees. November 1998 - March 1999 - PAL starts to recall the cabin crew personnel it retrenched. PAL says it recalled 820 personnel already. FASAP says it only recalled 80.  Sept. 28, 1999- FASAP files position paper with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Nov. 8, 1999- PAL files position paper July 21, 2000 - Labor arbiter Jovencio Mayor rules in favor of FASAP and orders PAL to reinstate retrenched employees. PAL appeals the decision. May 31, 2004 - NLRC reverses decision due to lack of merit. FASAP elevates case to the Court of Appeals. Aug, 23, 2006 - The Court of Appeals affirms NLRC's decision, saying PAL doesn't have to consult FASAP for its criteria on retrenchment program. FASAP files motion for reconsideration. May 29, 2007 - CA stands by its earlier ruling. FASAP goes to the Supreme Court. July 22, 2008 - The SC special third division, in a decision penned by Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, rules in favor of FASAP and orders PAL to reinstate retrenched employees. Justices who concurred with this decision are Justices Alicia Austria-Martinez, Minita Chico-Nazario, Antonio Eduardo Nachura and Ruben Reyes. Aug. 20, 2008 - PAL files motion for reconsideration. Oct. 2, 2009 - SC special third division affirms 2008 decision with finality. Decision is penned by Ynares-Santiago. Concurring are Justices Nachura, Diosdado Peralta, Nazario and Lucas Bersamin.  Nov. 3. 2009 - PAL files motion for leave to file, and to admit motion for reconsideration for 2009 decision and second motion for reconsideration for 2008 decision. Jan. 20, 2010 - The SC third division, then chaired by Associate Justice Renato Corona,grants PAL's motion. Corona inhibits from the case. June 3, 2010 - Chief Justice Renato Corona (he was named Chief Justice in May 2010) orders a revamp of SC divisions. Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales is new chair of third division, with members including Associate Justices Arturo Brion, Bersamin and Villarama. The FASAP case is raffled off to SC second division because members of the Special third division have retired. Sept. 7, 2011 - The SC second division dismisses PAL's second motion for reconsideration Sept. 13, 2011 - PAL lawyer Estelito Mendoza writes the Clerk of Court and asks for an update on the Court's action regarding the case and asks who is the ponente assigned to it. Sept. 16, 2011 - Mendoza writes a second letter, reiterating request for update. Sept. 20, 2011 - Mendoza writes another letter, saying they received copy of the Sept. 7 resolution on Sept. 19. He asks for voting pn the details on the resolution. The Sept. 7 resolution dismissses PAL's second motion for reconsideration. Sept. 22, 2011 - Mendoza writes a fourth letter, asking the Clerk of Court to direct queries to Justices Carpio, Arturo Brion, Jose Perez, Diosdado Peralta, Jose Mendoza, Bersamin, if necessary. Oct. 4, 2011 - The SC en banc orders the recall of Sept. 7 resolution. Oct. 16, 2011 - In an interview with Move.ph on this day, Mendoza said the SC erred because their motion for reconsideration was decided by the second division, when what the SC should have done was to form a special third division in light of the retirement of certain members of the the third division, which originally handled the FASAP case.  Oct. 17, 2011 - FASAP files a motion for reconsideration asking the Court to set aside its Oct. 4, 2011 resolution.

PAL retrenchment win erodes SC's credibility – Leonen_REFERERENCE

PAL retrenchment win erodes SC's credibility – Leonen 'The actions of the majority of this Court en banc...creates an ominous cloud that will besmirch our legitimacy,' says Associate Justice Marvic Leonen SOURCE OF REFERENCE  MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC) voted with a majority of 7 that the retrenchment of 5,000 workers of Philippine Airlines (PAL) in 1998 was valid. One of the two dissenters was Associate Justice Marvic Leonen who said that the non-unanimous vote “erodes the reliability and credibility of this Court.” This latest decision by the SC is a flip-flop from two previous decisions of its divisions in 2008 and 2009. Leonen disagreed with the procedural and substantive decisions of the 7 majority, with Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin acting as ponente. History of the case Members of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) were among the 5,000 workers entrenched by PAL in 1998 in a supposed move to save the business from shutting down due to debt. FASAP’s labor lawsuit against PAL went the long and arduous route: first the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the Court of Appeals (CA), then the Supreme Court. The case reached the SC in 2008 after the CA sided with PAL and declared the retrenchment valid. The FASAP scored back-to-back victories in the SC courtesy of the special third division, which invalidated the retrenchment in a decision on July 22, 2008 and then again on October 2, 2009, when it denied PAL’s first motion for reconsideration. PAL was then granted leave by the Court to again file motions for reconsideration; and it filed two, pertaining to the 2008 and 2009 decisions. On September 7, 2011, the SC 2nd Division denied PAL’s 2nd motion for reconsideration pertaining to the July 22, 2008 decision. High-profile lawyer Estelito Mendoza began sending letters to the SC on behalf of PAL and on October 4, 2011, the SC en banc recalled the September 7, 2011 resolution. (READ:TIMELINE: FASAP-PAL case) Procedural prohibition? For Leonen, the en banc should have never taken on the case after the special 3rd division affirmed the FASAP win on October 2, 2009. “The judgment in this case attained finality on November 4, 2009 or 15 days from PAL’s receipt of the October 2, 2009 resolution denying the motion for reconsideration of the July 22, 2008 decision,” Leonen said in his dissenting opinion. Leonen noted that Mendoza’s letters were not docketed as part of the main case, but were instead docketed as a separate administrative matter. “It could not be another means to resurrect a case. To do so is highly irregular, suspect, and violative of due process of law. To mask this as being in the interest of justice is to mask its intention to rob labor of a case decided 3 times in its favor,” Leonen said. Leonen said that what PAL did was, in effect, a 3rd motion for reconsideration which he called as “disrespect to us and our rules of procedure.” Citing legal analogies, Leonen said that if the court must grant a 3rd motion for reconsideration, it must do so via a unanimous vote. Leonen said that a unanimous vote on a 3rd motion would be hard to overturn, and thus would prevent further flip-flops, and would “shield this Court from parties who perceive themselves above the justice system.” “The actions of the majority of this Court en banc..creates an ominous cloud that will besmirch our legitimacy. The majority has created an exception to our canonical rules on immutability of judgments. It is certainly not justice that this Court has done,” Leonen said. Bersamin’s ponencia Leonen and fellow dissenter Associate Justice Andres Reyes Jr lost to the ponencia of Bersamin which ruled that Mendoza’s legal recourse was procedurally allowed. Bersamin said that the en banc took on the case because retired justice Arturo Brion, formerly of the ruling division, referred it to them. Bersamin said Leonen has a “narrow view” of the powers of the en banc. This issue was cited by the impeachment prosecution against the late former Chief Justice Renato Corona in 2012. Corona was accused of accommodating Mendoza in allowing the revival of the case. Then Senate president Juan Ponce Enrile did not allow the witness from PAL to take the witness stand in the impeachment court, saying that it was not alleged in the articles of impeachment. Enrile and Mendoza, of course, have a relationship. Mendoza would come to represent Enrile in his pork barrel scam cases. In August 2015, Bersamin’s ponencia won and freed Enrile on bail for the charge of plunder. Mendoza was Enrile’s lawyer. In July 2016, Bersamin’s ponencia won and acquitted former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of plunder. Mendoza was Arroyo’s lawyer. Bersamin was also the ponente in the decision that allowed the midnight appointment of Arroyo, with Mendoza among the petitioners. (READ: The ties between Lucas Bersamin and Estelito Mendoza) Retrenchment valid Bersamin reinstated the 2006 decision of the CA which ruled that the retrenchment was valid. Bersamin’s decision is based on the following grounds: PAL can retrench to avert more losses The Court can take judicial notice of PAL’s financial losses without requiring the presentation of its audited financial statements PAL retrenched in good faith because it met with labor groups to discuss with them the plan PAL used reusable criteria in selecting which employees to retrench The retrenched employees signed valid quit claims Interesting to note is the voting in this case. In the past high-profile cases, you would see the constitutionalists always grouped together: Acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio, Leonen and Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa. Sometimes, Associate Justices Estela Perlas-Bernabe and Francis Jardeleza would join them. This time, Carpio and Jardeleza inhibited. Caguioa and Bernabe joined the majority. Their "groupmate" Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno is on indefinite leave and did not vote. In his separate concurring opinion, Caguioa said that there was substantive evidence that would show “that PAL had indeed been besieged by and suffered severe financial losses, which justify its resort to drastic cuts in personnel.”

QUO WARRANTO PETITION INTERVENTION... WHAT THEN IS INTERVENTION?_ STUDY REFERENCE

Intervention; when allowed and not allowed - G.R. No. 172448 "x x x. Rule 19, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides: Section 1.  Who may intervene. – A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action.  The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenor’s rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding. In Alfelor v. Halasan,[63] the Court held that: Under this Rule, intervention shall be allowed when a person has (1) a legal interest in the matter in litigation; (2) or in the success of any of the parties; (3) or an interest against the parties; (4) or when he is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or disposition of property in the custody of the court or an officer thereof.[64] Jurisprudence describes intervention as “a remedy by which a third party, not originally impleaded in the proceedings, becomes a litigant therein to enable him, her or it to protect or preserve a right or interest which may be affected by such proceedings.”[65]  “The right to intervene is not an absolute right; it may only be permitted by the court when the movant establishes facts which satisfy the requirements of the law authorizing it.”[66] While undoubtedly, MSU has a legal interest in the outcome of the case, it may not avail itself of the remedy of intervention in CA-G.R. SP No. 82052 simply because MSU is not a third party in the proceedings herein.   In Osop’s Amended Complaint before the RTC, MSU was already impleaded as one of the defendants in Civil Case No. 6381.  MSU came under the jurisdiction of the RTC when it was served with summons.  It participated in Civil Case No. 6381, where it was represented by Atty. Fontanilla, counsel for Muslim and Ramos, who was deputized by the OSG as counsel for MSU. MSU adopted the Answer to the Amended Complaint of its co-defendants, Muslim and Ramos, and also joined Muslim and Ramos in subsequent pleadings filed before the RTC in Civil Case No. 6381.  Evidently, the rights and interests of MSU were duly presented before the RTC in Civil Case No. 6381.  Unfortunately, the RTC issued the Orders dated March 20, 2003 and August 21, 2003 in Civil Case No. 6381 adverse to MSU and its co-defendants, Muslim and Ramos.      x x x."   Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.  FROM ATTY. MANUEL J. LASERNA JR. BLOG  http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2012/03/intervention-when-allowed-and-not.html SOURCE OF ARTICLE

BRIEFER:THE JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL_REFERENCE

Briefer: The Judicial and Bar Council

THE JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL

The Judicial and Bar Council’s (JBC) primary task is to recommend appointees to the Judiciary and the Office of the Ombudsman for the President’s perusal. The council aims to enhance the quality of the search, screening, and selection process, as well as insulate the process from undue influence of any kind.

An important function of the JBC is the creation of a list of nominees for the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Below is the process in brief (for more details, see Sec. IV):

 

I. HISTORICAL PROGRESSION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF A CHIEF JUSTICE AND MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY

The 1899 Constitution, which established the First Philippine Republic, was the first instance of Philippine law providing for the creation of a Supreme Court of Justice (Supreme Court) and the appointment of a President of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice). Title X, Article 80 mandates the National Assembly, a legislative body, to be the appointing authority of the President of the Supreme Court. This appointment, however, would need the concurrence of the President of the Republic and his secretaries. This was the only break in an otherwise consistent history of a President being the appointing authority.

From 1902 to 1935, it was the prerogative of the President of the United States to appoint the Chief Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court.

The 1935 Constitution transferred the authority to appoint the Justices of the Supreme Court to the President of the Philippines. Much of the 1935 Constitution was based on the Constitution of the United States of America. One parallel between the two is the philosophy and process of making appointments to the high court. Appointments are made directly by the President, but with the consent of the Commission on Appointments of the Legislature (by virtue of Article VIII, Sec. 5).

Upon the ratification of the 1973 Constitution, however, the process by which a Chief Justice, Associate Justices, and judges  are appointed was changed to grant the President (then, President Ferdinand Marcos) the sole authority to appoint without need of approval by the Legislature. Article X, Sec. 4 of the 1973 Constitution states:

“The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of inferior courts shall be appointed by the President.”

After the EDSA People Power Revolution of 1986 ended the Marcos regime, and the1987 Constitution was ratified, a new check-and-balance measure was created to limit the appointing power of the President to the high court and to ensure the participation of Congress, the Judiciary, and the private sector in the appointing process. The new constitution created the JBC by virtue of Article VIII, Sec. 8 (5):

“The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it.”

II. WHY WAS THE JBC CREATED?

The idea of creating a JBC was introduced by former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion during the debates of the 1986 Constitutional Commission in order to depoliticize the process of appointments. On July 14, 1986, Chief Justice Concepcion said that the JBC is “an innovation made in response to the public clamor in favor of eliminating politics in the appointment of judges.” He was also of the position that the creation of such a body was necessary because “neither the President alone nor the Commission on Appointments would have the time and the means necessary to study the background of every one of the candidates for appointment to the various courts in the Philippines.” He stressed that the search for acceptable candidates would be particularly difficult given the constitutional amendment stating that no one would be qualified for judicial positions unless he or she “has a proven high sense of morality and probity”—an amendment adopted that same morning, July 14. He said investigative agencies at the President’s disposal, such as the National Bureau of Investigation, lack qualifications “to pass upon questions of morality, integrity and competence of lawyers.”

The same day, Commissioners Jose C. Colayco and Ricardo J. Romulo defended the creation of the JBC, stating that it aims to strengthen the independence of the judicial branch of government by preventing the President from whimsically or arbitrarily choosing members of the courts. According to Mr. Colayco, “the creation of this Council would ensure more the appointment of judges and justices who will be chosen for their confidence and their moral qualifications, rather than to favor or to give something in return for their help in electing the President.”

Mr. Romulo in the meantime said: “[W]e can have any form of government we like and we are safe, provided we have an independent and competent Judiciary… And if we are trying to bolster the independence of the Supreme Court it is because in the end it is the Judiciary that will protect all of us. We are not trying to create an independent republic out of the Judiciary, only an autonomous region.”

Thus, the 1987 Constitution, by virtue of Sec. 8 (1), provided for the creation of the JBC.

III. WHO ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE JBC?

The Constitution provides for the composition of the JBC to include the following:

1. Representatives of the three branches of government as ex-officio members (i.e., the Chief Justice, the Secretary of Justice, and a member from the Legislature); {{1}}

2. A representative of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines;

3. A professor of law;

4. A retired member of the Supreme Court;

5. A representative from the private sector.

Members from the government are automatically members of the JBC by virtue of their office. The other four members, however, are appointed by the President and would have to go through the process of being confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.

IV. HOW ARE CANDIDATES NOMINATED?

A VACANCY OPENS

The Constitution provides that a vacancy for the  positions of Chief Justice, Associate Justice, Ombudsman, Deputy Ombudsman, and judges of other courts must be filled within 90 days (by virtue of Article VIII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution and Rule 1, Sec. 1 of the Rules of the JBC). As soon as a vacancy opens in the Supreme Court and the Office of the Ombudsman, the position is “ipso facto” open to applications.

THE JBC CONVENES

The JBC convenes and prescribes specific dates for deadlines for the filing of nominations and the form in which applications should be submitted. They then send out a call for applicants or recommendations.

It must be noted that since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, every Chief Justice left office by virtue of retirement at the age of 70 years old. In such cases wherein the retirement of a Chief Justice is anticipated, the JBC convenes months in advance to anticipate the upcoming retirement of Justices and submits its list before the date of retirement.

APPLICATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS ARE FILED

Applicants may file applications themselves or be recommended by other persons. Applications must be filed personally or by registered mail sent to the Secretariat of the Council. A recommended applicant must manifest acceptance either in the recommendation paper itself or in a separate document. His or her acceptance must be filed before the deadline set by the Council.

A LIST OF APPLICANTS IS PUBLISHED

A long list of candidates shall be published in a Philippine newspaper of general circulation and in a newspaper of local circulation in the province or city where the vacancy is located.

Copies of the list shall likewise be posted on three conspicuous places in the said area. Copies thereof shall be furnished to major nongovernmental organizations in the city or municipality where such vacancy is located, including the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and its corresponding local chapter.

The long list shall contain an invitation to the public to inform the Council, within ten days, of any complaint or derogatory information against the applicants. The Council may choose to direct a discreet background check on the applicant or require the nominee to comment in writing or during the interview.{{2}}

APPLICANTS ARE SCREENED BY THE JBC

Applicants and recommendees shall be screened based on set qualifications from the 1987 Constitution (a member of the Judiciary must be a citizen of the Philippines, a member of the Philippine Bar, and a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence) as well as by office-specific qualifications set by the rules of the JBC (see sidebar).

They shall also be evaluated according to

1. Competence, to be measured by

• Educational preparation
• Experience
• Performance
• Other accomplishments

2. Integrity, by means of

• Evidence of integrity
• Background check
• Testimony of parties
• Anonymous testimonies

3. Probity and independence

4. Sound physical, mental, and emotional condition, by means of

• Medical documents
• Psychological/psychiatric tests

In addition, the following are disqualified from becoming nominees (see JBC Rule 4,Sec. 5 and Sec. 6):

• Those with pending criminal or regular administrative cases;
• Those with pending criminal cases in foreign courts or tribunals; and
• Those who have been convicted in any criminal case; or in an administrative case, where the penalty imposed is at least a fine of more than P10,000, unless he has been granted judicial clemency.
• Members of the Judiciary facing administrative complaints under informal preliminary investigation by the Court Administrator.

PUBLIC INTERVIEWS ARE HELD

The JBC will prepare a short list of candidates they wish to interview. The Council, en banc or any authorized set of members of the Council, shall interview the candidates to “observe their personality, demeanor, deportment, and physical condition; assess their ability to express themselves, especially in the language of the law in court trials/proceedings and in their decisions or rulings; test their mastery of the law and legal principles; inquire into their philosophies, values, etc.; determine their probity and independence of mind; and evaluate their readiness and commitment to assume and fulfill the duties and responsibilities of judgeship.” Only the members of the JBC may ask questions during the interview.

Although media accessibility will be subject to the rules promulgated by the Council, these interviews shall be conducted in public. For this purpose, the schedule of the interviews shall be published in local- and general-circulation publications. The reports on the personal interviews, however, are declared strictly confidential documents upon submission to the Secretary of Council and shall only be made available to the members of the JBC.

THE JBC VOTES ON THE LIST OF NOMINEES

A list of candidates that passed the screening process is submitted to the members of the JBC for their final voting and approval. The JBC shall again meet in executive session for the final deliberation. A majority of the members must approve of a candidate in order for his or her name to be included in the final list of nominees that will be submitted to the President. A list of nominees usually consists of five to six names.

THE PRESIDENT APPOINTS SOMEONE FROM THE LIST

The President may appoint anyone included in the list of the JBC with no need of confirmation by Congress.

---

[[1]] According the Fr. Joaquin Bernas, during the Constitutional Commission of 1986, the article from the Judiciary was accepted before that of the legislature. Therefore, only one slot was given to the legislature, which was unicameral in the Constitutional Commission’s initial deliberations. However, since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, a member from the House of Representatives and the Senate would both hold the position and would have half a vote each. On July 17, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that only one member from the legislature may sit as a member of the JBC.[[1]]

[[2]] See Rule No. JBC-10.[[2]]