Power of the Judiciary: De Castro vs. JBC (G.R. No.

191002,
April 20, 2010)
Facts:
This is a Motion for Reconsideration on the March 17, 2010 decision of the Court. The said decision
directs the Judicial and Bar Council to resume its proceedings for the nomination of candidates to fill the
vacancy created by the compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno by May 17, 2010, and to
prepare the short list of nominees and submit it to the incumbent President. Movants argue that the
disputed constitutional provision, Art. VII, Sec. 15 and Art. VIII, Sec. 4(1), clearly intended the ban on
midnight appointments to cover the members of the Judiciary, and they contended that the principle of
stare decisis is controlling, and insisted that the Court erred in disobeying or abandoning the Valenzuela
ruling.
ISSUE (Section 4):
Did the Constitutional Commission extend to the Judiciary the ban on presidential appointments during
the period stated in Sec. 15, Article VII?
RULING:
The Constitutional Commission did not extend to the Judiciary the ban on presidential appointments
during the period stated in Sec. 15, Art. VII. The deliberations that the dissent of Justice Carpio Morales
quoted from the records of the Constitutional Commission did not concern either Sec. 15, Art. VII or Sec.
4(1), Art. VIII, but only Sec. 13, Art. VII, a provision on nepotism.
Election ban on appointments does not extend to the Supreme Court. The Court upheld its March 17,
2010 decision ruling that the prohibition under Art. VII, Sec. 15 of the Constitution against presidential
appointments immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of the term of the
outgoing president does not apply to vacancies in the Supreme Court.