Jardeleza vs.

Sereno

FACTS:
 In 2014, incumbent Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza was nominated to
replace retiring Associate Justice Roberto Abad.

 CJ Sereno manifested that she would be invoking Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-

0094 regarding a question on Jardeleza’s integrity over his handling of an
international arbitration case for the government.

 When Jardeleza appeared before the JBC, he was asked by CJ Sereno if he

wanted to defend himself against the integrity issues raised against him. He
answered that he would defend himself provided that due process would be
observed. Jardeleza specifically demanded that CJ Sereno and AJ Carpio
execute a sworn statement specifying their objections and that he be afforded the
right to cross-examine them in a public hearing. Finally, he 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. At this juncture, Jardeleza was excused.

 Later in the afternoon of the same day, and apparently 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 short list. Thereafter,
the JBC released the subject short list of four (4) nominees which excluded
Jardeleza.

 Consequently, Jardeleza filed the present petition for certiorari and mandamus
with prayer for the issuance of a TRO, seeking to compel theJBC to include him
in the list of nominees.

ISSUE:
 Does the Supreme Court’s power of supervision over the JBC include the
remedies of certiorari and mandamus?

HELD:
 YES, on the availability of certiorari. NO, on the availability of mandamus.

 Article VIII, Section 1 providesthat the judicial power is vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power
includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether
or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

 In this case, Jardeleza cries that although he earned a qualifying number of votes
in the JBC, it was negated by the invocation of the “unanimity rule” on integrity in
violation of his right to due process guaranteed not only by the Constitution but
 by the Council’s own rules. For said reason, the Court is of the position that it can
exercise the expanded judicialpower of review vested upon it by the 1987
Constitution.

 It has been judicially settled that a petition for certiorari is a proper remedy to
question the act of any branch or instrumentality of the government on the
ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the government, even if the latter
does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions.

 In a case like this, where constitutional bearings are too blatant to ignore, the
Court does not find passivity as an alternative. The impasse must be overcome.

 Mandamus, on the other hand, lies to compel the performance, when refused, of
a ministerial duty, but not to compel the performance of a discretionary duty.
Mandamus will not issue to control or review the exercise of discretion of a public
officer where the law imposes upon said public officer the right and duty to
exercise his judgment in reference to any matter in which he is required to act. It
is his judgment that is to beexercised and not that of the court. There is no
question that the JBC’s duty to nominate is discretionary and it may not be
compelled to do something.