MANILA, Philippines – The Judicial and Bar Council did not act on an opposition filed against the designation of Undersecretary Frederick Michael Musngi as member of the body.
Jose Mejia, one of the body’s 8 members, told Rappler that they only “noted” the letter sent by a certain “Mang Pandoy” because it is an anonymous complaint. In a letter submitted on July 22, “Mang Pandoy” questioned the constitutionality of Musngi’s appointment to the council on July 20.
Article 8, Sec. 8 of the 1987 Constitution states that “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.”
Malacañang named Musngi as replacement of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, who had to inhibit from the JBC’s proceedings because she is one of the 20 contenders for the post of chief justice.
“Mang Pandoy” said in his letter that the 1987 Constitution specifically states that it is the justice secretary who should sit in the JBC, the body that vets and screens aspirants to the judiciary for appointment by the president. The Constitution does not say any other representative of the executive branch can sit in the JBC.
Anonymous complaint
The JBC rule on anonymous complaints covers only those filed against applicants. Rule 4 Section 4 of the JBC rules states that “anonymous complaints against an applicant shall not be given due course, unless there appears on its face a probable cause sufficient to engender belief that the allegations may be true. In the latter case, the Council may either direct a discreet investigation or require the applicant to comment thereon in writing or during the interview.”
“Mang Pandoy” said he will submit another letter to the JBC. “I’m writing one more letter. Anonymous or not, they have bigger things to worry about, ie unconstitutionality of their acts,” he said.
The constitutionality of Musngi’s appointment to the JBC becomes a pivotal issue in light of his recent actions in the council. It was Musngi who proposed on Friday, August 10, the suspension of the council’s rule on disqualifying aspirants to the judiciary who have pending cases. It was seen as a move to save De Lima.
Three disbarment complaints had been filed against De Lima. The IBP consolidated two complaints into one since they both cited as basis De Lima’s defiance of a Supreme Court temporary restraining order on the travel ban against the Arroyo couple in November 2011.
The other case stemmed from a stinging statement made by de Lima against dismissed chief justice Renato Corona. De Lima called Corona a “tyrant who holds himself above justice and accountability” on national television.
If Musngi’s appointment is found to be unconstitutional, the undersecretary would have to vacate his post in the JBC. Only the Supreme Court can rule on the validity of his appointment, however. – Rappler.com
More in #SCWatch:
- De Lima did not have the votes. Period.
- JBC: How they voted on CJ shortlist
- JBC disqualifies De Lima from CJ race
- How JBC’s 5 votes can change the game
- 22 official candidates for Chief Justice
- JBC to interview CJ candidates starting July 24
- 25 accept nominations for chief justice
- Questions for chief justice candidates
- JBC should review process of choosing CJ
- Besides JBC, Palace has judicial search committee
- CONVERSATIONS: How should the JBC choose the next chief justice? #SCWatch
There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.