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.