CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 October 5, 2012 Janine Rose Lumanag Section 5.

So before we get lost, section 5 enumerates the powers of the Supreme Court. Paragaraph 1 refers to the power involving the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Paragraph 2 refers to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and we will be discussing comprehensively that power as the power of judicial review. So we are done with 5, Paragraph a. Dyan lang muna tayo. So b, c, d, and e therefore are also under the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. So b, Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in: All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto. This does not involve issues on constitutionality therefore it is not part of what we were discussing under paragraph a. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue. Likewise, All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. So the Supreme Court has the authority to revise, reverse or modify all ___ cases in which the judgment of the lower courts involving criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. So, in other words, the Supreme Court can in fact.. ay. The jurisdiction here refers to the automatic review of death penalty. We have not seen the word automatic under paragraph (e) no, Section 5, paragraph 2, theres no automatic word there. And you may ask how come its automatic. Now the automatic review is a provision under the rules of court and this is established by several cases so by jurisprudence. Foremost is the case of People vs Ramos So the ___ is that, should the Court of Appeals be of the opinion that the penalty of death or reclusion perpetua should be imposed in any criminal case of ____ where the penalty imposed by the trial court is vested (?) by reclusion perpetua. The said court in the conferences greater analysis of evidence and special law, the rendered judgment expressly and explicitly imposed the penalty of either death or reclusion perpetua as the circumstances warrant refrain from entering the judgment and forthwith certify the case and elevate the entire record thereof to this court for review. In other words, even if before the lower court the penalty imposed is less than death or reclusion perpetua but on appeal before the Court of Appeals, the CA is of the opinion that the penalty should be death or RP. Before the CA will refrain from rendering judgment and just refer to the SC because under the constitution it is the SC

which has the authority to review these types of cases but as directive of the SC in this case of People vs Ramos, what the CA should do is to render judgment and to impose the proper penalty either reclusion perpetua or death. After rendering the judgment, the CA will not enter the judgment. Entry of judgment means the judgment will become final and executory. Instead of entering the judgment, the CA will refer the case or certify the case and elevate the entire record of the case to the SC thats why we call it automatic review. Now, in People vs Esparas The accused here, convicted of the crime and was sentenced to death was tried in consencia. Meaning, he is ___ while the trial is ongoing so the trial proceeded without him or without his presence. Now, can the SC or should the SC review his case even if he is absent, even if ____ did not file an appeal or did not appeal this case. So what does automatic review means? It is not intended on the will of the accused, or even the will of the court even if the court says that it is ___ so, even in the absnce of the accused, the SC will still review the case if the penalty is death or reclusion perpetua. If the life is at stake must be as error free as possible. So, the power is a sacred duty according to the SC. Thus, even if the accused is absent, the automatic review is still.. The next power. Paragraph 3, assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed 6 months without the consent of the judge concerned. So, are temporary appointments with the lower courts allowed? Yes, it is allowed. SC does not prohibit it provided that temporary assignments may not exceed 6 months without the consent of the judge. Other ways is that if the judge consents, then it can be extended. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Take note of this. Only the SC can order a change of venue or the place of trial to avoid miscarriage of justice. It is not up to the lower courts to determine whether or not the place of trial will be transferred. This usually happens in the lower courts where say, a judge is called ______ he has a formal designation and a temporary.. convenient to hear the case in the case kasi mas malapit sa kanya. Mind you, the judge cannot order the transfer of the review, it has to be the order of the SC. So that's what happens in separate cases particularly those.. ambush sa Pampanga. That was actually transferred to the ___. This usually takes place where the litigants or the victims cannot participate in the proceedings without imposing danger upon their lives so they can request for a change of venue but that request can only be filed under the SC.

Paragraph 5 refers to the rule making authority of the SC. So the SC is authorized by the Constitution to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. So constitutional rights, so far the SC has issued or promulgated the rules on writ of habeas corpus, the writ of amparo, the writ of habeas data, Habes data refers to the collection of personal data which can be prevented by the SC. So the SC has the authority to promulgate rules for the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. Also for pleading practice and procedure in all courts so you have the rules of court. The admission to the practice of law the bar examinations actually are supervised by the SC and not by the PRC. So any questions regarding your holding of license is referred to the SC and not to PRC unlike other professionals or profession. The integrated bar, so the SC has power over the IBP to appoint, they can enter questions regarding the officers, etc. and the IBP. To the point that a lawyer cannot practice his profession of hes not a member of the IBP. All lawyers should be members of IBP. Rules regarding legal assistance to the underprivileged so we have rules in our modern cases. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. We go directly to Paragraph 6 of section 5: Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law. Now, rules relating to the appointment of employees such as interpreters. These are government employees but more specifically these are employees of a judiciary. Therefore, appointments should be made by the SC but in accordance with the civil service law. Relate that to Section 6: The SC shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. So here you can see that it is the SC which appoints their employees of the court (judges) and it is the SC which has administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. Include also section 11 which gives the SC the power to discipline judges of lower courts. So here we have a provisions pointing to the power of the SC, power of administrative supervision of the SC over court personnel and over all courts and personnel thereof. In Maceda vs Vasquez The SC held that section 6 of Article 8 exclusively vests in the SC administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel as well as the presiding justice of

the CA down to its lowest municipal clerk. Take note of the word exclusive only the SC has administrative supervision over these employees and judges and only the SC may take up administrative cases over court personnel. So only the SC can oversee the judges and court personnels compliance with all laws and take proper administrative action against them in order to find any violation thereof. No other branch of government may include in this power without running against the doctrine of separation of powers but usually, when there are administrative and criminal complaints against public officers, the complaints are usually divided, the administrative complaints either with Civil Service Commission or with the Ombudsman. The office of the ombudsman has the authority to determine administrative cases involving public employees. It has the authority to file administrative cases. Regarding criminal cases, the Ombudsman acts as a prosecutor so the Ombudsmans authority is to conduct preliminary investigation involving public officers or employees to determine whether or not there is probable cause to file the criminal charge against that employee. That is the jurisdiction of the ombudsman. Now, does this jurisdiction extend to judges and employees under Judiciary? Now in Dolalas vs Ombudman Judge Dolalas here was a judge. He was charged with dishonesty, gross neglect of duty and necessary delay in the administration of justice. The charge was filed before the office of the ombudsman. The charge arose from the criminal case, a very simple criminal case of alarms and scandals and it took her 5 years and the case is still pending. The ombudsman doubt determined ultimately is whether or not the undue delay has caused injury to the complaint through manifest partiality even if bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence or undue advantage to any party which is a violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act. In other words, a violation of RA 3190 which is a criminal case. So according to the ombudsman it has the authority to investigate since it is a criminal case. What is the authority of the SC are only administrative cases. But the SC here said that the complaint against the judge is administrative in nature. The resolution of the administrative charge is undue delaying of the disposition for the case involves the determination whether she acted in accordance with the rules of court or with the administrative circulars that refers to the ideals in the code of judicial ____. So it is only the SC that can oversee the judges compliance with laws and take proper administrative action against here. What the ombudsman should do is to refer the case to the SC for proper or appropriate action. De Vera vs Pelayo

The charge is a criminal one criminal charge, violation of article 204 and 205 of the RPC. Again, whats the jurisdiction of the SC over court personnel or here, over the judge? Only cases, administrative cases. So the charge is violation of the RPC, criminal case particularly articles 204 and 205. What is 204 and 205? This refers to knowingly rendering unjust judgment or order. So in fact if a judge renders knowingly an unjust judgment or order, thats a criminal offense. So according to the petitioner here is the ombudsman actually refusing cognizance of the case because according to the ombudsman it is the SC which has the authority to investigate this case. Now the petitioner criticized the jurisprudence cited by the ombudsman because according to him this is a criminal case and therefore, it is the ombudsman which has the authority to conduct preliminary investigation. The SC said, the ombudsman is right. The rule that before a single criminal action against a judge or a violation of 204 and 205 can be entertained, it can be entertained only after a final and authoritative judicial declaration that the decision or order in question is unjust. In other words, before a judge can be investigated, prosecuted for criminal offense under 204 and 205 that is knowingly rendering unjust judgment, there is first has to be a determination, final determination that the judgment is indeed unjust or wrong. And how does that happen? Who can determine that? Its not the ombudsman. The ombudsman cannot say that the judgment is wrong. It simply has no authority to do that. Under our system, it is only the courts which can determine that the judgment is wrong. There are two possibilities. First, if the case proceeds up to appeal, up to certiorari, up to the point that the SC will say that the judgment is wrong or invalid. So, if there is already that judgment then there is administrative that could be administrative in nature or that could be in relation to that pending case, if theres already that judgment, thats the only time that the ombudsman can entertain a charge for violation of 204 and 205 for preliminary investigation. Another way of doing it is to file an administrative case against the judge? But where to file it? Always before the SC because t is only the SC can determine for certainty whether or not the judgment is valid or invalid. So, in other words, even the case is a criminal case the ombudsman can proceed with the preliminary investigation because it has the authority to determine whether or not the judgment is unjust in the first place so what will the ombudsman do? Refer the case first to the SC. Fuentes vs. ombudsman This case involves Judge Fuentes of RTC Davao. This involves the expropriation case involving

the fly-over in Bajada, Buhangin. The government __________ petition for expropriation. However, the owners of the land remain to be at ____. So, what judge Fuentes did is to issue a writ of execution executing the properties of DPWH. So the ____ submitted for action - final action. Now, under the power of the State to expropriate, the doctrine on ___ of the State, apparently the judgment or order executing the properties of the DPWH is illegal that is not allowed under our laws. So what the petitioner did is to file a criminal complaint for violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act. What is the root of that graft and corruption case? That is the issuance of an apparently illegal writ of execution. Now, can the ombudsman conduct preliminary investigation? Does it have jurisdiction? Sa criminal case? The ombudsman has the authority to determine whether or not the order is illegal in the first place. Otherwise, it would be overturning the decision of a court, an executive office overturning the decision of a court. Now who has the authority to overturn the decision of the court? Only the court and the SC. So that is what, even in the ___ of the criminal case, the SC said that the ombudsman has first to refer the case to the SC for the determination, administrative determination whether or not the judge did indeed executed or issued a wrong or illegal order. Caoibes vs Ombudsman We have here a judge filing a case of physical injuries and malicious mischief against another judge. Sumbaganay sila. He asked for the return of the table which is borrowed from him, the latter boxed him on the right eyebrow and left lower jaw so the right lenses of his glasses were thrown away. So, take note the complaint is a criminal one, physical injuries and malicious mischief. Who has the authority to cover the complaint, to investigate that? The filed it in the ombudsman. The SC said that the ombudsman has no authority. What we have here is a case involving two judges for an act committed within the premises of the court and involving a piece of furniture, property of the court. So, there is first a need to determine administrative liability of the judge before the criminal investigation for physical injuries and malicious mischief ___. Take note that factual ____. Adajar vs Develos Involved here are ____ and interpreter of the court. She refuses to make collections from jewelries she sold with private person in the premises of the court. So, the complaint would refer to administrative in nature because that was committed within the court premises. So may the ombudsman investigate? The SC also said that the exclusive jurisdiction over

administrative supervision is within the SC thus the ombudsman cannot investigate the case and the ombudsman should refer that case to the SC. CSC vs Andal Andal here is a security guard employed in Sandiganbayan. Now he took Civil service examination, passed it with flying colors however, it was questioned later in a pictured seat plan there was another person taking the exam for him so he was charged by the CSC and he was dismissed from service by the CSC. The CSC pointed out that it has the authority for all cases involving civil service examination anomalies or irregularities. Now is the CSC correct? The SC said that it does not dispute the authority of the CSC. The question only is that does this authority extend to court personnel? So since the constitution has exclusive jurisdiction over court personnel with the SC then that authority of the CSC does not include the court personnel. Therefore, it is only the SC who can dismiss, who can investigate the security guard. Garcia vs Miro Garcia is a judge of the MTC. He got involved in a vehicular accident. The victim died. A complaint for murder was filed. Now, the ombudsman conducted preliminary investigation for murder. Does the ombudsman have the authority over that case? Yes. Take note that this is a criminal case not involving the performance of the function or duties of a judge. If you observe the cases that we discussed earlier, although these are criminal cases, these were in relation to the performance of their duties thats why the SC said before we conduct the preliminary investigation, we have to determine first if they violated their duties invoking the administrative supervision of the SC. Now in this case, this is purely a criminal case involving an action that does not happen in the performance of the duties of the judge. Therefore he is to be treated as an any other ordinary public officer charged of a criminal complaint so it is ordinarily with the office of the ombudsman so therefore it is not saying that judges and court personnel are immune from criminal charges only that the criminal charge involves the performance and function the ombudsman has yet no jurisdiction but has to first refer the case to the SC for the determination of administrative liability. This is in relation that the exclusive administrative supervision of the SC over courts and court personnel. Is that clear? Now if the criminal case does not involve the function of the judge then the usual, ombudsman ang may authority. Lets go to appointment. Section 7: The first provision that I believe you will encounter is

under article 7, right? Under art. 7 executive department, particularly sections 14, 15 and 16. What is section 14? Appointments made by the acting president, Section 15 prohibition and section 16 ad interim appointments. Regarding the appointment of the SC, the next pertinent provision is section 4, paragraph 1, article 8 which is: ___ in the SC shall be filled within 90 days from the. So the next provision on appointment which refers to qualification appointed to the judiciary. Paragraph 1: No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A Member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty years of age and, must have been for fifteen years or more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines. Paragraph 2: The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but no person may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the Philippine Bar. Easily related, what is the difference between paragraph 1 and 2. 1 is citizenship requirement, natural born. This is required only to the members of the SC and the lower collegiate courts. Collegiate courts means a court with several members seating so a good example would be the CA. The paragraph 2 requires a citizenship requirement only that he is a citizen of the Philippines but this requirement is only for judges of the lower courts so lower than the CA. Paragraph 3: A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence. So, lets put down one in the context. For justices of the SC, what are the qualifications? He must be natural born citizen of the Philippines, at least 40 years of age, must be engaged in the practice of law or a lower court judge for at least 15 years and positive ____ of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence. So the qualifications for members of the SC are actually constitutionally prescribed. What about the members of the CA and other lower courts? The qualifications are actually can be prescribed by the congress, statutorily prescribed. So for members of the collegiate court lower than the SC, the constitutional requirements are only that he will form citizen of the Philippines, a member of the philippine bar, a proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence and statutory qualifications as may be prescribed by law.

For judges of member of courts, the qualifications shall be prescribed by Congress. Their minimum requirement is., constitutional requirement, is member of the Philippine bar, a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence. So if you are asked what are the constitutional requirements of RTC judge? As to the number or length of experience, there is none. It is the law which provides for these qualifications. Actually, 10 years of law practice would qualify as an RTC judge, residence ______, pero it is provided by law and the constitution. And, the next provision pertains to appointment is section 8. Paragraph 1 refers to the judicial bar council. So it is created under the supervision of the SC. Who is the ex officio chairman? Chief Justice. Meaning, as a SC chief justice, it is your duty to be the chairman of the SC. Other ex officio members would be representative of the Congress and the Secretary of Justice. Theres a problem there regarding representative of the Congress, because its states there a representative of congress. Why? The congress has two bodies and both bodies consist of persons with egos. So, how do they solve this problem? Senator? Or congressman? What they did is a compromise. They sent two representatives, one from the lower house and one from the senate. This is by practice not by legislation. One from the lower house and one from the Senate. So what they did is and vote. So far, this arrangement was not in question. The constitution favors this arrangement is not questioned. Maybe its working because it was not questioned. So thats how they resolve this problem. Who are the regular members of the JBC? Regular members are a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector. How are they to be appointed? Thats in paragraph 2. The others mentioned earlier, these are automatic members. They are to be appointed by the President for a term of 4 years with the consent of the commission on appointments. So recall section 16, article 7 saan sila nabelong? Those whose members whose appointments are vested in him (the President). So their appointments require the confirmation of the commission on appointments. The second sentence of paragraph 2 refers to the system to the objective that the terms and qualities are ______. Paragraph 5 refers to the function of the JBC. What is the function of the JBC? To recommend appointees to the Judiciary. Who appoints the members to the Judiciary? Okay. The answer is in section 9: The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of

at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. So the process of appointment therefore is ____ recommendation by an incumbent President. They are not exclusive. Such appointments need no confirmation. The SC Chief Justice is appointed by the President. Should the appointment be submitted for the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments? So, no. For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within ninety days from the submission of the list. So, relate that to section 4 paragraph 1: Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence. Appointment shall be made within 90 days from submission of list. Take note the word shall. Shall be within 90 days from the occurrence thereof. Now, I told about you the provisions pertinent to the appointments of the members of the judiciary and the lower courts. Is there a clash between provision on midnight appointments and appointment by the president in the judiciary? Is there prohibition? Does the prohibition include appointments to the judiciary? The question was first answered by the SC in the case of in re: Valenzuela. In re: Valenzuela The president and the JBC submitted a shortlist for the appointments to the RTC and the President made an appointment within ___ period because during that period because that particular appointment, there was a presidential election. So whats the pro There was a presidential election so whats the prohibitive period? 2 months up to the end of the term of the President. So in that case, the president appointed the prohibitive period is already _____. Now, are the two judges or their appointments valid? The SC said, the SC en banc said that the appointments are null and void. In other words the prohibition on midnight appointments apply to appointments in the judiciary, there is no distinction. Anyway, the SC said, section 5 according to the SC, section 9 of article 8 yung 90 days simply mean that the president is required to make an appointment to the judiciary for is provided it is prohibited by section 15, article 7. The president within that prohibited period, the president is neither required nor allowed to make an appointment. Now, the prohibition on appointments comes only every 6 eyars. Surely the prevention of votebuying through appointments _______ or delays ___ as the disposition of cases. Moreover, the can be filled by temporary designation. The SC has the power to distinguish of ____ lower courts. So in other words, for prohibition to the members of the judiciary. Section 4 section 9 only provides for the periods to appoint but this was overturned by the case of De castro vs JBC.

De Castro vs JBC That case decided in 2010 also appointment but that case actually was. The JBC will submit the shortlist to the incumbent president or to the incoming president? Whether or not appointments to the judiciary is included in the prohibition. So this is a constitutional issue. The SC said that. Is that issue refer to adjudication? And according to petitioners na against the appointment or pro prohibition is not for adjudication because chief justice puno is yet to obtain the seat on May 17. The election would be on May 10. Besides, we are not sure. We do not know whether the president will appoint or hindi na. so there is no case or controversy. But the SC said that the issue is for adjudication. Why? The petition is about to compel the JBC to submit the shortlist mandamus to the outgoing president prohibition to prohibit the JBC from submitting the shortlist. Yun ang conclusion. Now, according to the SC, the JBC had not finished the process. It started with the selection process, made an announcement for the selection and the next phase would be interview. Before going to the interview, the petitions were filed. Now according to the petitioners, the JBC referred the proceedings because of this constitutional issue therefore, there is a requirement of adjudication but read the dissenting opinion of Nachura. For Nachura the petition should be dismissed. Its not for adjudication. There is ample case or controversy. There is a clash of illegal rights, clash of illegal rights? Is there a clash here? The JBCX actually did not defer that proceedings and according. Actually the JBC said that it is open to any order for that matter regarding ___ submit a shortlist. Besides up to time of the filing of the petition there is no shorlist for the SC to mandate the JBC to submit or prevent from submitting. So according to Nachura, the case is not right for adjudication. The majority of the opinion was overturned by Valenzuela, you tell me why. FOR THE DISSENTING OPINION: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr20 10/gr_191002_2010.html Guys sorry di ko talaga marinig ang last two cases. So nag ready na lang ako ng case digest from the internet. In Re Appointments of Hon. Mateo Valenzuela and Hon. Placido Vallarta Facts: Referred to the Court en banc are the appointments signed by the President dated March 30, 1998 of Hon. Mateo Valenzuela and Hon. Placido Vallarta as judges of the RTC of Bago City and Cabanatuan City, respectively. These appointments appear prima facie, at least, to be expressly prohibited by Sec. 15,

Art. VII of the Constitution. The said constitutional provision prohibits the Presidentfrom making any appointments two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continuedvacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety. Issue: Whether or not, during the period of the ban on appointments imposed by Sec. 15, Art. VII of the Constitution, thePresident is nonetheless required to fill vacancies in the judiciary, in view of Secs. 4 (1) and 9 of Art. VIII Held: During the period stated in Sec. 15, Art. VII of the Constitution two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term the President is neither required to make appointments to the courts nor allowed to do so; and that Secs. 4(1) and 9 of Art. VIII simply mean that the President is required to fill vacancies in the courts within the time frames provided therein unless prohibited by Sec. 15 of Art. VII. This prohibition on appointments comes into effect once every 6 years. The appointments of Valenzuela and Vallarta were unquestionably made during the period of the ban. They come within the operation of the prohibition relating to appointments. While the filling of vacancies in the judiciary is undoubtedly in the public interest, there is no showing in this case of any compelling reason to justify the making of the appointments during the period of the ban De Castro vs. Judicial and Bar Council The compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno by May 17, 2010 occurs just days after the coming presidential elections on May 10, 2010. Even before the event actually happens, it is giving rise to many legal dilemmas. This dilemma is rooted in consideration of Section 15, Art VII of the Constitution prohibiting the President or Acting President from making appointments within two months immediately before the next presidential election and up to the end of his term, except when temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies will prejudice public service or endanger public safety. However, Section 4 (1), Art VIII of the Constitution also provides that any vacancy in the Supreme Court shall be filled within 90 days from occurrence. The question leads to who should appoint the next Chief Justice and may the JBC resume the process of screening candidates should the

incumbent president not prohibited to do so. May a mandamus lie to compel the submission of JBCs nominees to the president? This issue at hand truly is impressed with transcendental importance to the Nation. A lot of petitions were received by the court from a mandamus to prohibitions. We limit our discussion with GR 191002 for brevity. Issues: Whether or not the case at bar is an actual controversy. Whether or not the petitioners have legal standing to file said petition. Ratio Decidendi: The court held the case being premature because the Judicial and Bar Council has until May 17, 2010 at the least within which to submit the list of nominees to the President to fill the vacancy created by the compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Puno. The petitioner here asserts his right as citizen filing the petition on behalf of the public who are directly affected by the issue of the appointment. The question raised before the court is in fact of transcendental importance. The court dispels all doubt to remove any obstacle or obstruction to the resolution of the essential issue squarely presented. Standing is a peculiar concept to constitutional law because in some cases, suits are not brought by parties who have been personally injured by the operation of law or any other government act but by concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually sue in the public interest. The court dismissed the petitions for certiorari and mandamus in GR 191002 and GR 191149 and the petition for mandamus in GR no. 191057 for being premature; dismissal of the petitions for prohibition in GR 191032 and GR 191342 for lack of merit; and grants the in AM No. 10-2-5-SC and accordingly directs the JBC to: resume proceedings for the nomination of candidates, prepare short list of nominees for the said position, submit to the incumbent President the short list of nominees, and to continue proceedings for the nomination of candidates to fill other vacancies in the Judiciary and submit to the President the short list of nominees corresponding thereto in accordance with this decision