spot_img
28 C
Philippines
Friday, March 29, 2024

Palace takes up cudgels for Sandigan appointees

- Advertisement -

Malacañang on Tuesday defended President Benigno Aquino III on his appointment of two justices to the Sandiganbayan, now being questioned by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

“From the onset of this administration, President Aquino has ensured that all his actions are compliant with the 1987 Constitution and all of the laws of the land,” Communications Secretary Herminio Coloma  Jr.  said  at  a press briefing in Malacañang.

“Although we have yet to see the reported petition of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines questioning the appointment to the Sandiganbayan of two justices, we wish to emphasize that the appointments complied with the Constitution and existing laws, as well as the requirements of the Judicial and Bar Council JBC,” said Coloma.

“In fact, the justices  who were appointed took their oath of office before justices of the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice [Maria Lourdes] Sereno who is also the Chair of the JBC,” said Coloma.

The IBP on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to nullify the appointments of two Sandiganbayan justices who were among those selected by President Aquino to fill in new posts in the anti-graft court.

- Advertisement -

In its petition, the IBP, which is the national organization of lawyers in the Philippines and the mandatory bar association for Filipino lawyers, said Aquino committed culpable violation of the 1987 Constitution and grave abuse of discretion when he appointed Associate Justices Geraldine Faith Econg and Michael Frederick Musngi.

Joining the IBP in the petition were five judges and candidates who were shortlisted for one of the six posts but were not selected. They are: Philip Aguinaldo, Muntinlupa RTC Branch 207; Reynaldo Alhambra, Manila RTC Branch 53; Danilo Cruz, presiding judge of Pasig RTC Branch 152; Benjamin Pozon, presiding judge of Makati RTC Branch 139; and Salvador Timbang, presiding judge of Las Piñas RTC Branch 253.

The petitioners accused Aquino of violating Section 9, Article VII of the Constitution when he did not appoint anyone from the shortlist submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council for the 16th associate justice post, and instead picked two appointees—Econg and Musngi—from the shortlist for the 21st associate justice post to fill in both the 16th and 21st posts.     

The petitioning judges, who were all shortlisted for the 16th Sandiganbayan post, claimed they “suffered direct injury” when Aquino did not appoint anyone from their batch of shortlisted individuals.

The petitioners said no one among the appointees was taken from the shortlist for the vacancy. Instead, two nominees were appointed from the same shortlist where only one nominee should have been chosen.

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles