“Let the debate in the Supreme Court begin.”

Thus declared SC spokesperson and Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez after the High Court received a petition seeking to compel the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to transmit to President Arroyo the list of nominees to succeed Chief Justice Reynato Puno.

“With the petition, let the debates in the different forums – in the coffee shops and in the barber shops end. We have heard about the issue from opposing sides. This time, let us give the Court a chance to decide the issue,” Marquez told a press conference.

In a 12-page petition, lawyer Arturo M. De Castro asked the SC to issue a writ of mandamus directing JBC to submit its shortlist to the incumbent President immediately after Puno’s retirement on May 17.

The JBC had earlier decided to start processing the nominations for the next SC chief but deferred its decision on when to submit the shortlist of nominees for Puno’s successor to the “proper appointing authority.”

This is because of conflicting views as to whether Mrs. Arroyo could still appoint the next Chief Justice despite the election appointments ban under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution.

Puno’s retirement date falls within the election period when midnight appointments are prohibited.

Castro, a law professor and bar reviewer at the Law Center of the University of the Philippines and the Ateneo Law School, argued that the High Court, not the JBC, which has the authority to resolve the constitutional question of whether Mrs. Arroyo can appoint a Chief Justice during the election ban period.

The petitioner said he strongly believes the incumbent President has the power and authority to appoint the country’s next chief magistrate.

Citing the advice of then Senior Associate Justice Florenz Regalado, as JBC consultant, in 1998, De Castro pointed out that “the election ban has no application to appointments to the judiciary.”

He also argued that the appointment of a Chief Justice during the ban is justified by paramount public interest, adding that the prohibition is not absolute.