CORONA

Supreme Court Associate Justice Renato C. Corona on Wednesday accepted his possible nomination by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) for the position of Chief Justice.

His acceptance of the JBC nomination came a day before the deadline of submission of applications or recommendations for the position that will be left vacant upon the retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno on May 17.

In a one-page letter to the JBC Secretariat, Justice Corona said: “In response to your letter dated January 21, 2010, please be advised that I am interested in being considered for nomination to the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.”

Unlike the two other senior SC associate justices who have already accepted the nomination, Corona did not impose any condition on his possible inclusion to the shortlist of nominees that the JBC may or may not submit to President Arroyo.

Instead, Corona said he would “humbly submit to the wisdom of the JBC in the exercise of its mandate under the Constitution.”

Aside from Corona, the eight-member JBC, headed by Chief Justice Puno, had also written four other senior members of the High Tribunal – Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Conchita Carpio Morales, Presbitero J. Velasco Jr. and Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura – informing them that they were being considered for nomination for the top SC post.

Justices Velasco and Nachura begged off from the race. While Justices Carpio and Morales manifested their interest in being considered as possible successors to Puno but on condition that their names will be submitted to the next President, who will be elected on May 10.

Carpio is the most senior among the associate justices of the High Court, followed by Justices Corona and Morales.

The stance of Carpio and Morales echoes the position taken by various sectors and legal personalities that outgoing President Arroyo cannot name Puno’s replacement since this would violate the election appointments ban.

Under Article VII, Section 15 of the Constitution, an incumbent President is prohibited from making any appointments two months before the next presidential elections and until his or her term expires on June 30.

However, some are saying that Mrs. Arroyo could still appoint the next Chief Justice claiming that the ban only covers officials in the Executive department.

They said the Constitution also mandates the President to fill up the vacancy in the judiciary within 90 days from submission of the JBC shortlist.

Court Administrator and SC spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez said that although the JBC has already started the selection process it has yet to decide whether it will submit the shortlist to Mrs. Arroyo.

He said the JBC will wait for all applications and recommendations to come in before deciding on its next move.

“After the deadline lapses, the JBC will decide what to do with the letters. Let’s see how the JBC will decide on Monday,” Marquez said, referring to all the correspondences received by the council, including those from Carpio and Morales.

So far, Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio is the only “outsider” who has been endorsed for the Chief Justice post.

Marquez said the JBC shortlist normally includes the three most senior among SC associate justices. “Historically, as a gauge, it’s always the first three who are included in the list,” he said.

He, however, clarified that the JBC will still have to evaluate all possible nominees before coming up with the shortlist.

“We have to take everything into consideration,” he said.

Marquez also said that the JBC will take into consideration all views regarding the appointment of the next Chief Justice, including the position of retired SC Justices Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez, and Alicia Austria Martinez.

Gutierrez and Martinez have branded as illegal what they regarded as an attempt by Mrs. Arroyo to appoint the next SC chief despite the unconstitutional ban against “midnight appointments.”

Marquez said there was nothing unusual about retired SC justices giving their views regarding a particular issue.

“Even incumbent justices disagree on certain issues. It’s all a healthy sign of democracy we are experiencing. This is just normal,” he said.