Rigid process followed in selection of CJ Corona

Please allow us to respond to the series of columns of Conrado de Quiros regarding Chief Justice Renato Corona, the latest of which appeared in the Oct. 18 issue of the Inquirer.

From the very start, it seems that De Quiros has prejudged Chief Justice Corona, not exactly because of who he is and what he has accomplished, but rather because of who appointed him. While the timing may not be the most auspicious, the appointment of Chief Justice Corona passed through and complied with rigid constitutional processes, including the nomination process of the Judicial and Bar Council, which the Court, in its March 17, 2010 ruling in JBC v. De Castro (sans then Associate Justice Corona who inhibited himself), confirmed as constitutional, and not covered by the constitutional ban.

Also, it may be stressed that the Supreme Court is a collegiate Court and so the Chief Justice’s vote counts as much as the newest associate justice in deciding a case. In the Fasap case, however, Chief Justice Corona had inhibited as early as 2008. In any case, may I emphasize that the en banc merely acted to obviate all doubts arising from the apparent “misapplication” of its rules as to which division should resolve the pending second motion for reconsideration. That seems far better than simply sweeping the matter under the rug.

—JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ,

court administrator,

chief, Public Information Office,

Supreme Court of the Philippines