Relevant Constitutional Text
From the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Article XI (“Accountability of Public Officers”):
-
Section 8.
The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines, and at the time of their appointment, at least forty years old, of recognized probity and independence, and members of the Philippine Bar, and must not have been candidates for any elective office in the immediately preceding election. The Ombudsman must have for ten years or more been a judge or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.
During their tenure, they shall be subject to the same disqualifications and prohibitions as provided for in Section 2 of Article IX-A of this Constitution. -
Section 9.
The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least six nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council, and from a list of three nominees for every vacancy thereafter. Such appointments shall require no confirmation. All vacancies shall be filled within three months after they occur.
Relevant Statutory / Rule Law — JBC Rules
The Judicial and Bar Council has adopted Revised Rules (2020) which implement constitutional mandates. Key provisions:
-
The 2020 Revised Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council (which cover nominations for, among others, the Ombudsman, Deputies, etc.) include:
“WHEREAS, the President of the Philippines may appoint from the list of at least three nominees for every vacancy officially transmitted by the Council to the Office of the President” … these Rules are to be considered in the selection and nomination for the offices of the Ombudsman... etc.
-
Also, under those Rules, there is a deadline:
“Vacancies in the offices of the Ombudsman, Deputy Ombudsman, and Special Prosecutor … shall be filled within three (3) months from their occurrence.”
Key Jurisprudence: De Castro v. JBC
The Supreme Court case De Castro v. JBC (G.R. No. 191002 et al., 2010) is the landmark case regarding whether the President can disregard a JBC shortlist or request more nominees in judicial appointments. While it deals with Supreme Court / judicial vacancies (Chief Justice etc.), its reasoning helps illuminate similar issues.
Some relevant holdings:
-
The Court held that Sections 8(5) and 9, Article VIII (Constitution) mandate that for judicial vacancies, the JBC must submit a list of at least three nominees to the President. The President must appoint from among those nominees.
-
The Court emphasized that once the list is submitted, the President cannot demand expanding the list beyond what the JBC submits, nor pick someone not in the list. The discretion to pick lies within the nominees provided by the Council.
-
Also, the Court made clear that the duty of the JBC to prepare and submit the list is ministerial once the constitutional requisites are met: the JBC must act; delay or failure attracts remedy (e.g. via mandamus) – but the content of which nominees to include is a discretionary function of JBC.
Exact Passages Worth Quoting
Here are precisely relevant bits that bear on whether the President is bound once the list is transmitted:
-
From De Castro:
“Section 9, Article VIII requires the President to appoint from a list submitted by the JBC.”
“With due respect, the JBC cannot acquiesce to your request to expand the short list of nominees submitted to your office. The decision whether to include three or more than three name in the short list of the nominees exclusively belongs to the JBC … This discretion given to the JBC … cannot be compromised … without impairing the delicate check and balance in the appointment … installed in our Constitution.”
-
From the Constitution (Art. XI, Sec. 9):
“The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least six nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council, and from a list of three nominees for every vacancy thereafter.”
Assisted by ChatGPT AI app,September 16, 2025.
