(Updated 2:17 p.m.) A proposal has been made to institute a point system whenever the Judicial and Bar Council chooses nominees to fill up vacant positions in the judiciary and the offices of the Ombudsman and the Deputy Ombudsman. In a seven-page proposal, JBC regular member and executive committee chairperson Regino Hermosisima, a retired Supreme Court justice, introduced a system in which candidates are graded based on several criteria. The system was in compliance with a directive from the eight-member council during a meeting last October 22. Hermosisima addressed the proposal to Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and the six other members of the council: ex-officio members Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, Sen. Chiz Escudero, Rep. Niel Tupas Jr, and regular members Jose Mejia, Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Milagros Cayosa, and former Appeals justice Aurora Lagman. "In order to choose 'the best and the brightest' among the applicants and to limit the list of possible nominees, hereunder is the proposed mechanics in the implementation of the Points System," Hermosisima said in his letter. Under the new proposal, each candidate would be graded based on the following (on a scale of 1 to 100):
- Educational background: 20 points (10 points for scholastic performance, 10 points for Bar rating)
- Experience: 15 points
- Performance: 15 points
- Integrity: 20 points (10 points in connection with cases filed, opposition, and general reputation; and 10 points for survey results)
- Good health: 20 points (10 points for physical health; 10 points for mental health)
- Other accomplishments: 10 points (5 points for awards; 5 points for legal writings)
Factors to be considered under a candidate's educational background would include whether he or she was an honor student in the primary, secondary, tertiary levels, and in law school. The number of times that a candidate has taken the Bar before passing it is also considered. Additional points would be given if the candidate made it through the Top 5 (4 points), Top 10 (3 points), Top 15 (2 points), or Top 20 (1 point). Under "Work Experience," factors to be considered are his or her length of service either as magistrate, court personnel, private practitioner, or service in other government institution, as well as length of legal corporate service. Under "Work Performance," things to be considered would be the candidate’s case load and their disposal rate per year for the last five years. Their "administrative ability" would also be taken into account. Still under "Work Performance," the JBC would also look into whether the candidates faced administrative cases and sanctions. A candidate's integrity meanwhile will be measured based on oppositions and the cases filed against them, as well as an evaluation of the applicants based on the JBC's "survey system." To ensure applicants' good health, the JBC would also grade the candidates based on medical certificates, impressions of laboratory, and electrocardiography (ECG), and X-ray results; as well as results of the psychometric testing and psychiatric evaluation. Last to be considered are candidates' accomplishments in terms of getting awards, citations, scholarships abroad, published law books, manuscripts, and other published and unpublished writings, as well their grade in the Prejudicature Program — a program provided by the Philippine Judicial Academy to aspirants to judicial positions. Under the proposal, only those who obtained a score of 70 points and above would advance to be considered for nomination by the JBC. For appointment and promotion, the JBC would now consider candidates who have not taken the Prejudicature Program only if there are no program participants applying or where "the non-participants are exceedingly better qualified." "While the grade of only 20 percent is allocated for good health, the JBC can disqualify applicants otherwise well-qualified who are proved to be physically or mentally incapable of discharging judicial functions," read the proposal. The proposal also allows any member of the JBC to propose the inclusion on the list of nominees of a candidate who might have scored below 70 percent but has "exceptional qualifications." Such proposal, however, is subject to the approval of the JBC en banc. The JBC regular members shall also submit for voting applicants who passed the evaluation test. The proposal came on the heels of the public interviews of the 15 candidates vying for the lone vacant post at the Supreme Court, which was vacated due to the ouster of Renato Corona. Corona was replaced by Sereno, who was one of three appointees to the Supreme Court of President Benigno Aquino III. Shortly before her appointment, reports came out of an alleged leaked psychological exam results of Sereno, showing she scored "4," the second lowest grade in a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest. The JBC stood by their decision not to take Sereno out of the race, saying a candidate's score doesn't matter as long as it was proven he or she was not suffering from any mental illness.
— Mark D. Merueñas/KBK, GMA News 
GMA Brandtalk
Tracking
Archives
