MANILA, Philippines - Malacañang appears to be in a hurry to cover all bases as insurance for President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo when she steps down from power on June 30.

Faced with the prospect of a deluge of criminal cases to be filed against her after June 30, the Palace wants to put in place its allies in sensitive posts, not only in the Supreme Court, but also in the Ombudsman and the Office of the Special Prosecutor.

As early as October last year, the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) began the formal application and nominations for two crucial positions—the deputy Ombudsman for Luzon and the Office of the Special Prosecutor—months ahead of the scheduled retirement of those holding these posts.

The deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, Victor Fernandez, and Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio are set to retire on March 3 and Feb. 24 respectively. The two posts have a 7-year tenure.

Under normal circumstances, the JBC, the body that vets nominees to the judiciary and the Ombudsman, announces nominations a few weeks before the scheduled vacancy. But this was not observed in the case of Fernandez and Villa-Ignacio.

“I was surprised when the JBC opened the nominations for my position when I still have several months to go,” Villa-Ignacio told abs-cbnnews.com/Newsbreak. “Why that early, why the urgency?”

Rift with Gutierrez

Villa-Ignacio, who successfully pinned down former President Estrada on plunder charges, has been at odds with Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, who is widely perceived as too accommodating of the Arroyos.

Villa-Ignacio, who was recommended to post by former Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo, has accused the Ombudsman of clipping his administrative and prosecutorial powers.

On the other hand, Fernandez, who was also handpicked by Marcelo, has been on “floating status” in the Ombudsman, sources said.

Gutierrez has assumed cases that should have been referred to Fernandez’s office, including other high-profile cases.

Sources in the judiciary said the early nominations for the deputy Ombudsman and the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) posts were no different from attempts to appoint in advance Chief Justice Reynato Puno’s successor.

No prohibition for Ombudsman posts

But unlike Puno’s case, there appears no constitutional prohibition for President Arroyo to appoint Fernandez and Villa-Ignacio’s replacements since their dates of retirement are not covered by the ban.

Under the Constitution, the President is barred from making appointments two months before the presidential elections and until his or her term expires. This means the prohibition starts on March 10. The synchronized national and local elections are on May 10.

Villa-Ignacio conceded that the President could very well appoint his replacement since he would be retiring 15 days before the ban starts. Fernandez, on the other hand, will retire 7 days before the appointments ban.

'Let next president appoint'

But Villa-Ignacio said Arroyo should give the next President a freer hand in appointing the new Special Prosecutor considering the sensitivity of the post.

“The OSP is mandated under the Constitution to prosecute before the Ombudsman cases of high-ranking government officials and high-ranking military officers. The OSP should not only be competent but also perceived to be independent and credible,’ Villa-Ignacio said.

The President has been criticized for undermining the independence of institutions by appointing people close to her and to her family.

The controversy on the appointment of Puno’s replacement way ahead of his retirement on May 17 has triggered debates from many sectors.

Malacañang officials have argued that the President could appoint Puno’s successor as a matter of national interest. On the other hand, those opposed said Mrs. Arroyo cannot make an appointment for a position that is not vacant.

What judiciary act says

Palace allies said President Arroyo has the duty to prevent a leadership vacuum, in this case, in the top post in the judiciary, which is likely to be vacant until the next President assumes power.

But the Judiciary Act allays such fears.

The Act states that “in case of vacancy of the chief Justice, the duties of the Chief Justice shall devolve upon the associate justice who is first in precedence.”

This means that the post can be temporarily be assumed by an acting chief justice who is the most senior.