Chavez V JBC Digest

G.R. No.
202242 July 17, 2012

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, Petitioner,
vs.
JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL, SEN. FRANCIS JOSEPH G.
ESCUDERO and REP. NIEL C. TUPAS, JR., Respondents.
Facts:
The case is in relation to the process of selecting the
nominees for the vacant seat of Supreme Court Chief Justice
following Renato Coronas departure.
Originally, the members of the Constitutional Commission
saw the need to create a separate, competent and
independent body to recommend nominees to the President.
Thus, it conceived of a body representative of all the
stakeholders in the judicial appointment process and called it
the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).
In particular, Paragraph 1 Section 8, Article VIII of the
Constitution states that (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is
hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court
composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the
Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as
ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a
professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court,
and a representative of the private sector. In compliance
therewith, Congress, from the moment of the creation of the
JBC, designated one representative from the Congress to sit
in the JBC to act as one of the ex officio members.
In 1994 however, the composition of the JBC was
substantially altered. Instead of having only seven (7)
members, an eighth (8th) member was added to the JBC as
two (2) representatives from Congress began sitting in the
JBC one from the House of Representatives and one from
the Senate, with each having one-half (1/2) of a vote. During
the existence of the case, Senator Francis Joseph G.
Escudero and Congressman Niel C. Tupas, Jr. (respondents)
simultaneously sat in JBC as representatives of the
legislature.
It is this practice that petitioner has questioned in this
petition.
The respondents claimed that when the JBC was established,
the framers originally envisioned a unicameral legislative
body, thereby allocating a representative of the National
Assembly to the JBC. The phrase, however, was not
modified to aptly jive with the change to bicameralism which
was adopted by the Constitutional Commission on July 21,
1986. The respondents also contend that if the
Commissioners were made aware of the consequence of
having a bicameral legislature instead of a unicameral one,
they would have made the corresponding adjustment in the
representation of Congress in the JBC; that if only one house
of Congress gets to be a member of JBC would deprive the
other house of representation, defeating the principle of
balance.
The respondents further argue that the allowance of two (2)
representatives of Congress to be members of the JBC does
not render JBCs purpose of providing balance nugatory; that
the presence of two (2) members from Congress will most
likely provide balance as against the other six (6) members
who are undeniably presidential appointees
Supreme Court held that it has the power of review the case
herein as it is an object of concern, not just for a nominee to
a judicial post, but for all the citizens who have the right to
seek judicial intervention for rectification of legal blunders.
Issue:
Whether the practice of the JBC to perform its functions with
eight (8) members, two (2) of whom are members of
Congress, defeats the letter and spirit of the 1987
Constitution.
Held:
No. The current practice of JBC in admitting two members of

the Congress to perform the functions of the JBC is violative
of the 1987 Constitution. As such, it is unconstitutional.
One of the primary and basic rules in statutory construction
is that where the words of a statute are clear, plain, and free
from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and
applied without attempted interpretation. It is a well-settled
principle of constitutional construction that the language
employed in the Constitution must be given their ordinary
meaning except where technical terms are employed. As
such, it can be clearly and unambiguously discerned from
Paragraph 1, Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
that in the phrase, a representative of Congress, the use of
the singular letter a preceding representative of
Congress is unequivocal and leaves no room for any other
construction. It is indicative of what the members of the
Constitutional Commission had in mind, that is, Congress
may designate only one (1) representative to the JBC. Had it
been the intention that more than one (1) representative
from the legislature would sit in the JBC, the Framers could
have, in no uncertain terms, so provided.
Moreover, under the maxim noscitur a sociis, where a
particular word or phrase is ambiguous in itself or is equally
susceptible of various meanings, its correct construction may
be made clear and specific by considering the company of
words in which it is founded or with which it is associated.
Every meaning to be given to each word or phrase must be
ascertained from the context of the body of the statute since
a word or phrase in a statute is always used in association
with other words or phrases and its meaning may be
modified or restricted by the latter. Applying the foregoing
principle to this case, it becomes apparent that the word
Congress used in Article VIII, Section 8(1) of the
Constitution is used in its generic sense. No particular
allusion whatsoever is made on whether the Senate or the
House of Representatives is being referred to, but that, in
either case, only a singular representative may be allowed to
sit in the JBC.

Considering that the language of the subject constitutional
provision is plain and unambiguous, there is no need to
resort extrinsic aids such as records of the Constitutional
Commission. Nevertheless, even if the Court should proceed
to look into the minds of the members of the Constitutional
Commission, it is undeniable from the records thereof that it
was intended that the JBC be composed of seven (7)
members only. The underlying reason leads the Court to
conclude that a single vote may not be divided into half
(1/2), between two representatives of Congress, or among
any of the sitting members of the JBC for that matter.
With the respondents contention that each representative
should be admitted from the Congress and House of
Representatives, the Supreme Court, after the perusal of the
records of Constitutional Commission, held that Congress,
in the context of JBC representation, should be considered as
one body. While it is true that there are still differences
between the two houses and that an inter-play between the
two houses is necessary in the realization of the legislative
powers conferred to them by the Constitution, the same
cannot be applied in the case of JBC representation because
no liaison between the two houses exists in the workings of
the JBC. No mechanism is required between the Senate and
the House of Representatives in the screening and
nomination of judicial officers. Hence, the term Congress
must be taken to mean the entire legislative department.
The framers of Constitution, in creating JBC, hoped that the
private sector and the three branches of government would
have an active role and equal voice in the selection of the
members of the Judiciary. Therefore, to allow the Legislature
to have more quantitative influence in the JBC by having
more than one voice speak, whether with one full vote or
one-half (1/2) a vote each, would negate the principle of
equality among the three branches of government which is
enshrined in the Constitution.
It is clear, therefore, that the Constitution mandates that the

JBC be composed of seven (7) members only. Thus, any
inclusion of another member, whether with one whole vote
or half (1/2) of it, goes against that mandate. Section 8(1),
Article VIII of the Constitution, providing Congress with an
equal voice with other members of the JBC in recommending
appointees to the Judiciary is explicit. Any circumvention of
the constitutional mandate should not be countenanced for
the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The
Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all
other laws must conform and to which all persons, including
the highest officials of the land, must defer. Constitutional
doctrines must remain steadfast no matter what may be the
tides of time. It cannot be simply made to sway and
accommodate the call of situations and much more tailor
itself to the whims and caprices of the government and the
people who run it.
Notwithstanding its finding of unconstitutionality in the
current composition of the JBC, all its prior official actions are
nonetheless valid. In the interest of fair play under the
doctrine of operative facts, actions previous to the
declaration of unconstitutionality are legally recognized.
They are not nullified.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The current
numerical composition of the Judicial and Bar Council IS
declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Judicial and Bar Council is
hereby enjoined to reconstitute itself so that only one ( 1)
member of Congress will sit as a representative in its
proceedings, in accordance with Section 8( 1 ), Article VIII of
the 1987 Constitution. This disposition is immediately
executory.

Chavez V JBC Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chavez V JBC Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chavez V JBC Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

202242 July 17, 2012

No. The current practice of JBC in admitting two members of

sit in the JBC.

It is clear, therefore, that the Constitution mandates that the

You might also like