jeffsarabusing.wordpress.

com
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 Corona’s 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 procsss 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 JBC’s 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.