Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
_______________
* EN BANC.
580
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
581
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
acceptance and negates the power of the courts to alter it, based
on the postulate that the framers and the people mean what they
say. Verba legis non est recedendum―from the words of a statute
there should be no departure.
Statutory Construction; Noscitur a Sociis; 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.―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. This is because
a word or phrase in a statute is always used in association with
other words or phrases, and its meaning may, thus, be modified or
restricted by the latter. The particular words, clauses and phrases
should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but
the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in
fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce a
harmonious whole. A statute must be so construed as to
harmonize and give effect to all its provisions whenever possible.
In short, every meaning to be given to each word or
582
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
having more than one voice speak, whether with one full vote or
one-half (1/2) a vote each, would, as one former congressman and
member of the JBC put it, “negate the principle of equality among
the three branches of government which is enshrined in the
Constitution.”
Same; Doctrine of Operative Facts; In the interest of fair play
under the doctrine of operative facts, actions previous to the
declaration of unconstitutionality are legally recognized.―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. In Planters Products, Inc. v.
Fertiphil Corporation, 548 SCRA 485 (2008), the Court explained:
The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule,
only applies as a matter of equity and fair play. It nullifies the
effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the
existence of a statute prior to a determination of
unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have
consequences which cannot always be ignored. The past cannot
always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The doctrine is
applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose
an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law.
Thus, it was applied to a criminal case when a declaration of
unconstitutionality would put the accused in double jeopardy or
would put in limbo the acts done by a municipality in reliance
upon a law creating it.
583
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
584
MENDOZA, J.:
The issue at hand has been in hibernation until the
unexpected departure of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona on
May 29, 2012, and the nomination of former Solicitor
General Francisco I. Chavez (petitioner), as his potential
successor, triggered the filing of this case. The issue has
constantly been nagging legal minds, yet remained
dormant for lack of constitutional challenge.
As the matter is of extreme urgency considering the
constitutional deadline in the process of selecting the
nominees for the vacant seat of the Chief Justice, the Court
cannot delay the resolution of the issue a day longer.
Relegating it in the meantime to the back burner is not an
option.
585
Does the first paragraph of Section 8, Article VIII of the
1987 Constitution allow more than one (1) member of
Congress to sit in the JBC? Is the practice of having two (2)
representatives from each house of Congress with one (1)
vote each sanctioned by the Constitution? These are the
pivotal questions to be resolved in this original action for
prohibition and injunction.
Long before the naissance of the present Constitution,
the annals of history bear witness to the fact that the
exercise of appointing members of the Judiciary has always
been the exclusive prerogative of the executive and
legislative branches of the government. Like their
progenitor of American origins, both the Malolos
Constitution1 and the 1935 Constitution2 had vested the
power to appoint the members of the Judiciary in the
President, subject to confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments. It was during these times that the country
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
_______________
1 Article 80 Title X of the Malolos Constitution provides: “The Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court and the Solicitor-General shall be chosen by
the National Assembly in concurrence with the President of the Republic
and the Secretaries of the Government, and shall be absolutely
independent of the Legislative and Executive Powers.”
2 Section 5 Article VIII of the 1935 Constitution provides: “The
Members of the Supreme Court and all judges of inferior courts shall be
appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments.”
3 1 Records of the Constitutional Commission Proceedings and
Debates, 437.
4 Section 4 Article X of the 1973 Constitution provides: “The Members
of the Supreme Court and judges of inferior courts shall be appointed by
the President.”
586
_______________
5 1 Records, Constitutional Commission, Proceedings and Debates, p.
487.
587
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
_______________
6 List of JBC Chairpersons, Ex Officio and Regular Members, Ex Officio
Secretaries and Consultants, issued by the Office of the Executive Officer, Judicial
and Bar Council, Rollo, pp. 62-63.
7 Id.
8 Comment of the JBC, p. 80, citing Minutes of the 1st En Banc Executive
Meeting, January 12, 2000 and Minutes of the 12th En Banc Meeting, May 30,
2001.
9 Rollo, pp. 3-69.
588
II
The framers of the Constitution clearly envisioned,
contemplated and decided on a JBC composed of only seven (7)
members.
III
Had the framers of the Constitution intended that the JBC
composed of the one member from the Senate and one member
from the House of Representatives, they could have easily said so
as they did in the other provisions of the Constitution.
IV
The composition of the JBC providing for three ex-officio
members is purposely designed for a balanced representation of
each of the three branches of the government.
V
One of the two (2) members of the JBC from Congress has no
right (not even ½ right) to sit in the said constitutional body and
perform the duties and functions of a member thereof.
VI
The JBC cannot conduct valid proceedings as its composition is
illegal and unconstitutional.10
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
_______________
10 Id., at pp. 17-18.
11 Id., at pp. 76-106.
12 Id., at p. 80.
13 Id., at pp. 117-163.
589
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
_______________
14 Id., at p. 142.
15 “The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the
Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the
provision on initiative and referendum.”
16 Id.
17 Rollo, p. 143.
18 Id., at p. 148.
590
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
The Issues
In resolving the procedural and substantive issues
arising from the petition, as well as the myriad of counter-
arguments proffered by the respondents, the Court
synthesized them into two:
_______________
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id., at pp. 150-153.
591
(1) Whether or not the conditions sine qua non for the
exercise of the power of judicial review have been met in this case;
and
(2) Whether or not the current practice of the JBC to perform
its functions with eight (8) members, two (2) of whom are
members of Congress, runs counter to the letter and spirit of the
1987 Constitution.
_______________
22 Id., at p. 78.
23 Id., at p. 131.
24 Id., at pp. 131-133.
592
raised before the Court does not comply with the “earliest
possible opportunity” requirement.
Before addressing the above issues in seriatim, the
Court deems it proper to first ascertain the nature of the
petition. Pursuant to the rule that the nature of an action
is determined by the allegations therein and the character
of the relief sought, the Court views the petition as
essentially an action for declaratory relief under Rule 63 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.25
The Constitution as the subject matter, and the validity
and construction of Section 8 (1), Article VIII as the issue
raised, the petition should properly be considered as that
which would result in the adjudication of rights sans the
execution process because the only relief to be granted is
the very declaration of the rights under the document
sought to be construed. It being so, the original jurisdiction
over the petition lies with the appropriate Regional Trial
Court (RTC). Notwithstanding the fact that only questions
of law are raised in the petition, an action for declaratory
relief is not among those within the original jurisdiction of
this Court as provided in Section 5, Article VIII of the
Constitution.26
_______________
25 Section 1. Who may file petition.―Any person interested under a
deed, will, contract or other written instrument, whose rights are affected
by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other
governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an
action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question
of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or
duties, thereunder.
xxx
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
593
_______________
cree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in
question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or
toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as
public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed
six months without the consent of the judge concerned.
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of
justice.
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance
to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform
for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
594
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
595
_______________
29 LAMP v. The Secretary of Budget and Management, G.R. No.
164987, April 24, 2012, 670 SCRA 373.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
30 Rollo, p. 6.
596
standi, this is not to say that only official nominees for the
post of Chief Justice can come to the Court and question
the JBC composition for being unconstitutional. The JBC
likewise screens and nominates other members of the
Judiciary. Albeit heavily publicized in this regard, the
JBC’s duty is not at all limited to the nominations for the
highest magistrate in the land. A vast number of aspirants
to judicial posts all over the country may be affected by the
Court’s ruling. More importantly, the legality of the very
process of nominations to the positions in the Judiciary is
the nucleus of the controversy. The Court considers this a
constitutional issue that must be passed upon, lest a
constitutional process be plagued by misgivings, doubts
and worse, mistrust. Hence, a citizen has a right to bring
this question to the Court, clothed with legal standing and
at the same time, armed with issues of transcendental
importance to society. The claim that the composition of the
JBC is illegal and unconstitutional is an object of concern,
not just for a nominee to a judicial post, but for all citizens
who have the right to seek judicial intervention for
rectification of legal blunders.
With respect to the question of transcendental
importance, it is not difficult to perceive from the opposing
arguments of the parties that the determinants established
in jurisprudence are attendant in this case: (1) the
character of the funds or other assets involved in the case;
(2) the presence of a clear case of disregard of a
constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public
respondent agency or instrumentality of the government;
and (3) the lack of any other party with a more direct and
specific interest in the questions being raised.31 The
allegations of constitutional violations in this case are not
empty attacks on the wisdom of the other branches of the
government. The allegations are substantiated by facts
and, therefore, deserve an evaluation from the Court. The
Court
_______________
31 Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives, 460 Phil. 830, 899; 415
SCRA 44, 139 (2003), citing Kilosbayan v. Guingona, G.R. No. 113375,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
597
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
_______________
32National Food Authority (NFA) v. Masada Security Agency, Inc., 493
Phil. 241, 250; 453 SCRA 70, 79 (2005); Philippine National Bank v.
Garcia, Jr., 437 Phil. 289; 388 SCRA 485 (2002).
33 Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives, supra note 31 at
p. 885, citing J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration, L-
21064, February 18, 1970, 31 SCRA 413.
34 Id.
35 Id.
36 Id.
599
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
_______________
37 Coca-Cola Bottlers, Phils., Inc. (CCBPI), Naga Plant v. Gomez, G.R.
No. 154491, November 14, 2008, 571 SCRA 18, 37; People v. Delantar,
G.R. No. 169143, February 2, 2007, 514 SCRA 115, 139; and Republic v.
Sandiganbayan, 255 Phil. 71; 173 SCRA 72 (1989), citing Co Kim Chan v.
Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, 75 Phil. 371 (1945).
38 People v. Delantar, G.R. No. 169143, February 2, 2007, 514 SCRA
115, 139; Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 255 Phil. 71; 173 SCRA 72 (1989),
citing Co Kim Chan v. Valdez, 75 Phil. 371 (1945).
39 Uy v. Sandiganbayan, 407 Phil. 154, 180; 354 SCRA 651, 673 (2001).
600
_______________
40 Memorandum of Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, dated March
14, 2007; Rollo, pp. 95-103.
41 Id., at p. 103.
42 Ursua v. Court of Appeals, 326 Phil. 157, 163; 256 SCRA 147, 152 (1996).
601
xxx xxx xxx
MR. CONCEPCION. The only purpose of the Committee is to
eliminate partisan politics.43
xxx xxx xxx
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
_______________
43 1 Records of the Constitutional Commission Proceedings and Debates, p.
445.
602
say, Mr. Presiding Officer, that event the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court is an appointee of the President. So it is futile he
will be influence anyway by the President.”44 [Emphases supplied]
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
_______________
44 1 Records of the Constitutional Commission Proceedings and
Debates, pp. 486-487.
45 Comment of Respondents, Rollo, pp. 142-146.
46 Comment of JBC; id., at pp. 91-93.
603
604
_______________
47 1987 Constitution, Article 6 Section 27(1)―Every bill passed by the
Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If
he approves the same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and
return the same with his objections to the House where it originated,
which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to
reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members
of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with
the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be
reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that
House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House
shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members
voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall
communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within
thirty days after the date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall become a
law as if he had signed it.
48 1987 Constitution, Article 6 Section 24―All appropriation, revenue
or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of public debt, bills of local
application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.
49 1987 Constitution, Article 6 Section 23 (1)―The Congress, by a vote
of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately,
shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.
605
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
_______________
50 1987 Constitution, Article 7 Section 4―The returns of every election
for President and Vice President, duly certified by the board of canvassers
of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to
the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the
President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of
the election, open all certificates in the presence of the Senate and the
House of Representatives in joint public session, and the Congress, upon
determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner
provided by law, canvass the votes. The person having the highest number
of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an
equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen
by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both Houses of the
Congress, voting separately.
51 1987 Constitution, Article 11 Section 3 (1)―The House of
Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of
impeachment.
x x x
(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of
impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on
oath or affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No
person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the
Members of the Senate.
606
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
_______________
52 1 Records of the Constitutional Commission Proceedings and Debates
Records of the Constitutional Convention, p. 487.
53 Comment of the JBC, Rollo, p. 104.
607
_______________
54 Memorandum of Justice Secretary Agnes VST Devanadera,
Comment of the JBC, id., at pp. 105-106.
55 Louis “Barok” C. Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of
2010, G.R. No. 192935, December 7, 2010, 637 SCRA 78, 137-138, citing
Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2002 ed., p. 12.
56 Claudio S. Yap v. Thennamaris Ship’s Management and Intermare
Maritime Agencies, Inc., G.R. No. 179532, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 369,
380.
608
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
_______________
57 G.R. No. 166006, March 14, 2008, 548 SCRA 485, 516-517.
609
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
DISSENTING OPINION
ABAD, J.:
Some of my colleagues who have been nominated to the
position of Chief Justice like me have inhibited themselves
from this case at the outset. I respect their judgments. I, on
the other hand, chose not to inhibit myself from the case
since I have found no compelling reason for doing so.
610
I take no issue with the majority of the Court on the
threshold question of whether or not the requisite
conditions for the exercise of its power of judicial review
have been met in this case. I am satisfied that those
conditions are present.
It is the main question that concerns me: whether or not
each of the Senate and the House of Representatives is
entitled to one representative in the Judicial and Bar
Council (JBC), both with the right to vote independently
like its other members.
The problem has arisen because currently one
representative each from the Senate and the House of
Representatives take part as members of the JBC with
each casting one vote in its deliberations. Petitioner
Francisco I. Chavez challenges this arrangement, however,
citing Section 8(1) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
which literally gives Congress just one representative in
the JBC. Thus:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
_______________
1 The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.
611
The majority also invokes the doctrine of noscitur a
sociis which states that a proper interpretation may be had
by considering the words that accompany the term or
phrase in question.2 By looking at the enumeration in
Section 8(1) of who the JBC members are, one can readily
discern that every category of membership in that body
refers just to a single individual.
There are three well-settled principles of constitutional
construction: first, verba legis, that is, wherever possible,
the words used in the Constitution should be given their
ordinary meaning except where technical terms are
employed; second, where there is ambiguity, ratio legis est
anima, meaning that the words of the Constitution should
be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers;
and third, ut magis valeat quam pereat, meaning that the
Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole.3
There is no question that when the Constitutional
Commission (ConCom) deliberated on the provisions
regarding the composition of the JBC, the members of the
commission thought, as the original draft of those
provisions indicates, that the country would have a
unicameral legislative body, like a parliament. For this
reason, they allocated the three “ex officio” memberships in
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
_______________
2 Government Service Insurance System v. Commission on Audit, G.R.
No. 162372, October 19, 2011, 658 SCRA 796.
3 Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10,
2003, 415 SCRA 44.
612
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 32/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
_______________
4 http://opinion.inquirer.net/31813/jbc-odds-and-ends (last accessed 18
July 2012).
5 Millares v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 110524,
July 29, 2002, 385 SCRA 306.
6 People v. Manantan, G.R. No. 14129, July 31, 1962, 5 SCRA 684,
citing Crawford, Interpretation of Laws, Sec. 78, p. 294.
7 Navarro v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 180050, February 10, 2010,
620 SCRA 529, dissenting opinion of J. Perez.
8 Supra note 1, Article VI, Section 1.
613
Those who drafted Section 8(1) did not intend to limit the
term “Congress” to just either of the two Houses.
Notably, the doctrine that a proper interpretation may
be had by considering the words that accompany the term
or phrase in question should apply to this case. While it is
true that Section 8(1) provides for just “a representative of
the Congress,” it also provides that such representation is
“ex officio.” “Ex officio” is a Latin term, meaning “by virtue
of one’s office, or position.”9 This is not too different from
the idea that a man, by virtue of being a husband to his
wife, is also a father to their children. So in Section 8(1),
whoever occupies the designated office or position becomes
an “ex officio” JBC member. For instance, if the President
appoints Mr. X as Chief Justice, Mr. X automatically
becomes the chairman of the JBC, an attached function, by
virtue of his being the Chief Justice. He replaces the former
Chief Justice without need for another appointment or the
taking of a separate oath of office. In the same way, if the
President appoints Mr. Y as Secretary of Justice, Mr. Y
also automatically becomes a member of the JBC, also an
attached function, by virtue of his being the Secretary of
Justice.
Now, under the rules of the Senate, the Chairman of its
Justice Committee is automatically the Senate
representative to the JBC. In the same way, under the
rules of the House of Representatives, the Chairman of its
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
_______________
9 Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 3rd Edition, p. 477.
614
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
_______________
10 Supra note 5.
615
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 35/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
616
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 36/37
1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 676
――o0o――
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168330048707e5e22a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 37/37