58.

EN BANC
G.R. No. 202242 April 16, 2013
FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, Petitioner,
vs.
JUDICIALAND BAR COUNCIL, SEN. FRANCIS JOSEPH G. ESCUDERO and REP. NIEL C.
TUPAS, JR., Respondents.
RESOLUTION
Facts:
A body representative of all the stakeholders in the judicial appointment process was conceived and
called the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) and its composition, term and functions are provided under
Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution which also indicates that the JBC shall be composed of
seven (7) members.
In 1994, instead of having only seven members, an eighth member was added to the JBC as two
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. In separate meetings held in 2000 and
2001, the JBC En Banc decided to allow the representatives from the Senate and the House of
Representatives one full vote each. At present, Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero and Congressman
Niel C. Tupas, Jr. (respondents) simultaneously sit in the JBC as representatives of the legislature.
Francisco I. Chavez, (petitioner) questioned this practice in this petition.
The Supreme Court granted the petition.
Issues:
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.
Held:
Yes. The word “Congress” used in Article VIII, Section 8(1) of the Constitution is used in its basic sense,
and not pertaining to either House of Representatives or Senate is referred to, but that, can only have
one representative. The practical purpose of the seven-member composition of the JBC is solution to
stalemate voting.
Bicameralism of “Congress” refers to its legislative function in the government. The Constitution is clear
in the distinction of the role of each house in the process of lawmaking. In the JBC, since there is no
need for a liaison between the Senate and House of Representatives when nominating judicial officers.
“Congress” must therefore refer to the entire Legislative department. It is clear that the Constitution
orders that the JBC be composed of seven (7) members only.
Even though finding the current composition of the JBC as unconstitutional, all its prior official actions
are valid. Actions previous to the declaration of unconstitutionality are legally recognized under the
doctrine of operative facts. These official actions are not nullified.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION:
Thus, in the interpretation of the constitutional provisions, the Court firmly relies on the basic postulate
that the Framers mean what they say. The language used in the Constitution must be taken to have
been deliberately chosen for a definite purpose. Every word employed in the Constitution must be
interpreted to exude its deliberate intent which must be maintained inviolate against disobedience and
defiance. What the Constitution clearly says, according to its text, compels acceptance and bars
modification even by the branch tasked to interpret it.
The aforesaid provision is clear and unambiguous and does not need any further interpretation.
Perhaps, it is apt to mention that the oft-repeated doctrine that "construction and interpretation come
only after it has been demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them."