G.R. No. 202242 - Chavez vs. Judicial and Bar Council

On May 29, 2012, the office of Chief Justice became vacant following the removal of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona; former Solicitor General Francisco I. Chavez was nominated as a potential successor.
The nomination prompted Chavez to file an original action for prohibition and injunction questioning the Judicial and Bar Council’s (JBC) practice of allowing two members of Congress (one Senator and one Representative) to sit and vote as ex officio members.

Under the Malolos (1899) and 1935 Constitutions, judicial appointments were by the President subject to Commission on Appointments’ confirmation; under the 1973 Constitution, the President appointed without confirmation, subject only to qualifications.
To depoliticize judicial appointments, the 1986 Constitutional Commission created the JBC under Article VIII, Section 8 of the 1987 Constitution to recommend appointees to the Judiciary, composed as follows:

Ex officio: Chief Justice (Chairman), Secretary of Justice, and “a representative of the Congress.”
Regular members: a representative of the Integrated Bar, a law professor, a retired Supreme Court Justice, and a representative of the private sector.

From 1987 to 1994, Congress designated only one representative, with the House and Senate alternating.
In 1994, both chambers began simultaneously sending representatives, initially each with one-half (1/2) vote.
In 2000 and 2001, the JBC En Banc allowed each congressional representative one full vote, effectively making eight voting members.
At the time of suit, Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero and Representative Niel C. Tupas, Jr. sat concurrently, each with one full vote.

Petitioner’s core thesis: Article VIII, Section 8(1) allows only one congressional representative; the JBC’s eight-member practice is unconstitutional.
Grounds invoked included: plain text (“a representative of the Congress”); framers’ intent for a seven-member JBC; constitutional drafting practice expressly distinguishing chambers elsewhere when intended; structural balance among three branches; lack of right of the second congressional member to sit; and consequent invalidity of JBC proceedings under the current composition.
Relief sought: prohibition and injunction to restrain the JBC from recognizing two congressional representatives and to compel reconstitution consistent with the Constitution.

The JBC filed a Comment deferring to the Court’s wisdom but furnished historical and internal materials.
Through the Office of the Solicitor General, respondents defended dual representation, arguing:

“Congress” under Article VI, Section 1 is inherently bicameral; thus, representation should include both Houses.
The phrase “a representative of the Congress” reflected an earlier draft premised on a unicameral National Assembly; failure to adjust after adoption of bicameralism was inadvertent.
A literal reading would absurdly deprive one House—and its electorate—of representation in JBC deliberations.
Two congressional members do not unduly politicize the JBC and may balance presidential influence, since six members are presidential appointees.

Respondents also challenged petitioner’s locus standi and timeliness (18 years of acquiescence to the practice).

The Court characterized the petition as essentially for declaratory relief (Rule 63) but took cognizance under its power over prohibition (Rule 65), given the constitutional urgency, transcendental importance, and the need to resolve the issue before the Chief Justice selection.
The Court addressed judicial review prerequisites: actual case, standing, earliest opportunity, and that the constitutional issue is the lis mota.

Whether the petition satisfies the requisites for judicial review, including actual controversy, locus standi of petitioner as taxpayer/concerned citizen/nominee, timeliness, and lis mota.
Whether the Supreme Court may directly entertain the action despite its declaratory relief character.

Whether Article VIII, Section 8(1) allows more than one member of Congress to sit in the JBC as ex officio member(s).
Whether the JBC’s practice of:

is sanctioned by the Constitution.

What is the effect of the Court’s ruling on prior JBC actions taken under the impugned practice.
Who determines which House supplies the sole congressional representative to the JBC.
Whether any change to permit two congressional representatives requires constitutional amendment.