Case Digest (G.R. No. 202242) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Francisco I. Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council, Sen. Francis Joseph G. Escudero and Rep. Niel C. Tupas, Jr. (G.R. No. 202242, April 16, 2013), former Solicitor General Francisco I. Chavez (petitioner) sought a declaration that the Judicial and Bar Council’s (JBC) composition violated the 1987 Constitution. He challenged whether Section 8(1), Article VIII allows more than one congressional representative and whether permitting two members (one each from the Senate and the House of Representatives) with full votes is constitutional. On July 17, 2012, the Court en banc declared the eight-member JBC unconstitutional and enjoined it to reconstitute with only one congressional representative, ordering immediate executory effect. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, prompting oral arguments on August 2–3, 2012 and suspension of the “immediately executory” clause. Both parties later submitted memoranda. Historically, the JBC was created to insulate judicial appointments f Case Digest (G.R. No. 202242) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Petition and Initial Decision
- On May 29, 2012, former Chief Justice Renato C. Corona unexpectedly left office and petitioner Francisco I. Chavez was nominated as his potential successor.
- Chavez filed a petition challenging the composition of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), asking whether:
- Section 8(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution permits more than one congressional representative in the JBC; and
- The practice of two representatives (one from each House) each exercising a full vote is constitutional.
- On July 17, 2012, the Supreme Court granted the petition, declared the current eight-member composition unconstitutional, and enjoined the JBC to reconstitute itself with only one congressional representative, immediately executory.
- Post-Decision Proceedings
- Respondents Senator Escudero and Rep. Tupas filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that:
- Bicameralism demands one representative from each House;
- Framers’ failure to adjust the provision was a mere oversight;
- Two representatives do not undermine JBC’s independence; and
- A larger membership helps resolve deadlocks.
- The Court held oral arguments on August 2–3, 2012, and suspended the “immediately executory” clause pending resolution of the motion.
- Parties submitted memoranda; the Office of the Solicitor General filed a further motion for reconsideration on behalf of respondents; petitioner opposed.
- Historical and Constitutional Background
- Under the Malolos and 1935 Constitutions, the President appointed judges subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments; under the 1973 Constitution, the President’s power was absolute.
- The 1987 Constitution (Art. VIII, § 8(1)) created the JBC to depoliticize judicial appointments, composing it of seven ex officio and regular members, including “a representative of the Congress.”
- Congress initially sent one representative by rotation; in 1994 an eighth member was added (two half-votes); in 2001 the JBC granted each congressional rep. a full vote.
Issues:
- Does the phrase “a representative of the Congress” in Section 8(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution allow more than one member of Congress to sit in the JBC?
- If more than one may sit, is the practice of each congressional representative exercising a full vote constitutionally sanctioned?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)