G.R. No. 228628 - Umali vs. Judicial and Bar Council

Section 8(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution creates the JBC with seven members, including “a representative of the Congress.”
The JBC had expanded to eight members with two congressional reps, each having one vote, later full votes.
In Chavez v. JBC (G.R. No. 202242, July 17, 2012; resolution April 16, 2013), the Supreme Court held that “a representative” means only one member from Congress, enjoining the JBC to reconstitute with a single congressional representative.

In compliance with Chavez, the two Houses of Congress agreed on six-month rotational representation: House of Representatives from January to June; Senate from July to December.
During JBC En Banc deliberations on December 2 and December 9, 2016 (to shortlist nominees for retiring Associate Justices Perez and Brion), Rep. Reynaldo V. Umali (House JBC rep) cast votes that were not counted but sealed pending Court direction.
Rep. Umali filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus directly with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 228628) to compel the JBC to count his votes and to declare the six-month rotational practice unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court issued resolutions (Jan. 17, 2017; Feb. 14, 2017) directing both Houses of Congress (via the OSG as People’s Tribune) and the JBC to comment.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on behalf of Congress, argued Chavez is unworkable under bicameralism and that both Houses must have equal representation.
The JBC maintained: (a) the petition is not the proper remedy; (b) it acted consistent with the Constitution and Chavez; (c) petitioner lacks a plenary resolution and failed to exhaust legislative remedies; (d) the petition is barred by stare decisis.
Meanwhile, Associate Justices Martires and Tijam were appointed (March 2 and March 8, 2017), rendering moot Rep. Umali’s request to set aside the December 2016 deliberations.

Whether Petitioner Umali has locus standi to file the Petition without a resolution from both Houses of Congress.
Whether direct resort to the Supreme Court by Certiorari and Mandamus is the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
Whether the JBC committed grave abuse of discretion in adopting the six-month rotational scheme that resulted in non-counting of Petitioner’s votes.
Whether the JBC can be compelled by Mandamus to count the votes cast by Petitioner during the December 2016 En Banc sessions.
Whether Chavez v. JBC applies as stare decisis, barring reconsideration of congressional representation.