Case Summary (G.R. No. 202242)
Applicable Constitutional Provision
The dispute centers on Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for a Judicial and Bar Council “composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members,” along with four other regular members. The provision uses the singular indefinite article “a representative,” and establishes a seven-member council under Supreme Court supervision.
Historical Appointment Processes
Under the Malolos (1899) and 1935 Constitutions, the President appointed justices with legislative confirmation. The 1973 Constitution vested unreviewed appointment power in the President. To depoliticize judicial appointments, the 1987 framers created the JBC to screen nominees and recommend at least three to the President, diversifying input beyond executive and legislative branches.
Evolution of JBC Composition
From its inception, Congress designated a single representative in the JBC. In 1994 an eighth seat was added by practice, seating one senator and one representative with each holding half a vote. In 2000–2001 the JBC en banc extended to each a full vote. Senator Escudero and Congressman Tupas now both sit and vote in the JBC, prompting petition.
Grounds of the Petition
Chavez asserted five principal grounds: (1) the singular term “a representative of the Congress” admits only one congressional member; (2) the framers intended a seven-member council; (3) they would have specified two representatives if intended; (4) three ex officio members balance the three branches; and (5) any second congressional member lacks constitutional authority, rendering JBC proceedings invalid.
Respondents’ Contentions
The JBC abstained from taking a position, while the congressional respondents argued that “Congress” is bicameral and inseparable; hence each house must be represented. They attributed the singular drafting to an oversight during the shift from unicameral to bicameral legislature. They warned that excluding either house or dividing one vote would clash with bicameralism and dilute republican participation.
Threshold Issues: Locus Standi and Jurisdiction
The Court treated the petition as an action for declaratory relief under Rule 63 and prohibition under Rule 65. It confirmed an actual case or controversy and held Chavez had standing as a taxpayer, concerned citizen, and judicial nominee, asserting personal and substantial interest. The lapse of 18 years since the practice began did not bar relief given transcendental importance. Although declaratory relief is ordinarily heard by the Regional Trial Court, the Supreme Court exercised discretion due to the issue’s constitutional significance.
Majority’s Interpretation of Section 8(1)
Applying the 1987 Constitution, the majority held the language clear and unambiguous: “a representative of the Congress” means one individual. The singular article “a” and singular noun “representative,” read in pari materia with the enumerated categories, mandates one seat. Principles of constitutional construction—verba legis, noscitur a sociis, and the preference for literal meaning where no absurdity arises—precluded expanding representation. An odd-number membership avoids deadlocks; dividing a single vote into halves or granting two votes upsets the constitutional design of equal branch representation.
Judicial Review and Operative Facts
The Court affirmed its power to invalidate unconstitutional configurations, declaring the current eight-member JBC unlawful. It invoked the doctrine of operative facts to preserve prior JBC actions taken under the flawed composition, recognizing reliance and avoiding unfair disruption. The remedy for future
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 202242)
Background of the Controversy
- Departure of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona on May 29, 2012 reopened a dormant constitutional question.
- Nomination of former Solicitor General Francisco I. Chavez as potential successor prompted original action.
- Urgency driven by constitutional deadline for selecting nominees to the vacant Chief Justice seat.
- Central question: Does Section 8(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution permit more than one member of Congress in the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC)?
Historical Evolution of Judicial Appointments in the Philippines
- Malolos Constitution (1899): President and National Assembly jointly appointed Supreme Court justices and Solicitor-General.
- 1935 Constitution: President appointed all judges, subject to Commission on Appointments’ confirmation.
- 1973 Constitution: Executive power fused with legislative; President appointed judges without external confirmation.
- 1987 Constitution: Creation of independent JBC to recommend judicial nominees, insulating appointments from partisan pressure.
Constitutional Text Governing the JBC (Section 8, Article VIII)
- Creation under Supreme Court supervision.
- Composition specified in Section 8(1):
- Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman.
- Secretary of Justice.
- “A representative of the Congress” as ex officio member.
- Representative of the Integrated Bar.
- Law professor.
- Retired Supreme Court member.
- Private sector representative.
- Terms, appointment process, powers, and emoluments detailed in subsequent paragraphs.
Practice in Congressional Representation on the JBC
- At inception, Congress designated one representative (alternating between House and Senate).
- 1994 amendment added an eighth member: two congressional representatives voting one-half each.
- JBC En Banc meetings in 2000 and 2001 granted each congressional representative one full vote.
- Present configuration: Senator Escudero and Congressman Tupas sit concurrently, each casting one full vote.
Petitioner's Arguments (Grounds for Allowance)
- Section 8(1) uses singular “a representative of the Congress,” allowing only one.
- Framers intended a seven-member council; eight members contravene that design.
- Absence of constitutional language authorizing one representative per house.
- Purpose of equal representation among three branches compromised by two congressional votes.
- Current practice renders JBC proceedings void for illegal composition.
Responses of the JBC and Congressional Representatives
- JBC a