Title
Supreme Court
Chavez vs. Judicial and Bar Council
Case
G.R. No. 202242
Decision Date
Apr 16, 2013
Petitioner challenged JBC's composition, arguing two congressional reps violated the 1987 Constitution. SC ruled it unconstitutional, mandating one rep with full vote.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 202242)

July 17, 2012 Decision

The Court granted the petition, declaring that the existing eight-member composition—with two congressional representatives—violates the singular “a representative of the Congress” provision. It enjoined the JBC to reconstitute itself with only one congressional member and ordered immediate execution of this ruling.

Suspension and Further Proceedings

Respondents moved for reconsideration. On August 3, 2012, the Court, with regard to Senate Resolutions urging dual representation, suspended the executory clause (“this disposition is immediately executory”) and directed both parties to file memoranda within ten days.

Historical Antecedents of Judicial Appointments

Under the Malolos (1899) and 1935 Constitutions, the President appointed judges subject to Commission on Appointments confirmation. The 1973 Constitution vested absolute appointment power in the Executive. To curb partisan influence, the 1987 Constitution created the JBC under Supreme Court supervision, composed of the Chief Justice (Chairman), the Secretary of Justice, one congressional representative, an Integrated Bar representative, a law professor, a retired Supreme Court justice, and a private-sector representative.

Evolution of Congressional Representation in the JBC

Originally, Congress sent one representative, alternating between Houses. In 1994 two representatives sat with half-votes each; in 2001 the JBC en banc granted each one full vote. This practice continued until the petition challenged its constitutionality.

Respondents’ Grounds for Reconsideration

  1. Bicameral Congress demands two seats for each House to avoid absurdity.
  2. Framers’ failure to adjust the provision after restoring bicameralism was inadvertent.
  3. Two representatives do not undermine insulation from partisanship.
  4. A seven-member Council could resolve stalemates without bicameral votes.

Textual Interpretation of “a Representative of the Congress”

The Court reaffirmed that the singular article “a” signifies only one congressional seat. Other constitutional provisions explicitly adjust language to recognize bicameral votes (e.g., voting separately on presidential ties, vice-presidential vacancies, martial-law revocation). The omission of similar language in Article VIII, Section 8(1) cannot be excused as oversight.

Purpose and Non-Legislative Nature of the JBC Role

The JBC’s function is contributory to executive appointment power, not legislative lawmaking. Congress acts as a single branch in this non-legislative role. Recognizing two votes would give the Legislature undue influence and upset the Council’s intended balance among co-equal branches.

Prohibition of Indirect Circumvention and Vote-Splitting

Allowi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.