Case Summary (G.R. No. 228628)
Nature and Relief of the Petition
Umali filed a direct Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65, challenging the six-month rotational representation of Congress in the JBC that resulted in non-counting his votes in December 2016 En Banc deliberations for two Supreme Court vacancies.
Constitutional Provision on JBC Composition
Article VIII, Section 8(1) of the 1987 Constitution creates the JBC under Supreme Court supervision, composed of seven ex officio members, including “a representative of the Congress,” indicating singular congressional representation.
Chavez Ruling on Single Congressional Representative
In Chavez (2012), this Court declared unconstitutional the practice of two congressional representatives each exercising one vote. It held the singular “a representative” is unambiguous, and that Congress, as a co-equal branch, may designate only one representative to preserve equality among branches.
Motion for Reconsideration and Casus Omissus
The Chavez denial of reconsideration (2013) reiterated no room for judicial supplementation of the constitutional text, invoking casus omissus to preclude adding another representative absent constitutional amendment.
Adoption of Six-Month Rotational Scheme
Following Chavez, the Senate and House of Representatives agreed to alternate representation every six months: House from January to June; Senate from July to December. This arrangement was communicated informally to the JBC without a plenary congressional resolution.
Non-Counting of Petitioner’s Votes
During the December 2 and 9, 2016 JBC sessions, Senator representation prevailed; Petitioner’s votes were sealed and withheld pending further judicial direction, prompting the present Petition.
Grounds of Certiorari and Mandamus Claims
Umali alleges (i) grave abuse of discretion by the JBC in refusing to count his votes; (ii) the rotational reconstitution is “defective, flawed and unconstitutional”; and (iii) full bicameral representation is required to uphold co-equal legislative participation in judicial appointments.
OSG and Congressional Position
The Office of the Solicitor General, acting as the People’s Tribune for Congress, urges revisiting Chavez due to unexecutability, advocating equal representation from both houses to reflect distinct legislative constituencies and prevent imbalance in JBC recommendations.
JBC Opposition and Procedural Objections
The JBC contends: (i) the rotational arrangement is a discretionary, non-judicial act not subject to Certiorari or Mandamus; (ii) Umali lacks locus standi absent congressional authorization; (iii) he failed to exhaust internal remedies; and (iv) Chavez is binding under stare decisis without material change warranting reversal.
Justiciability and Mootness Doctrine
With subsequent Supreme Court appointments mooting the prayer to count December 2016 votes, the Court nonetheless proceeded, recognizing (i) constitutional questions of public importance, (ii) urgency under the 90-day appointment rule in Article VIII, Section 4(1), and (iii) need to settle recurrent interpretive issues.
Locus Standi of the Petitioner
Citing precedents, the Court held that a legislator has standing to defend institutional prerogatives: Umali’s capacity as a Congressional member and JBC ex officio member suffices, obviating need for a plenary resolution.
Certiorari as Plain, Speedy, Adequate Remedy
Given the urgent 90-day period for filling Supreme Court vacancies and absence of other adequate remedies, direct resort to the Supreme Court via Certiorari was justified, particularly for constitutional issues of
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 228628)
Facts of the Case
- The petitioner, Rep. Reynaldo V. Umali, is Chairman of the House Committee on Justice and ex officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).
- The JBC adopted a six-month rotational scheme under which the House of Representatives represents Congress from January to June and the Senate from July to December.
- During the JBC En Banc deliberations on December 2 and 9, 2016 for the vacancies of retiring Supreme Court Justices Perez and Brion, the petitioner cast votes that were not counted but sealed in an envelope.
- The petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65 to enjoin the JBC from refusing to count his votes and to direct the JBC to accept and count them.
Constitutional Provision in Issue
- Article VIII, Section 8(1) of the 1987 Constitution creates the JBC, composed of:
• 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 Justice
• Representative of the private sector
Chavez v. JBC Precedent
- In Chavez (G.R. No. 202242, July 17, 2012; Resolution April 16, 2013), this Court held that the singular term “a representative of the Congress” means only one (1) representative, not two, despite bicameral legislature.
- It declared unconstitutional the practice of two congressional representatives (one each from House and Senate) with full votes in the JBC, and enjoined reconstitution to one representative.
- Motion for reconsideration was denied: the phrase is clear and unambiguous, and no judicial power to supply an omission (casus omissus).
Adoption of the Rotational Scheme
- Following Chavez, both Houses of Congress agreed to alternate representation every six months.
- The House sat from January to June; the Senate from July to December.
- The practice was not formalized by a joint resolution of both Chambers but announced through manifestations and letters to the JBC.
Issues Raised by the Petitioner
- Whether the writ of certiorari is the proper remedy to enjoin the JBC’s refusal to count his December 2016 votes because Chavez is flawed.
- Whether the writ of mandamus should compel the JBC to accept and count his votes, as the JBC’s reconstitution is unconstitutional.
- Whether the six-month rotation is impracticable, absurd, unconstitutional, creates institutional imbala ...continue reading