Chavez vs.

JBC
Facts: Chavez seeks judicial intervention with regard to JBC
composition. Article VIII, Sec. 8 of the 1987 Constitution provides
that: A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the
supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice
as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a
representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a
representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired
Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private
sector. In compliance, Congress, from the moment of JBC creation,
had only 1 representative (the HR and Senate would send
alternate representatives to the JBC). Subsequently, in 1994, the
composition of the JBC was substantially altered. Instead of
having only 7 members, an 8th member was added to the JBC as
two (2) representatives from Congress began sitting in the JBC one from the House of Representatives and one from the Senate,
with each having one-half (1/2) of a vote. Then, curiously, the JBC
En Banc decided to allow the representatives from the Senate and
the House of Representatives one full vote each.
Issue: Whether or not the current practice of the JBC to perform
its functions with eight (8) members, two (2) of whom are
members of Congress, runs counter to the letter and spirit of the
1987 Constitution.
Ruling: Yes.
The use of the singular letter "a" preceding "representative of
Congress" is unequivocal and leaves no room for any other
construction. Congress may designate only one (1) representative
to the JBC. Had it been the intention that more than one (1)
representative from the legislature would sit in the JBC, the
Framers of the Constitution could have, in no uncertain terms, so
provided.
The seven-member composition of the JBC serves a practical
purpose, that is, to provide a solution should there be a stalemate
in voting. This underlying reason leads the Court to conclude that

a single vote may not be divided into half (1/2), between two
representatives of Congress, or among any of the sitting members
of the JBC for that matter. This unsanctioned practice can possibly
cause disorder and eventually muddle the JBCs voting process,
especially in the event a tie is reached.
The respondents insist that owing to the bicameral nature of
Congress, the word "Congress" in Section 8(1), Article VIII of the
Constitution should be read as including both the Senate and the
House of Representatives. They theorize that it was so worded
because at the time the said provision was being drafted, the
Framers initially intended a unicameral form of Congress.
A perusal of the records of the Constitutional Commission reveals
that the composition of the JBC reflects the Commissions desire
"to have in the Council a representation for the major elements of
the community." xxx The ex-officiomembers of the Council consist
of representatives from the three main branches of government
while the regular members are composed of various stakeholders
in the judiciary. The unmistakeable tenor of Article VIII,
Section 8(1) was to treat each ex-officio member
as representing one co-equal branch of
government. xxx Thus, the JBC was designed to have seven
voting members with the three ex-officio members having equal
say in the choice of judicial nominees.
To ensure judicial independence, the framers of the Constitution
adopted a holistic approach and hoped that, in creating a JBC, the
private sector and the three branches of government would have
an active role and equal voice in the selection of the members of
the Judiciary.
Therefore, to allow the Legislature to have more quantitative
influence in the JBC by having more than one voice speak,
whether with one full vote or one-half (1/2) a vote each, would, as
one former congressman and member of the JBC put it, "negate
the principle of equality among the three branches of government
which is enshrined in the Constitution." 53