Constitutional Law 1

Case No. 20 / Ratio Legis Et Anima

FRANCISCO CHAVEZ vs JUDICIAL BAR COUNCIL
GR No. 202242, April 16, 2013
Mendoza, J:
FACTS

The case is a motion for reconsideration filed by the JBC in a prior decision rendered July 17, 2012 that
JBCs action of allowing more than one member of the congress to represent the JBC to be unconstitutional
Respondent contends that the phrase a representative of congress refers that both houses of congress
should have one representative each, and that these two houses are permanent and mandatory components
of congress as part of the bicameral system of legislature. Both houses have their respective powers in
performance of their duties. Art VIII Sec 8 of the constitution provides for the component of the JBC to be 7
members only with only one representative from congress.
ISSUE
WON the JBCs practice of having members from the Senate and the House of Representatives to be
unconstitutional as provided in Art VIII Sec 8 of the constitution.
HELD

YES. The practice is unconstitutional; the court held that the phrase a representative of congress
should be construed as to having only one representative that would come from either house, not both. That
the framers of the constitution only intended for one seat of the JBC to be allotted for the legislative. The
motion was denied.
One of the primary and basic rules in statutory construction is that where the words of a statute are
clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted
interpretation. It is a well-settled principle of constitutional construction that the language employed in the
Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed. As such, it can
be clearly and unambiguously discerned from Paragraph 1, Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution that
in the phrase, a representative of Congress, the use of the singular letter a preceding representative of
Congress is unequivocal and leaves no room for any other construction. It is indicative of what the members of
the Constitutional Commission had in mind, that is, 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 could have, in no uncertain terms, so provided.
However, where there is ambiguity or doubt, the words of the Constitution should be interpreted in
accordance with the intent of its framers or ratio legis et anima. A doubtful provision must be examined in light
of the history of the times, and the condition and circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution. In
following this guideline, courts should bear in mind the object sought to be accomplished in adopting a doubtful
constitutional provision, and the evils sought to be prevented or remedied. Consequently, the intent of the

framers and the people ratifying the constitution, and not the panderings of self-indulgent men, should be given
effect.