FACTS:

In 1994, instead of having only 7 members, an eighth member was added to the
JBC as two 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, the JBC En Banc, in separate meetings held in 2000 and 2001, decided to allow
the representatives from the Senate and the House of Representatives one full vote each.
Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero and Congressman Niel C. Tupas, Jr. (respondents)
simultaneously sit in the JBC as representatives of the legislature. It is this practice that
petitioner has questioned in this petition.

Respondents argued that the root of the controversy is the phrase “a

representative of Congress.” It is their theory that the two houses, the Senate and the
House of Representatives, are permanent and mandatory components of “Congress,”
such that the absence of either divests the term of its substantive meaning as expressed
under the Constitution. Bicameralism, as the system of choice by the Framers, requires
that both houses exercise their respective powers in the performance of its mandated
duty which is to legislate. Thus, when Section 8(1), Article VIII of the Constitution speaks
of “a representative from Congress,” it should mean one representative each from both
Houses which comprise the entire Congress.

ISSUES:
Whether or not having members from the Senate and the House of Representatives
making 8 instead of 7 sitting members unconstitutional?

RULING:
Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Section 8. (1) 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.

From a simple reading of the above-quoted provision, it can readily be discerned that the
provision is clear and unambiguous. The first paragraph calls for the creation of a JBC and places
the same under the supervision of the Court. Then it goes to its composition where the regular
members are enumerated: a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired
member of the Court and a representative from the private sector.

On the second part it enumerates the ex officio or special members of the JBC composed
of the Chief Justice, who shall be its Chairman, the Secretary of Justice and “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.
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 much as possible, the words of the Constitution should be
understood in the sense they have in common use. What it says according to the text of the
provision to be construed compels acceptance and negates the power of the courts to alter it,
based on the postulate that the framers and the people mean what they say. Verba legis non est
recedendum – from the words of a statute there should be no departure.

Applying the foregoing principle to this case, it becomes apparent that the word
“Congress” used in Article VIII, Section 8(1) of the Constitution is used in its generic sense. No
particular allusion whatsoever is made on whether the Senate or the House of Representatives
is being referred to, but that, in either case, only a singular representative may be allowed to sit
in the JBC.

It is worthy to note that 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 JBC’s voting
process, especially in the event a tie is reached. The aforesaid purpose would then be rendered
illusory, defeating the precise mechanism which the Constitution itself createdWhile it would be
unreasonable to expect that the Framers provide for every possible scenario, it is sensible to
presume that they knew that an odd composition is the best means to break a voting deadlock.

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. Then, when the Constitutional Commission eventually adopted a bicameral form of
Congress, the Framers, through oversight, failed to amend Article VIII, Section 8 of the
Constitution.

It is evident that the definition of “Congress” as a bicameral body refers to its primary
function in government – to legislate. In the passage of laws, the Constitution is explicit in the
distinction of the role of each house in the process. The same holds true in Congress’ non-
legislative powers. An inter-play between the two houses is necessary in the realization of these
powers causing a vivid dichotomy that the Court cannot simply discount. This, however, cannot
be said in the case of JBC representation because no liaison between the two houses exists in
the workings of the JBC. Hence, the term “Congress” must be taken to mean the entire legislative
department.