Case Brief: Chavez v JBC

G.R. No. 202242 July 17, 2012

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ,

Petitioner,vs.

JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL, SEN. FRANCIS JOSEPH G. ESCUDEROand REP. NIEL C. TUPAS, JR.,

Respondents.

Facts:

The case is in relation to the process of selecting the nominees for the vacant

seat of Supreme Court Chief Justice following Renato Corona’s departure.

Originally, the members of the Constitutional Commission saw the need tocreate a separate, competent
and independent body to recommend nomineesto the President. Thus, it conceived of a body
representative of all thestakeholders in the judicial appointment process and called it the Judicial
andBar Council (JBC).In particular, Paragraph 1 Section 8, Article VIII of the Constitution states that

“(1) A Judicia

l and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of theSupreme Court composed of the Chief
Justice as ex officio Chairman, theSecretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex
officioMembers, 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 therewith, Congress, from the moment of the creation of the JBC,designated one
representative from the Congress to sit in the JBC to act asone of the ex officio members.In 1994
however, the composition of the JBC was substantially altered.Instead of having only seven (7)
members, an eighth (8th) member wasadded to the JBC as two (2) representatives from Congress began
sitting inthe JBC

one from the House of Representatives and one from the Senate,with each having one-half (1/2) of
a vote. During the existence of the case,Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero and Congressman Niel C.
Tupas, Jr.(respondents) simultaneously sat in JBC as representatives of the legislature.It is this practice
that petitioner has questioned in this petition.The respondents claimed that when the JBC was
established, the framers

originally envisioned a unicameral legislative body, thereby allocating “a

re

presentative of the National Assembly” to the JBC. The phrase, however,

was not modified to aptly jive with the change to bicameralism which was

adopted by the Constitutional Commission on July 21, 1986. The respondentsalso contend that if the
Commissioners were made aware of the consequenceof having a bicameral legislature instead of
a unicameral one, they wouldhave made the corresponding adjustment in the representation of
Congress inthe JBC; that if only one house of Congress gets to be a member of JBCwould deprive the
other house of representation, defeating the principle ofbalance.The respondents further argue that
the allowance of two (2) representatives of

Congress to be members of the JBC does not render JBC’s purpose of

providing balance nugatory; that the presence of two (2) members fromCongress will most likely provide
balance as against the other six (6)members who are undeniably presidential appointeesSupreme Court
held that it has the power of review the case herein as it is anobject of concern, not just for a nominee
to a judicial post, but for all thecitizens who have the right to seek judicial intervention for rectification
of legalblunders.

Issue:

Whether the practice of the JBC to perform its functions with eight (8)members, two (2) of whom are
members of Congress, defeats the letter andspirit of the 1987 Constitution.

Held:

No

. The current practice of JBC in admitting two members of the Congress toperform the functions of the
JBC is violative of the 1987 Constitution. As such,it is unconstitutional.One of the primary and basic rules
in statutory construction is that where thewords of a statute are clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it
must be given itsliteral meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. It is a well-
settledprinciple of constitutional construction that the language employed in theConstitution must be
given their ordinary meaning except where technicalterms are employed. As such, it can be clearly and
unambiguously discernedfrom 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 theConstitutional Commission had in
mind, that is, Congress may designate onlyone (1) representative to the JBC