[11] Chavez v JBC consciousness it should ever be present as an important condition for the rule
GR No. 202242 | July 17, 2012 | J. Mendoza of law to prevail.
dpeb
PETITIONERS/PROSECUTORS: FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL, SEN. FRANCIS
JOSEPH G. ESCUDERO and REP. NIEL C. TUPAS, JR.
TOPIC: Judiciary
CASE SUMMARY: By reason of CJ Corona’s unexpected departure, then SolGen
Francisco Chavez was nominated as his potential successor. He brought this petition
questioning the practice of Congress of sending two (2) representatives to the JBC as
being unconstitutional contrary to Article VIII, Section 8, Paragraph 1.
DOCTRINE: Doubtless, the Framers of our Constitution intended to create a JBC as an
innovative solution in response to the public clamor in favor of eliminating politics in
the appointment of members of the Judiciary. To ensure judicial independence, they
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.
ISSUES and RULING: (Doctrine in bold letters)
 WON 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 — YES
o 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.
o The raison d’ être for the rule is essentially two-fold: First, because it is assumed
that the words in which constitutional provisions are couched express the
objective sought to be attained and second, because the Constitution is not
primarily a lawyer’s document but essentially that of the people, in whose
o Verba legis non est recedendum from the words of a statute there should be no
departure. Moreover, under the maxim noscitur a sociis, where a particular
word or phrase is ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various
meanings, its correct construction may be made clear and specific by
considering the company of words in which it is founded or with which it is
associated. Every meaning to be given to each word or phrase must be
ascertained from the context of the body of the statute since a word or phrase
in a statute is always used in association with other words or phrases and its
meaning may be modified or restricted by the latter.
o 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.
o Indeed, the spirit and reason of the statute may be passed upon where a literal
meaning would lead to absurdity, contradiction, injustice, or defeat the clear
purpose of the lawmakers. Not any of these instances, however, is present in
the case at bench. Considering that the language of the subject constitutional
provision is plain and unambiguous, there is no need to resort extrinsic aids
such as records of the Constitutional Commission.
o At this juncture, 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.
o Doubtless, the Framers of our Constitution intended to create a JBC as an
innovative solution in response to the public clamor in favor of eliminating
politics in the appointment of members of the Judiciary. To ensure judicial
independence, they 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.
o 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.”

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The current numerical

composition of the Judicial and Bar Council is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Judicial
and Bar Council is hereby enjoined to reconstitute itself so that only one (1) member of Congress
will sit as a representative in its proceedings, in accordance with Section 8(1), Article VIII of
the 1987 Constitution. This disposition is immediately executory. SO ORDERED.