CHAVEZ

vs.
JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL
G.R. No. 202242 July 17, 2012
Doctrine:
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) Doctrine of Operative Facts.

Facts:
Paragraph 1 Section 8, Article VIII of the Constitution states that “(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.” 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 as one 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 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.

Issue:
Whether or not the practice of the JBC to perform its functions with eight (8) members,
two (2) of whom are members of Congress, defeats the letter and spirit of the 1987 Constitution.

Held:

The current practice of JBC in admitting two members of the Congress to perform the
functions of the JBC is violative of the 1987 Constitution.
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. 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.

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. 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

Notwithstanding its finding of unconstitutionality in the current composition of the JBC, all
its prior official actions are nonetheless valid. In the interest of fair play under the doctrine of
operative facts, actions previous to the declaration of unconstitutionality are legally recognized.
They are not nullified.