CHAVEZ 

V.JUDICIALBARCOUNCIL

FACTS :

The case is in relation to the process of selecting the nominees for the vacantseat of Supreme
Court Chief Justice following Renato Corona’s departure.Originally, the members of the
Consti tuti onal Commission saw the need tocreate a separate, competent and
independent body to recommend nominees to thePresident. Thus, it conceived of a body
representati ve of all the stakeholders in the  judicial appointment process and called it the
Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).In particular, Paragraph 1 Section 8, Article VIII of the Constitution states
that“ ( 1 ) A J u d i c i a l a n d B a r C o u n c i l i s h e r e b y c r e a t e d u n d e r t h e s u p e r v i s i o n o f
t h e 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 representativeof the Integrated Bar, a professor
of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, anda representative of the private sector.” In
compliance therewith, Congress, from themoment of the creation of the JBC, designated one
representative from the Congressto sit in the JBC to act as one of the ex officio
members.I n   1 9 9 4   h o w e v e r ,   t h e   c o m p o s i ti o n   o f   t h e   J B C   w a s   s u b s t a n ti a l l y   a l t e r e d .
Instead of having only seven (7) members, an eighth (8th) member was added to theJBC as two
(2) representatives from Congress began sitting in the JBC – one from theHouse 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
andC o n g r e s s m a n   N i e l   C .   T u p a s ,   J r .   ( r e s p o n d e n t s )   s i m u l t a n e o u s l y   s a t   i n  
J B C   a s representatives of the legislature.It is this practice that petitioner has questioned in this
petition.ISSUE: Whether or not the representati ve of Congress referred to in Arti cle
VIII,Section of the 1987 Constitution refers to two members from the Congress, one fromthe Senate
and one from the House of Representatives.

RULING : NO.The current practi ce of JBC in admitti ng two members of the Congress
to perform the functions of the JBC is violative of the 1987 Constitution. As such,
it isunconstitutional.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 its literalmeaning and applied
without attempted interpretation. It is a well-settled principle of consti tuti onal constructi on that
the language employed in the Consti tuti on must be given their ordinary meaning except where
technical terms are employed. As such, itcan be clearly and unambiguously discerned from Paragraph
1, Section 8, Article VIIIof the 1987 Constitution that in the phrase, “a representative of Congress,” the
use of the singular lett er “a” preceding “representati ve of Congress” is unequivocal
andleaves no room for any other construction. It is indicative of what the members of theConstitutional
Commission had in mind, that is, Congress may designate only one
(1)r e p r e s e n t a ti v e   t o   t h e   J B C .   H a d   i t   b e e n   t h e   i n t e n ti o n   t h a t   m o r e   t h a n  
o n e   ( 1 ) representative from the legislature would sit in the JBC, the Framers could have,
in nouncertain terms, so provided.