FACTS:

The petitioner herein is the nominee for the position to be the next chief justice. In
this case there’s a constitutional deadline in the process of selecting nominees for
the vacant seat of the Chief Justice.

In 1994, the composition of the JBC was substantially altered. Instead of having
ONLY SEVEN MEMBERS, an EIGHTH MEMBER WAS ADDED to the JBC as
two (2) representatives from Congress began sitting in the JBC - one from the HR
and one from the Senate. Then, curiously, 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 voteeach.At present, Senator Francis
Joseph G. Escudero and Congressman Niel C. Tupas, Jr. (respondents)
simultaneously sit in the JBC as representatives of the legislature.

Legal Basis of having SEVEN MEMBERS ONLY: Section 8, Article VIII of the
Constitution.

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.

ISSUE:

WON the appointing of two members from the Congress is deemed

UNCONSTITUTIONAL

RULING:

YES. The Constitution is clear with its mandates to provide the Congress with an
equal voice to recommend appointees to the Judiciary. The Constitution is the
SUPREME AND PARAMOUNT LAW OF THE LAND.
But at this point, the Court is in no position to determiner as to who should remain
as the representative of the Congress in the JBC. It is beyond the province of the
Court and is best left to the determination of the Congress.

The petition is GRANTED. The number of the JBC is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

and enjoined to reconstitute itself to ONLY SEVEN MEMBERS.