GR no.

202242 April 16 2013

Facts: The case is a motion for reconsideration filed by the JBC in a prior decision
rendered July 17, 2012 that JBCs action of allowing more than one member of the
congress to represent the JBC to be unconstitutional Respondent contends that the
phrase a representative of congress refers that both houses of congress should have
one representative each, and that these two houses are permanent and mandatory
components of congress as part of the bicameral system of legislature. Both houses
have their respective powers in performance of their duties. Art VIII Sec 8 of the
constitution provides for the component of the JBC to be 7 members only with only one
representative from congress.
Issue: W/N the JBCs practice of having members from the Senate and the House of
Representatives to be unconstitutional as provided in Art VIII Sec 8 of the constitution.
Held: The practice is unconstitutional; the court held that the phrase a representative
of congress should be construed as to having only one representative that would come
from either house, not both. That the framers of the constitution only intended for one
seat of the JBC to be allotted for the legislative. The motion was denied.