CASE DIGEST: Francisco I. Chavez vs.

Judicial Bar Council (JBC)

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.
FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, Petitioner,
vs.
JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL, SEN. FRANCIS JOSEPH G. ESCUDERO and REP. NIEL C. TUPAS, JR., Respondents.
Facts:
The case is in relation to the process of selecting the nominees for the vacant seat of Supreme Court
Chief Justice following Renato Coronas departure.
Originally, the members of the Constitutional Commission saw the need to create a separate,
competent and independent body to recommend nominees to the President. Thus, it conceived of
a body representative 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 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. During the existence of the case, Senator Francis Joseph
G. Escudero and Congressman Niel C. Tupas, Jr. (respondents) simultaneously sat in JBC as
representatives of the legislature.
It is this practice that petitioner has questioned in this petition.

The respondents claimed that when the JBC was established, the framers originally envisioned a
unicameral legislative body, thereby allocating a representative of the National Assembly to the
JBC. The phrase, however, was not modified to aptly jive with the change to bicameralism which was
adopted by the Constitutional Commission on July 21, 1986. The respondents also contend that if the
Commissioners were made aware of the consequence of having a bicameral legislature instead of a
unicameral one, they would have made the corresponding adjustment in the representation of
Congress in the JBC; that if only one house of Congress gets to be a member of JBC would deprive
the other house of representation, defeating the principle of balance.
The respondents further argue that the allowance of two (2) representatives of Congress to be
members of the JBC does not render JBCs purpose of providing balance nugatory; that the
presence of two (2) members from Congress will most likely provide balance as against the other six
(6) members who are undeniably presidential appointees
Supreme Court held that it has the power of review the case herein as it is an object of concern, not
just for a nominee to a judicial post, but for all the citizens who have the right to seek judicial
intervention for rectification of legal blunders.
Issue:
Whether 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:
No. 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. As such, it is unconstitutional.
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. 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. 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. Had it been the intention that
more than one (1) representative from the legislature would sit in the JBC, the Framers could have, in
no uncertain terms, so provided.
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. 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

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. Nevertheless, even
if the Court should proceed to look into the minds of the members of the Constitutional Commission,
it is undeniable from the records thereof that it was intended that the JBC be composed of seven (7)
members only. The underlying reason leads the Court to conclude that a single vote may not be
divided into half (1/2), between two representatives of Congress, or among any of the sitting
members of the JBC for that matter.
With the respondents contention that each representative should be admitted from the Congress
and House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, after the perusal of the records of Constitutional
Commission, held that Congress, in the context of JBC representation, should be considered as one
body. While it is true that there are still differences between the two houses and that an inter-play
between the two houses is necessary in the realization of the legislative powers conferred to them by
the Constitution, the same cannot be applied in the case of JBC representation because no liaison
between the two houses exists in the workings of the JBC. No mechanism is required between the
Senate and the House of Representatives in the screening and nomination of judicial officers. Hence,
the term Congress must be taken to mean the entire legislative department.
The framers of Constitution, in creating JBC, hoped that 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. 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
negate the principle of equality among the three branches of government which is enshrined in the
Constitution.
It is clear, therefore, that the Constitution mandates that the JBC be composed of seven (7)
members only. Thus, any inclusion of another member, whether with one whole vote or half (1/2) of it,
goes against that mandate. Section 8(1), Article VIII of the Constitution, providing Congress with an
equal voice with other members of the JBC in recommending appointees to the Judiciary is explicit.
Any circumvention of the constitutional mandate should not be countenanced for the Constitution is
the supreme law of the land. The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws
must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer.
Constitutional doctrines must remain steadfast no matter what may be the tides of time. It cannot be
simply made to sway and accommodate the call of situations and much more tailor itself to the
whims and caprices of the government and the people who run it.
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.
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.