FRANCISCO I.

CHAVEZ, Petitioner,
vs.
JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL, SEN. FRANCIS JOSEPH G. ESCUDERO and REP.
NIEL C. TUPAS, JR., Respondents.
[G.R. No. 202242 April 16, 2013]
DIGEST BY: AUSTRIA, DON RODEL A.

MENDOZA, J.:

FACTS:
The issue at hand has been in hibernation until the unexpected departure of Chief Justice
Renato C. Corona on May 29, 2012, and the nomination of former Solicitor General Francisco
I. Chavez (petitioner), as his potential successor, triggered the filing of this case. The issue has
constantly been nagging legal minds, yet remained dormant for lack of constitutional challenge.

Prompted by the clamor to rid the process of appointments to the Judiciary from
political pressure and partisan activities, 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). Its composition, term
and functions are provided under Section 8, Article VIII of the Constitution, viz: Section 8,
Article VIII of the Constitution, viz:

“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.

(2) The regular members of the Council shall be appointed by the President for a term of four years
with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Of the Members first appointed, the
representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the professor of law for three years,
the retired Justice for two years, and the representative of the private sector for one year.

(3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep a
record of its proceedings.

(4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive such emoluments as may be determined by
the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual budget the appropriations for the
Council.

(5) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It
may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it.”

In compliance therewith, Congress, from the moment of the creation of the JBC,
designated one representative to sit in the JBC to act as one of the ex officio members. Perhaps
in order to give equal opportunity to both houses to sit in the exclusive body, the House of
Representatives and the Senate would send alternate representatives to the JBC. In other words,
Congress had only one (1) representative.

In 1994, 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. 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 vote each. At present, Senator Francis Joseph G.
Escudero and Congressman Niel C. Tupas, Jr. (respondents) simultaneously sit in the JBC as
representatives of the legislature. It is this practice that petitioner has questioned in this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petition is in the nature of an action under declaratory relief under
Rule 63?

RESOLUTION:
Yes, the Court views the petition as essentially an action for declaratory relief under
Rule 63 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Before addressing the above issues in seriatim, the Court deems it proper to first
ascertain the nature of the petition. Pursuant to the rule that the nature of an action is determined
by the allegations therein and the character of the relief sought, the Court views the petition as
essentially an action for declaratory relief under Rule 63 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Constitution as the subject matter, and the validity and construction of Section 8
(1), Article VIII as the issue raised, the petition should properly be considered as that which
would result in the adjudication of rights sans the execution process because the only relief to
be granted is the very declaration of the rights under the document sought to be construed. It
being so, the original jurisdiction over the petition lies with the appropriate Regional Trial
Court (RTC). Notwithstanding the fact that only questions of law are raised in the petition, an
action for declaratory relief is not among those within the original jurisdiction of this Court as
provided in Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution.

At any rate, due to its serious implications, not only to government processes involved
but also to the sanctity of the Constitution, the Court deems it more prudent to take cognizance
of it. After all, the petition is also for prohibition under Rule 65 seeking to enjoin Congress
from sending two (2) representatives with one (1) full vote each to the JBC.

DOCTRINE:
An action for declaratory relief is not among those within the original jurisdiction of
this Court as provided in Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution.