G.R.

No. 202242, April 16, 2013

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, Petitioner,
vs.
JUDICIALAND BAR COUNCIL, SEN. FRANCIS JOSEPH G.
ESCUDERO and REP. NIEL C. TUPAS, JR.,Respondents.
MENDOZA, J.:

NATURE:
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

FACTS:
In 1994, instead of having only seven members, an eighth
member was added to the JBC as two 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, 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. 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. it should mean one
representative each from both Houses which comprise the entire
Congress. 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:
Whether the JBCs practice of having members from the Senate
and the House of Representatives making 8 instead of 7 sitting
members to be unconstitutional as provided in Art VIII Sec 8 of
the constitution.

HELD: Yes. 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.
It is evident that the definition of Congress as a bicameral body
refers to its primary function in government to legislate. In the
passage of laws, the Constitution is explicit in the distinction of
the role of each house in the process. The same holds true in
Congress non-legislative powers. An inter-play between the two
houses is necessary in the realization of these powers causing a
vivid dichotomy that the Court cannot simply discount. This,
however, cannot be said in the case of JBC representation
because no liaison between the two houses exists in the
workings of the JBC. Hence, the term Congress must be taken to
mean the entire legislative department. The Constitution
mandates that the JBC be composed of seven (7) members only.

FALLO: The motion was denied.