G.R. No.

202242 July 17, 2012

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, Petitioner,

vs.
JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL, SEN. FRANCIS JOSEPH G. ESCUDERO and REP. NIEL C.
TUPAS, JR., Respondents.

Doctrines:

As petitioner correctly posits, 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.

It is worthy to note that the seven-member composition of the JBC serves a practical purpose,
that is, to provide a solution should there be a stalemate in voting. This 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.

MENDOZA, J.:

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.

ISSUES:

Does the first paragraph of Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution allow more than one
(1) member of Congress to sit in the JBC? Is the practice of having two (2) representatives from
each house of Congress with one (1) vote each sanctioned by the Constitution?

RULING: NO

Procedural:

 The petition filed is for declaratory relief and prohibition. An action for declaratory relief is
not among those within the original jurisdiction of this Court. 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.
 Anent locus standi, The Court disagrees with the respondents’ contention that petitioner
lost his standing to sue because he is not an official nominee for the post of Chief
Justice. While it is true that a "personal stake" on the case is imperative to have locus
standi, this is not to say that only official nominees for the post of Chief Justice can come
to the Court and question the JBC composition for being unconstitutional. The JBC
likewise screens and nominates other members of the Judiciary. Hence, a citizen has a
 right to bring this question to the Court, clothed with legal standing and at the same time,
armed with issues of transcendental importance to society.

Substantive:

As petitioner correctly posits, 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.

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.32

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.37 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.

Single vote may not be divided into half (1/2), between two representatives of Congress.

 It is s undeniable from the constitutional deliberations that it was intended that the JBC
be composed of seven (7) members only. At this juncture, it is worthy to note that the
seven-member composition of the JBC serves a practical purpose, that is, to provide a
solution should there be a stalemate in voting. This 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. This unsanctioned practice can possibly cause disorder and eventually muddle
the JBC’s voting process, especially in the event a tie is reached.

WON THE WORD CONGRESS REFERS TO THE BICAMERAL NATURE OF THE

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH- NO

 No parallelism can be drawn between the representative of Congress in the JBC

and the exercise by Congress of its legislative powers under Article VI and
constituent powers under Article XVII of the Constitution. While BICAMERALISM
justifies and, in fact, necessitates the separateness of the two houses of Congress
as they relate inter se, no such dichotomy need be made when Congress interacts
with the other two co-equal branches of government.
 It is more in keeping with the co-equal nature of the three governmental branches
to assign the same weight to considerations that any of its representatives may
have regarding aspiring nominees to the judiciary. The representatives of the
Senate and the House of Representatives act as such for one branch and should
not have any more quantitative influence as the other branches in the exercise of
prerogatives evenly bestowed upon the three. Doubtless, the Framers of our
Constitution intended to create a JBC as an innovative solution in response to the public
clamor in favor of eliminating politics in the appointment of members of the Judiciary.52 To
ensure judicial independence, they adopted a holistic approach and hoped that, in
creating a JBC, 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, as one former congressman and member of the JBC put it, "negate the principle of
equality among the three branches of government which is enshrined in the
Constitution."53

Operative Doctrine applicable

As to the effect of the Court’s finding that the current composition of the JBC is unconstitutional,
considering the circumstances, the Court finds the operative fact doctrine applicable in this case
and holds that notwithstanding its finding of unconstitutionality in the current composition of the
JBC, all its prior official actions are nonetheless valid.