STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
CASE DIGESTS
CHAVEZ VS JUDICIAL BAR AND COUNCIL
GR No. 202242
Apr. 16, 2013
Subject: Bicameralism
Parties involved: Francisco Chavez (petitioners); Judicial Bar Council (respondent)
Facts:
 Malolos Consti and 1935 Consti- power to appoint Judiciary vested in the
President subject to confirmation by CoA
 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
 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.
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
 Petitioner filed petition on the grounds that
o Art VIII, Sec 8 is clear, definite that JBC shall have only one
representative from Congress
o Framers clearly envisioned a JBC composed only of 7 members
o Had the framers of the Constitution intended that the JBC
composed of the one member from the Senate and one member
from the House of Representatives, they could have easily said
so as they did in the other provisions of the Constitution.
o Composition of JBC providing for 3 ex officio members is
purposely designed for balanced representation
o JBC cannot conduct valid proceedings as its composition is illegal
and unconsti
 JBC commented- abstained from recommending on how this issue be
resolved
o "a representative of Congress." Reverting to the basics, they cite
Section 1, Article VI of the Constitution to determine the meaning
of the term "Congress." It is their theory that the two houses, the
Senate and the House of Representatives, are permanent and
mandatory components of "Congress," such that the absence of
either divests the term of its substantive meaning as expressed
under the Constitution.
o Bicameralism, as the system of choice by the Framers, requires
that both houses exercise their respective powers in the
performance of its mandated duty which is to legislate. Thus, when
Section 8(1), Article VIII of the Constitution speaks of "a
representative from Congress," it should mean one
representative each from both Houses which comprise the
entire Congress
o History- when JBC was established, framers envisioned
unicameral legislative body; if Commissioners were made aware of
consequence of bicam, they would have adjusted representation of
congress in jbc
o literal adherence to its language would produce absurdity and
incongruity to the bicameral nature of Congress
o 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.
Issues:
1. WON the conditions are essential for the exercise of the power of judicial
review have been met in this case; and
2. WON the current practice of the JBC to perform its functions with eight (8)
members, two (2) of whom are members of Congress, runs counter to the
letter and spirit of the 1987 Constitution.
Ruling:
1. Yes. Clearly, petitioner has the legal standing to bring the present action
because he has a personal stake in the outcome of this controversy. In this
case, petitioner seeks judicial intervention as a taxpayer, a concerned citizen
and a nominee to the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. As a
taxpayer, petitioner invokes his right to demand that the taxes he and the
rest of the citizenry have been paying to the government are spent for lawful
purposes. According to petitioner, "since the JBC derives financial support
for its functions, operation and proceedings from taxes paid, petitioner
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
CASE DIGESTS
possesses as taxpayer both right and legal standing to demand that the JBC's
proceedings are not tainted with illegality and that its composition and
actions do not violate the Constitution
2. Yes, it is unconstitutional. From simple reading of Sec 8, Art VIII, it can be
seen that it is clear and unambiguous. Petitioner is correct that use of
singular letter “a” preceeding “representative of Congress” is
unequivocal. 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. 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.
a. seven-member composition of the JBC serves a practical purpose,
that is, to provide a solution should there be a stalemate in voting.
especially in the event a tie is reached.
b. Respondents: Bicameral ang congress definition of "Congress"
as a bicameral body refers to its primary function in government –
to legislate. For 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.
c. Framers intended that private sector and 3 branches of govt
have an active role in selection of members of Judiciary; to
allow legislature to have more influence is negating principle of
equality among three branches of govt
d. Doctrine of operative fact- all of past official actions are valid
Held:

Notes: