You are on page 1of 2

Case: Chavez vs.

JBC 2012

Chavez vs. Judicial and Bar


Council, G.R. No. 202242, July
17, 2012
By LLBe:LawLifeBuzzEtcetera

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. 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. Respondents argued that the crux of the controversy is the phrase a representative of
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. 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. Respondents further argue that
petitioner has no real interest in questioning the constitutionality of the JBCs current
composition. The respondents also question petitioners belated filing of the petition.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not the conditions sine qua non for the exercise of the power of judicial review
have been met in this case; and
(2) Whether or not 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.
Held:
(1) Yes. The Courts power of judicial review is subject to several limitations, namely: (a) there
must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (b) the person
challenging the act must have standing to challenge; he must have a personal and substantial
interest in the case, such that he has sustained or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its
enforcement; (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.
Generally, a party will be allowed to litigate only when these conditions sine qua non are present,
especially when the constitutionality of an act by a co-equal branch of government is put in issue.

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. Albeit
heavily publicized in this regard, the JBCs duty is not at all limited to the nominations for the
highest magistrate in the land. A vast number of aspirants to judicial posts all over the country
may be affected by the Courts ruling. More importantly, the legality of the very process of
nominations to the positions in the Judiciary is the nucleus of the controversy. The claim that the
composition of the JBC is illegal and unconstitutional is an object of concern, not just for a
nominee to a judicial post, but for all citizens who have the right to seek judicial intervention for
rectification of legal blunders.
(2) Yes. 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. The seven-member composition of the JBC serves a practical purpose,
that is, to provide a solution should there be a stalemate in voting.
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.
Notwithstanding its finding of unconstitutionality in the current composition of the JBC, all its
prior official actions are nonetheless valid. Under the doctrine of operative facts, actions previous
to the declaration of unconstitutionality are legally recognized. They are not nullified.

You might also like