Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ,
Petitioner,
Present:
CARPIO,*
VELASCO, JR.,*
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,*
BRION**
'
PERALTA
'
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ,
MENDOZA,
SERENO,*
REYES and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
- versus -
JlJDICIALAND BAR
COUNCIL, SEN. FllANCIS
JOSEPH G. ESCUDERO and
llEP. NIEL C. TUPAS, JR.,
Respondents.
)(
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- )(
DECISION
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
DECISION
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.
Article 80 Title X of the Malolos Constitution provides: The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the
Solicitor-General shall be chosen by the National Assembly in concurrence with the President of the
Republic and the Secretaries of the Government, and shall be absolutely independent of the Legislative and
Executive Powers.
2
Section 5 Article VIII of the 1935 Constitution provides: The Members of the Supreme Court and all
judges of inferior courts shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments.
3
1 Records of the Constitutional Commission Proceedings and Debates, 437.
DECISION
Then, with the fusion of executive and legislative power under the
1973 Constitution,4 the appointment of judges and justices was no longer
subject to the scrutiny of another body. It was absolute, except that the
appointees must have all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications.
Section 4 Article X of the 1973 Constitution provides: The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of
inferior courts shall be appointed by the President.
5
1 Records, Constitutional Commission, Proceedings and Debates, p. 487.
DECISION
List of JBC Chairpersons, Ex-Officio and Regular Members, Ex Officio Secretaries and Consultants,
issued by the Office of the Executive Officer, Judicial and Bar Council, rollo, pp. 62-63.
7
Id.
8
Comment of the JBC, p. 80, citing Minutes of the 1st En Banc Executive Meeting, January 12, 2000 and
Minutes of the 12th En Banc Meeting, May 30, 2001.
9
Rollo, pp. 3-69.
DECISION
II
The framers of the Constitution clearly envisioned,
contemplated and decided on a JBC composed of only seven
(7) members.
III
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.
IV
The composition of the JBC providing for three exofficio members is purposely designed for a balanced
representation of each of the three branches of the government.
V
One of the two (2) members of the JBC from Congress
has no right (not even right) to sit in the said constitutional
body and perform the duties and functions of a member thereof.
VI
The JBC cannot conduct valid proceedings as its
composition is illegal and unconstitutional.10
On July 9, 2012, the JBC filed its Comment.11 It, however, abstained
from recommending on how this constitutional issue should be disposed in
gracious deference to the wisdom of the Court. Nonetheless, the JBC was
more than generous enough to offer the insights of various personalities
previously connected with it.12
Id. at 17-18.
Id. at 76-106.
12
Id. at 80.
13
Id. at 117-163.
11
DECISION
July 12, 2012. According to them, the crux of the controversy is the phrase
a representative of Congress.14 Reverting to the basics, they cite Section
1, Article VI of the Constitution15 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. In simplistic terms, the House
of Representatives, without the Senate and vice-versa, is not Congress.16
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.17
Id. at 142.
The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate
and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative
and referendum.
16
Id.
17
Rollo, p. 143.
18
Id. at 148.
15
DECISION
The Issues
Id.
Id.
21
Id. at 150-153.
20
DECISION
22
Id. at 78.
Id. at 131.
24
Id. at 131-133.
23
DECISION
25
Section 1. Who may file petition.Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written
instrument, whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other
governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate
Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of
his rights or duties, thereunder.
xxx
26
1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may
provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts.
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement,
law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in
relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such
temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned.
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice,
and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to
the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or
modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain
effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.
DECISION
10
The Courts power of judicial review, like almost all other powers
conferred by the Constitution, is subject to several limitations, namely: (1)
there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of
judicial power; (2) 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; (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the
earliest possible opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be
the very lis mota of the case.27 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.
Anent locus standi, the question to be answered is this: does the party
possess a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that
there is real, concrete and legal conflict of rights and duties from the issues
presented before the Court? In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo,28 the Court
summarized the rules on locus standi as culled from jurisprudence. There, it
was held that taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, and legislators may be
accorded standing to sue, provided that the following requirements are met:
(1) cases involve constitutional issues; (2) for taxpayers, there must be a
claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is
unconstitutional; (3) for voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest
in the validity of the election law in question; (4) for concerned citizens,
27
28
DECISION
11
LAMP v. The Secretary of Budget and Management, G.R. No. 164987, April 24, 2012.
Rollo, p. 6.
DECISION
12
recognizes the petitioners right to sue in this case. Clearly, petitioner has the
legal standing to bring the present action because he has a personal stake in
the outcome of this controversy.
DECISION
13
31
Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives, 460 Phil. 830, 899 (2003), citing Kilosbayan v. Guingona,
G.R. No. 113375, May 5, 1994, 232 SCRA 110, 155-157.
DECISION
14
The raison d tre for the rule is essentially two-fold: First, because it
is assumed that the words in which constitutional provisions are couched
express the objective sought to be attained;35 and second, because the
Constitution is not primarily a lawyers document but essentially that of the
people, in whose consciousness it should ever be present as an important
condition for the rule of law to prevail. 36
32
National Food Authority (NFA) v. Masada Security Agency, Inc., 493 Phil. 241, 250 (2005); Philippine
National Bank v. Garcia, Jr., 437 Phil. 289 (2002).
33
Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives, supra note 31 at 885, citing J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land
Tenure Administration, L-21064, February 18, 1970, 31 SCRA 413.
34
Id.
35
Id.
36
Id.
DECISION
15
Coca-Cola Bottlers, Phils., Inc. (CCBPI), Naga Plant v. Gomez, G.R. No. 154491, November 14, 2008,
571 SCRA 18, 37; People v. Delantar, G.R. No. 169143, February 2, 2007, 514 SCRA 115, 139; and
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 255 Phil. 71 (1989), citing Co Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, 75 Phil.
371 (1945).
38
People v. Delantar, G.R. No. 169143, February 2, 2007, 514 SCRA 115, 139; Republic v. Sandiganbayan,
255 Phil. 71 (1989), citing Co Kim Chan v. Valdez, 75 Phil. 371 (1945).
39
Uy v. Sandiganbayan, 407 Phil. 154, 180 (2001).
40
Memorandum of Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisimbing, dated March 14, 2007; rollo, p. 95-103.
41
Id. at 103.
DECISION
16
Indeed, the spirit and reason of the statute may be passed upon where
a literal meaning would lead to absurdity, contradiction, injustice, or defeat
the clear purpose of the lawmakers.42 Not any of these instances, however, is
present in the case at bench. 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.
Nevertheless, even if the Court should proceed to look into the minds
of the members of the Constitutional Commission, it is undeniable from the
records thereof that it was intended that the JBC be composed of seven (7)
members only. Thus:
MR. RODRIGO: Let me go to another point then.
On page 2, Section 5, there is a novel provision about the
appointments of members of the Supreme Court and judges of the
lower courts. At present it is the President who appoints them. If there
is a Commission on Appointments, then it is the President with the
confirmation of the Commission on Appointment. In this proposal, we
would like to establish a new office, a sort of a board composed of seven
members called the Judicial and Bar Council. And while the President
will still appoint the member of the judiciary, he will be limited to the
recommendees of this Council.
xxx
xxx
xxx
MR. RODRIGO.
Of the seven members of the Judicial and Bar
Council, the President appoints four of them who are regular
members.
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
MR. RODRIGO.
If my amendment is approved, then the
provision will be exactly the same as the provision in the 1935
Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5.
42
43
DECISION
17
xxx
xxx
xxx
DECISION
18
for every possible scenario, it is sensible to presume that they knew that an
odd composition is the best means to break a voting deadlock.
45
46
xx
DECISION
19
47
1987 Constitution, Article 6 Section 27(1) - Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a
law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and
return the same with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at
large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members
of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House
by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House,
it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and
the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall
communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt
thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.
48
1987 Constitution, Article 6 Section 24 - All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing
increase of public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House
of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.
49
1987 Constitution, Article 6 Section 23 (1) - The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in
joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of
war.
50
1987 Constitution, Article 7 Section 4 - The returns of every election for President and Vice-President,
duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress,
directed to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the
Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the election, open all certificates in the presence of
the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public session, and the Congress, upon determination
of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass the votes.
The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall
have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority
of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.
DECISION
20
1987 Constitution, Article 11 Section 3 (1) - The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive
power to initiate all cases of impeachment.
xxx
(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for that
purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted without
the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
52
1 Records of the Constitutional Commission Proceedings and Debates Records of the Constitutional
Convention, p. 487.
DECISION
21
54
DECISION
22
At this point, the Court takes the initiative to clarify that it is not in a
position to determine as to who should remain as the sole representative of
Congress in the JBC. This is a matter beyond the province of the Court and
is best left to the determination of Congress.
56
Claudio S. Yap v. Thennamaris Ship's Management and Intermare Maritime Agencies Inc., G.R. No.
179532, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 369, 380.
57
G.R. No. 166006, March 14, 2008, 548 SCRA 485, 516-517.
DECISION
23
of
the
Judicial
and
Bar
Council
IS
declared
SO
ORDEI~ED.
JOSE
CA~NDOZA
1
As~~~:~J ~:~ce
DECISION
24
WE CONCUR:
~~~~~..!lie~
~o C~!+S
~ /~A&.-~~-~C,[
(No part) ~~....
tP~
,_...-r-
PRES
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
(No Part)
(On Leave)
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate .Justice
Ju; ~ ~
0(_
/vd-n--:_fU.
CJ.
(No part)
Associate J u~;tice
DECISION
25
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
(Per Section 12, R.A. No. 296,
The Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)