G.R. No.

202242
CHAVEZ VS JBC

TOPIC: The words in the Constitution must be given their ordinary Meaning

In 1994, instead of having only 7 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. 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

ISSUE: W/N s the JBC’s practice of having members from the Senate and the House
of Representatives making 8 instead of 7 sitting members unconstitutional.

RULING:

From a simple reading of the Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, it can
readily be discerned that the provision is clear and unambiguous. The first paragraph
calls for the creation of a JBC and places the same under the supervision of the Court.
Then it goes to its composition where the regular members are enumerated: a
representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired member of the Court
and a representative from the private sector. On the second part lies the crux of the
present controversy. It enumerates the ex officio or special members of the JBC
composed of the Chief Justice, who shall be its Chairman, the Secretary of Justice and
“a representative of Congress.”

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. It is a wellsettled principle of
constitutional construction that the language employed in the Constitution must be
given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed. As much as
possible, the words of the Constitution should be understood in the sense they have in
common use. What it says according to the text of the provision to be construed
compels acceptance and negates the power of the courts to alter it, based on the
postulate that the framers and the people mean what they say. Verba legis non est
recedendum – from the words of a statute there should be no departure.

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.

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. The aforesaid purpose would then be rendered illusory, defeating the
precise mechanism which the Constitution itself created.While it would be
unreasonable to expect that the Framers provide 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.

The respondents insist that owing to the bicameral nature of Congress, the word
“Congress” in Section 8(1), Article VIII of the Constitution should be read as
including both the Senate and the House of Representatives. They theorize that it was
so worded because at the time the said provision was being drafted, the Framers
initially intended a unicameral form of Congress. Then, when the Constitutional
Commission eventually adopted a bicameral form of Congress, the Framers, through
oversight, failed to amend Article VIII, Section 8 of the Constitution.

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.

Notes:

Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides: Section 8. (1) A Judicial
and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court
composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a
representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the
Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a
representative of the private sector.