G.R. No.

228628

Umali v. The Judicial and Bar Council

25 July 2017

Facts:

The current six-month rotational representation of Congress in the Judicial and Bar Council
(JBC), according to Rep. Reynaldo V. Umali, Chair of the House of Representatives Committee on
Justice, unfairly denies both Houses of Congress their full participation. Umali filed a Petition for
Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Following the Chavez v. Judicial and
Bar Council verdict, which ruled that the JBC's system of two congressional representatives with
one vote each was unconstitutional, the JBC adopted this approach. The Court stressed that since
there is no communication between the two chambers in the JBC's operations, the phrase
"Congress" must be interpreted to refer to the whole legislative branch.

The Court further observed that the ex officio members of the JBC are made up of
representatives from the three major branches of government: the legislature is represented by a
member of Congress, the executive branch is represented by the Secretary of Justice, and the
judiciary is represented by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The 1987 Constitution's Section
8(1), Article VIII, which calls for "a representative of the Congress" in the JBC, is explicit and plain,
according to the Court, which refused the application for reconsideration.

Issue:

1. Whether the petitioner, in the absence of the necessary resolution from both Houses
of Congress allowing him to do so, has locus standi to bring this petition.
2. Whether the petitioner has a clear, quick, and sufficient remedy at his disposal to
challenge the JBC's adoption of rotational representation, which resulted in the non-
counting of his votes during the En Banc deliberations last December 2 and 9, 2016,
by directly bringing his case before this Court through a Petition for Certiorari and
Mandamus.
3. Whether the adoption of the six-month rotating schedule by both Houses of
Congress by the JBC constituted a gross abuse of discretion that prevented the
petitioner's votes from being counted at the En Banc hearings on December 2 and 9,
2016.
4. Whether the petitioner's votes in the En Banc discussions held on December 2 and
9, 2016, can be counted by the JBC through mandamus
5. Whether the Chavez decision rendered by this Court is applicable in this instance as
stare decisis.
Ruling:

THE PETITION IS DISMISSED DUE TO THE LACK OF MERIT. The Court of Appeals upheld
the petitioner's legal standing as a member of the House of Representatives and Chairman of its
Committee on Justice to challenge the alternate representation of Congress in the JBC. The Court
argued that the JBC's decision was a creation of Congress itself and that the petitioner's remedy was
to appeal to Congress to repudiate the arrangement. The Court ruled that direct resort to the Court
should not be allowed if there is a remedy available before Congress. The Court also ruled that the
JBC has the full discretion to not count the petitioner's votes, as it is mandated by both the
Constitution and jurisprudence to maintain Congress's one representative in the JBC.