G.R. No. 202242 – 691 Phil. 173 – 676 SCRA 579 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – General Principles – Interpretation / Construction of the Constitution – Verba Legis
Judges and Justices are screened by the Judicial and Bar Council in accordance with the check and balance provisions of the 1987 Constitution, in particular:
ARTICLE VIII
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.
xxx
(5) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it.
As provided above, the JBC shall have seven members but in 1994, the JBC began having 8 members because Congress fielded two representatives: one from the Senate and one from the Lower House, each having 1/2 vote. In 2001, the JBC En Banc resolved to grant one full vote for each of the representatives coming from the Senate and the Lower House. That has been the practice until it was questioned in 2012.
In May 2012, then Chief Justice Renato Corona died. Pending the appointment of his successor, Atty. Frank Chavez filed a taxpayer’s suit questioning the constitutionality of the 8-member composition of the JBC; that the wording of the Constitution is clear: Congress must only have one representative in the JBC.
Senator Francis Escudero and Congressman Niel Tupas were impleaded as they were then the sitting representatives of the Senate and the Lower House, respectively, in the JBC. They argued that the text of Section 8 (1), Art. VIII was the result of an oversight because originally, the framers of the Constitution envisioned a unicameral Congress but when the final version of the Constitution was approved, which embodied a bicameral Congress, the wording of Section 8 (1), Art. VIII was inadvertently left unmodified; that in order to give effect to the intention of the framers of the Constitution for a bicameral Congress, each house of Congress must have a representation; that this interpretation is more in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution.
ISSUE: Whether or not Congress should only have one representative to the JBC.
HELD: Yes. Section 8 (1), Art. VIII is clear and unambiguous. 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 (no need to look into the spirit of the Constitution).
Nevertheless, even if the intent of the framers will be looked into, their deliberations reveal that they intended the JBC to comprise of seven members only. Further, the seven-member composition of the JBC serves a practical purpose, that is, to provide a solution should there be a stalemate in voting. Thus, 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 argument by Escudero and Tupas that the spirit of bicameralism should prevail is not tenable. The SC agreed with retired Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago as amicus curiae who submitted: A perusal of the records of the Constitutional Commission reveals that the composition of the JBC reflects the Commission’s desire “to have in the Council a representation for the major elements of the community.” xxx The ex-officio members of the Council consist of representatives from the three main branches of government while the regular members are composed of various stakeholders in the judiciary. The unmistakable tenor of Article VIII, Section 8(1) was to treat each ex-officio member as representing one co-equal branch of government.
Thus, “Congress,” in the context of JBC representation, should be considered as one body. It is evident that the definition of “Congress” as a bicameral body refers to its primary function in government – to legislate. In the JBC, the representative of Congress is not there to legislate. As such, the act of Congress fielding two representatives to the JBC is unconstitutional.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
G.R. No. 202242 – 709 Phil. 478 – 696 SCRA 496 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – General Principles – Interpretation / Construction of the Constitution – Supremacy of the Constitution – Provisions not rendered obsolete by non-compliance
Escudero and Tupas filed a motion for reconsideration. They argued and insisted, among others, that (1) the failure of the Framers to make the proper adjustment when there was a shift from unilateralism to bicameralism was a plain oversight and (2) that the 8-member composition of the JBC should be accepted as it has been the practice since 1994.
ISSUE: Whether or not to grant the motion for reconsideration.
HELD: No.
1. The SC reiterated that the Constitutional Commission intended for a 7-member JBC. The argument that the wording of Section 8 (1), Art. VIII was not modified due to inadvertence is not acceptable simply because other provisions of the Constitution were so drafted to give respect to bicameralism such as:
a. Section 4, Article VII, which provides that a tie in the presidential election shall be broken “by a majority of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.”
b. Section 8 thereof which requires the nominee to replace the Vice-President to be confirmed “by a majority of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.”
c. Section 18, the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be revoked or continued by the Congress, voting separately, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members.”
In all these provisions, the bicameral nature of Congress was recognized and, clearly, the corresponding adjustments were made as to how a matter would be handled and voted upon by its two Houses. But Section 8 (1), Art. VIII was left unmodified because the text thereof is the very intent of the Constitutional Commission – to only have one representative of Congress to the JBC.
2. The contention that the 8-member composition of the JBC should be accepted, simply because it was only questioned for the first time through the present action, deserves scant consideration. Well-settled is the rule that acts done in violation of the Constitution no matter how frequent, usual or notorious cannot develop or gain acceptance under the doctrine of estoppel or laches, because once an act is considered as an infringement of the Constitution it is void from the very beginning and cannot be the source of any power or authority.
