G.R. No. 202242 July 17, 2012 FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, Petitioner, CHAVEZ, Petitioner, vs. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL, COUNCIL, SEN. SEN. FRANCIS JOSEPH JOSEPH G. ESCUDERO and REP. NIEL C. TUPAS, JR., Respondents. JR., Respondents. Facts: The case is in relation to the process of selectin the no!inees no!inees for the vacant seat of "upre!e "upre!e #ourt #hief Justice follo$in Renato #orona%s departure. &riina &riinally lly,, the !e!'er !e!'ers s of the #onstit #onstitutio utional nal #o!!is #o!!issio sion n sa$ the need to create a separate, co!petent and independent 'ody to reco!!end no!inees to the President. Thus, it conceived of a 'ody representative of all the sta(eholders in the )udicial appoint!ent process and called it the Judicial and *ar #ouncil +J*#. -n part partic icul ular ar,, Para arara raph ph 1 "ect "ectio ion n , /rti /rticl cle e ----- of the the #ons #onsti titut tutio ion n stat states es that that +1 +1 / Judic Judicia iall and *ar *ar #ounc #ouncil il is here'y created under the supervision of the "upre!e #ourt co!posed of the #hief Justice as e o3cio #hair!an, the "ecretary of Justice, and a representative of the #onress as e o3cio e!'ers, a representative of the -nterated *ar, a professor of la$, a retired e!'er of the "upre!e #ourt, and a representative of the private sector.5 -n co!pliance there$ith, #onress, fro! the !o!ent of the creation of the J*#, desinated one representative fro! the #onress to sit in the J*# to act as one of the e o3cio !e!'ers. -n 1664 ho$ever, the co!position of the J*# $as su's su 'sta tant ntia iall lly y alte altere red. d. -nst -nstea ead d of havi havin n only only seve seven n +7 +7 !e!'ers, an eihth +th !e!'er $as added to the J*# as t$o +2 representatives fro! #onress 'ean sittin in the J*# one fro! the 8ouse of Representatives Representatives and one fro! the "enate, $ith each havin one9half +1:2 of a vote. ;urin the the eisten tence of the the case, "enator tor
leislature. -t is this practice that petitioner has >uestioned in this petition. The respondents clai!ed that $hen the J*# $as esta'lished, the fra!ers oriinally envisioned a unica!eral leislative 'ody, there'y allocatin a representative of the National /sse!'ly5 to the J*#. The phrase, ho$ever, $as not !odi?ed to aptly )ive $ith the chane to 'ica!eralis! $hich $as adopted 'y the #onstitutional #o!!ission on July 21, 16@. The respondents also contend that if the #o!!issioners $ere !ade a$are of the conse>uence of havin a 'ica!eral leislature instead of a unica!eral one, they $ould have !ade the correspondin ad)ust!ent in the representation of #onress in the J*#A that if only one house of #onress ets to 'e a !e!'er of J*# $ould deprive the other house of representation, defeatin the principle of 'alance. The respondents further arue that the allo$ance of t$o +2 representatives of #onress to 'e !e!'ers of the J*# does not render J*#%s purpose of providin 'alance nuatoryA that the presence of t$o +2 !e!'ers fro! #onress $ill !ost li(ely provide 'alance as aainst the other si +@ !e!'ers $ho are undenia'ly presidential appointees "upre!e #ourt held that it has the po$er of revie$ the case herein as it is an o')ect of concern, not )ust for a no!inee to a )udicial post, 'ut for all the citiBens $ho have the riht to see( )udicial intervention for recti?cation of leal 'lunders. Issu: Chether the practice of the J*# to perfor! its functions $ith eiht + !e!'ers, t$o +2 of $ho! are !e!'ers of #onress, defeats the letter and spirit of the 167 #onstitution. H!d:
N". The current practice of J*# in ad!ittin t$o !e!'ers of the #onress to perfor! the functions of the J*# is violative of the 167 #onstitution. /s such, it is unconstitutional. &ne of the pri!ary and 'asic rules in statutory construction is that $here the $ords of a statute are clear, plain, and free fro! a!'iuity, it !ust 'e iven its literal !eanin and applied $ithout atte!pted interpretation. -t is a $ell9settled principle of constitutional construction that the lanuae e!ployed in the #onstitution !ust 'e iven their ordinary !eanin ecept $here technical ter!s are e!ployed. /s such, it can 'e clearly and una!'iuously discerned fro! Pararaph 1, "ection , /rticle --- of the 167 #onstitution that in the phrase, a representative of #onress,5 the use of the sinular letter a5 precedin representative of #onress5 is une>uivocal and leaves no roo! for any other construction. -t is indicative of $hat the !e!'ers of the #onstitutional #o!!ission had in !ind, that is, #onress !ay desinate only one +1 representative to the J*#. 8ad it 'een the intention that !ore than one +1 representative fro! the leislature $ould sit in the J*#, the ually suscepti'le of various !eanins, its correct construction !ay 'e !ade clear and speci?c 'y considerin the co!pany of $ords in $hich it is founded or $ith $hich it is associated. =very !eanin to 'e iven to each $ord or phrase !ust 'e ascertained fro! the contet of the 'ody of the statute since a $ord or phrase in a statute is al$ays used in association $ith other $ords or phrases and its !eanin !ay 'e !odi?ed or restricted 'y the latter. /pplyin the foreoin principle to this case, it 'eco!es apparent that the $ord #onress5 used in /rticle ---, "ection +1 of the #onstitution is used in its eneric sense. No particular allusion $hatsoever is !ade on $hether the "enate or the 8ouse of Representatives is 'ein referred to, 'ut that, in either case, only a sinular representative !ay 'e allo$ed to
sit in the J*#. #onsiderin that the lanuae of the su')ect constitutional provision is plain and una!'iuous, there is no need to resort etrinsic aids such as records of the #onstitutional #o!!ission. Nevertheless, even if the #ourt should proceed to loo( into the !inds of the !e!'ers of the #onstitutional #o!!ission, it is undenia'le fro! the records thereof that it $as intended that the J*# 'e co!posed of seven +7 !e!'ers only. The underlyin reason leads the #ourt to conclude that a sinle vote !ay not 'e divided into half +1:2, 'et$een t$o representatives of #onress, or a!on any of the sittin !e!'ers of the J*# for that !atter. Cith the respondents% contention that each representative should 'e ad!itted fro! the #onress and 8ouse of Representatives, the "upre!e #ourt, after the perusal of the records of #onstitutional #o!!ission, held that #onress,5 in the contet of J*# representation, should 'e considered as one 'ody. Chile it is true that there are still diDerences 'et$een the t$o houses and that an inter9play 'et$een the t$o houses is necessary in the realiBation of the leislative po$ers conferred to the! 'y the #onstitution, the sa!e cannot 'e applied in the case of J*# representation 'ecause no liaison 'et$een the t$o houses eists in the $or(ins of the J*#. No !echanis! is re>uired 'et$een the "enate and the 8ouse of Representatives in the screenin and no!ination of )udicial o3cers. 8ence, the ter! #onress5 !ust 'e ta(en to !ean the entire leislative depart!ent. The fra!ers of #onstitution, in creatin J*#, hoped that the private sector and the three 'ranches of overn!ent $ould have an active role and e>ual voice in the selection of the !e!'ers of the Judiciary. Therefore, to allo$ the Eeislature to have !ore >uantitative inFuence in the J*# 'y havin !ore than one voice spea(, $hether $ith one full vote or one9half +1:2 a vote each, $ould neate the principle of e>uality a!on the three 'ranches of overn!ent $hich is enshrined in the #onstitution.5
-t is clear, therefore, that the #onstitution !andates that the J*# 'e co!posed of seven +7 !e!'ers only. Thus, any inclusion of another !e!'er, $hether $ith one $hole vote or half +1:2 of it, oes aainst that !andate. "ection +1, /rticle --- of the #onstitution, providin #onress $ith an e>ual voice $ith other !e!'ers of the J*# in reco!!endin appointees to the Judiciary is eplicit. /ny circu!vention of the constitutional !andate should not 'e countenanced for the #onstitution is the supre!e la$ of the land. The #onstitution is the 'asic and para!ount la$ to $hich all other la$s !ust confor! and to $hich all persons, includin the hihest o3cials of the land, !ust defer. #onstitutional doctrines !ust re!ain steadfast no !atter $hat !ay 'e the tides of ti!e. -t cannot 'e si!ply !ade to s$ay and acco!!odate the call of situations and !uch !ore tailor itself to the $hi!s and caprices of the overn!ent and the people $ho run it. Not$ithstandin its ?ndin of unconstitutionality in the current co!position of the J*#, all its prior o3cial actions are nonetheless valid. -n the interest of fair play under the doctrine of operative facts, actions previous to the declaration of unconstitutionality are leally reconiBed. They are not nulli?ed. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The current numerical composition of the Judicial and ar !ouncil "# declared $N!ON#T"T$T"ONA%. The Judicial and ar !ouncil is here&' en(oined to reconstitute itself so that onl' one ) *+ mem&er of !onress -ill sit as a representatie in its proceedins, in accordance -ith #ection /) * +, Article 0""" of the *1/2 !onstitution. This disposition is immediatel' e3ecutor'.
