Only one member of Congress can sit as representative in deliberations of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).
With a vote of 7-2 with five abstentions, the Supreme Court has granted the petition of former Solicitor General Francisco I. Chavez to declare unconstitutional the current numerical composition of the JBC.
In a 25-page decision penned by Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, the Court En Banc also directed the JBC to reconstitute itself so that only one member of Congress (either from the Upper House and Lower House, i.e., Senate or House of Representatives) will sit as a representative in the JBC proceedings in accordance with Section 8(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. Under the present JBC set-up, the Congress is represented by Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero and Iloilo 5th District Rep. Niel C. Tupaz, Jr. with one vote each.
Concurring with Justice Mendoza were Justices Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose Portugal Perez, Bienvenido L. Reyes, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.
Justice Roberto A. Abad wrote a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo.
Acting Chief Justice Antonio T. Carpio and Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, and Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno took no part as they are among those considered for nomination by the JBC to the Chief Justice post. Justice Arturo D. Brion, also a nominee, did not take part as he was on leave.
The Court held that the use of the singular letter “a” preceding “representative of Congress” in Section 8(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution is unequivocal and leaves no room for any other construction. The word “Congress” is used in its generic sense. Considering the language of the subject constitutional provision is clear and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to extrinsic aids such as the records of the Constitutional Commission.
The Court noted that the Framers of the Constitution intended to create a JBC as an innovative solution in response to the public clamor in favor of eliminating politics in the appointment of members of the Judiciary. To ensure judicial independence, they adopted a holistic approach and hoped that, in creating a JBC, the private sector and the three branches of government would have an active role and equal voice in the selection of the members of the Judiciary. “To allow the Legislature to have more quantitive influence in the JBC by having more than one voice speak, whether with one full vote or one-half a vote each, would, as one former congressman and member of the JBC put it, ‘negate the principle of equality among the three branches of government which is enshrined in the Constitution,’” declared the Court.
The Court also held that the JBC’s seven-member composition “serves a practical purpose, that is, to provide a solution should there be a stalemate in voting.”
It further held that under the doctrine of operative facts where actions prior to the declaration of unconstitutionality are legally recognized as a matter of equity and fair play, all JBC’s prior official acts are valid.
The Court ruled that it is not in a position to determine as to who should remain as sole representative of Congress in the JBC and that such is best left to the determination of Congress.
“Finally, while the Court finds wisdom in respondents’ contention that both the Senate and the House of Representatives should be equally represented in the JBC, the Court is not in a position to stamp its imprimatur on such a construction at the risk of expanding the meaning of the Constitution as currently worded. Needless to state, the remedy lies in the amendment of this constitutional provision. The courts merely give effect to the lawgiver’s intent. The solemn power and duty of the Court to interpret and apply the law does not include the power to correct, by reading into the law what is not written therein,” the Court held.
Emphasis and links provided
by Broker Rem Ramirez 0922.883.9308 broker.ramirez@yahoo.com.ph
No comments:
Post a Comment