4. Chavez v JBC

7/23/2019 4. Chavez v JBC

1/24

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 202242 April 16, 2013

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, Petitioner,vs.U!ICIA"AN! #AR COUNCI", SEN. FRANCIS OSEPH G. ESCU!ERO $%& REP. NIE" C.TUPAS, R.,Respondents.

R E S O L ! " O N

MEN!OZA, J.:

!his resolves the Motion for Reconsideration#filed b$ the Office of the Solicitor %eneral &OS%' onbehalf of the respondents, Senator (rancis )oseph %. Escudero and Con*ress+an Niel C. !upas,)r. &respondents', dul$ opposedb$ the petitioner, for+er Solicitor %eneral (rancisco ". Chave-&petitioner'.

B$ a$ of recapitulation, the present action ste++ed fro+ the une/pected departure of for+er Chief)ustice Renato C. Corona on Ma$ 0, 1#, and the no+ination of petitioner, as his potentialsuccessor. "n his initiator$ pleadin*, petitioner as2ed the Court to deter+ine #3 hether the firstpara*raph of Section 4, Article 5""" of the #046 Constitution allos +ore than one ' +e+ber ofCon*ress to sit in the )BC7 and 3 if the practice of havin* to &' representatives fro+ each 8ouseof Con*ress ith one ' vote each is sanctioned b$ the Constitution.

On )ul$ #6, 1#, the Court handed don the assailed sub9ect decision, disposin* the sa+e in thefolloin* +anner:

;8ERE(ORE, the petition is %RAN!E


2/24

para*raph of the dispositive portion of the Court>s )ul$ #6, 1#


3/24

oversi*ht7 =3 that to representatives fro+ Con*ress ould not subvert the intention of the (ra+ersto insulate the )BC fro+ political partisanship7 and ?3 that the rationale of the Court in declarin* asevenD+e+ber co+position ould provide a solution should there be a stale+ate is not e/actl$correct.

;hile the Court +a$ find so+e sense in the reasonin* in a+plification of the third and fourth

*rounds listed b$ respondents, still, it finds itself unable to reverse the assailed decision on theprincipal issues covered b$ the first and second *rounds for lac2 of +erit. Si*nificantl$, theconclusion arrived at, ith respect to the first and second *rounds, carries *reater bearin* in the finalresolution of this case.

As these to issues are interrelated, the Court shall discuss the+ 9ointl$.

R'li%( o) *+ Co'r*

!he Constitution evinces the direct action of the (ilipino people b$ hich the funda+ental poers of*overn+ent are established, li+ited and defined and b$ hich those poers are distributed a+on*the several depart+ents for their safe and useful e/ercise for the benefit of the bod$ politic.#0!he

(ra+ers reposed their isdo+ and vision on one supre+a le/ to be the ulti+ate e/pression of theprinciples and the fra+eor2 upon hich *overn+ent and societ$ ere to operate. !hus, in theinterpretation of the constitutional provisions, the Court fir+l$ relies on the basic postulate that the(ra+ers +ean hat the$ sa$. !he lan*ua*e used in the Constitution +ust be ta2en to have beendeliberatel$ chosen for a definite purpose. Ever$ ord e+plo$ed in the Constitution +ust beinterpreted to e/ude its deliberate intent hich +ust be +aintained inviolate a*ainst disobedienceand defiance. ;hat the Constitution clearl$ sa$s, accordin* to its te/t, co+pels acceptance and bars+odification even b$ the branch tas2ed to interpret it.

(or this reason, the Court cannot accede to the ar*u+ent of plain oversi*ht in order to 9ustif$constitutional construction. As stated in the )ul$ #6, 1#


4/24

!he underl$in* reason for such a li+ited participation can easil$ be discerned. Con*ress has to &'8ouses. !he need to reco*ni-e the e/istence and the role of each 8ouse is essential considerin*that the Constitution e+plo$s precise lan*ua*e in la$in* don the functions hich particular 8ousepla$s, re*ardless of hether the to 8ouses consu++ate an official act b$ votin* 9ointl$ orseparatel$. ;hether in the e/ercise of its le*islative= or its nonDle*islative functions such as interalia, the poer of appropriation,?the declaration of an e/istence of a state of ar,@canvassin* of

electoral returns for the President and 5iceDPresident,

and i+peach+ent,6

the dichoto+$ of each8ouse +ust be ac2noled*ed and reco*ni-ed considerin* the interpla$ beteen these to 8ouses."n all these instances, each 8ouse is constitutionall$ *ranted ith poers and functions peculiar toits nature and ith 2een consideration to #' its relationship ith the other cha+ber7 and ' inconsonance ith the principle of chec2s and balances, as to the other branches of *overn+ent.

"n chec2ered contrast, there is essentiall$ no interaction beteen the to 8ouses in theirparticipation in the )BC. No +echanis+ is reuired beteen the Senate and the 8ouse ofRepresentatives in the screenin* and no+ination of 9udicial officers. Rather, in the creation of the)BC, the (ra+ers arrived at a uniue s$ste+ b$ addin* to the four &?' re*ular +e+bers, three &='representatives fro+ the +a9or branches of *overn+ent D the Chief )ustice as e/Dofficio Chair+an&representin* the )udicial


5/24

"n an undated position paper,=1then Secretar$ of )ustice A*nes 5S!


6/24

that cannot be countenanced b$ the Court. Succinctl$ put, hen the Constitution envisioned one+e+ber of Con*ress sittin* in the )BC, it is sensible to presu+e that this representation carries ithhi+ one full vote.

"t is also an error for respondents to ar*ue that the President, in effect, has +ore influence over the)BC si+pl$ because all of the re*ular +e+bers of the )BC are his appointees. !he principle of

chec2s and balances is still safe*uarded because the appoint+ent of all the re*ular +e+bers of the)BC is sub9ect to a strin*ent process of confir+ation b$ the Co++ission on Appoint+ents, hich isco+posed of +e+bers of Con*ress.

Respondents> contention that the current irre*ular co+position of the )BC should be accepted,si+pl$ because it as onl$ uestioned for the first ti+e throu*h the present action, deserves scantconsideration. ;ellDsettled is the rule that acts done in violation of the Constitution no +atter hofreuent, usual or notorious cannot develop or *ain acceptance under the doctrine of estoppel orlaches, because once an act is considered as an infrin*e+ent of the Constitution it is void fro+ thever$ be*innin* and cannot be the source of an$ poer or authorit$.

"t ould not be a+iss to point out, hoever, that as a *eneral rule, an unconstitutional act is not a

la7 it confers no ri*hts7 it i+poses no duties7 it affords no protection7 it creates no office7 it isinoperative as if it has not been passed at all. !his rule, hoever, is not absolute. nder the doctrineof operative facts, actions previous to the declaration of unconstitutionalit$ are le*all$ reco*ni-ed.!he$ are not nullified. !his is essential in the interest of fair pla$. !o reiterate the doctrine enunciatedin Planters Products, "nc. v. (ertiphil Corporation:=

!he doctrine of operative fact, as an e/ception to the *eneral rule, onl$ applies as a +atter of euit$and fair pla$. "t nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional la b$ reco*ni-in* that the e/istence of astatute prior to a deter+ination of unconstitutionalit$ is an operative fact and +a$ haveconseuences hich cannot ala$s be i*nored. !he past cannot ala$s be erased b$ a ne 9udicialdeclaration. !he doctrine is applicable hen a declaration of unconstitutionalit$ ill i+pose an undueburden on those ho have relied on the invalid la. !hus, it as applied to a cri+inal case hen adeclaration of unconstitutionalit$ ould put the accused in double 9eopard$ or ould put in li+bo the

acts done b$ a +unicipalit$ in reliance upon a la creatin* it.==

nder the circu+stances, the Court finds the e/ception applicable in this case and holds thatnotithstandin* its findin* of unconstitutionalit$ in the current co+position of the )BC, all its priorofficial actions are nonetheless valid.

Considerin* that the Court is dut$ bound to protect the Constitution hich as ratified b$ the directaction of the (ilipino people, it cannot correct hat respondents perceive as a +ista2e in its+andate. Neither can the Court, in the e/ercise of its poer to interpret the spirit of the Constitution,read into the la so+ethin* that is contrar$ to its e/press provisions and 9ustif$ the sa+e ascorrectin* a perceived inadvertence. !o do so ould otherise sanction the Court action of +a2in*a+end+ent to the Constitution throu*h a 9udicial pronounce+ent.

"n other ords, the Court cannot suppl$ the le*islative o+ission. Accordin* to the rule of casuso+issus a case o+itted is to be held as intentionall$ o+itted.=?!he principle proceeds fro+ areasonable certaint$ that a particular person, ob9ect or thin* has been o+itted fro+ a le*islativeenu+eration.=@Pursuant to this, the Court cannot under its poer of interpretation suppl$ theo+ission even thou*h the o+ission +a$ have resulted fro+ inadvertence or because the case inuestion as not foreseen or conte+plated.=!he Court cannot suppl$ hat it thin2s the le*islatureould have supplied had its attention been called to the o+ission, as that ould be 9udicialle*islation.=6
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt37


7/24

Stated differentl$, the Court has no poer to add another +e+ber b$ 9udicial construction.

!he call for 9udicial activis+ fails to stir the sensibilities of the Court tas2ed to *uard the Constitutiona*ainst usurpation. !he Court re+ains steadfast in confinin* its poers in the sphere *ranted b$ theConstitution itself. )udicial activis+ should never be alloed to beco+e 9udicial e/uberance.=4"ncases li2e this, no a+ount of practical lo*ic or convenience can convince the Court to perfor+ either

an e/cision or an insertion that ill chan*e the +anifest intent of the (ra+ers. !o broaden the scopeof con*ressional representation in the )BC is tanta+ount to the inclusion of a sub9ect +atter hichas not included in the provision as enacted. !rue to its constitutional +andate, the Court cannotcraft and tailor constitutional provisions in order to acco++odate all of situations no +atter ho idealor reasonable the proposed solution +a$ sound. !o the e/ercise of this intrusion, the Court declines.

;8ERE(ORE, the Motion for Reconsideration filed b$ respondents is hereb$


8/24

Pursuant to Section #=, Article 5""" of the Constitution, ! hereb$ certif$ that the conclusions in theabove Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case as assi*ned to the riter of theopinion of the Court.

MARIA "OUR!ES P. A. SERENOChief )ustice

Foo*%o*/

#Rollo, pp. @6D4.

"d. at 46D04.

=Entitled Resolution e/pressin* the sense of the Senate that the )udicial and Bar Council&)BC' defer the consideration of all no+inees and the preparation of the short list to be

sub+itted to the President for the position of Chief )ustice of the Supre+e Court7 id. at =1=D=1?.

?Entitled Resolution e/pressin* ane the sense of the Senate that the Senate and 8ouseof Representatives should have one ' representative each in the )udicial and Bar Council&)BC' and that each representative is entitled to a full vote7 id. at =1@D=16.

@Entitled Resolution to file an ur*ent +otion ith the Supre+e Court to set for oral ar*u+entthe +otion for reconsideration filed b$ the representatives of Con*ress to the )udicial andBar Council &)BC' in the case of (rancisco Chave- v. )udicial and Bar Council, Sen. (rancis)oseph %.. Escudero and Rep. Niel !upas )r., %.R. No. 1? considerin* the pri+ordiali+portance of the constitutional issues involved7 id. at =14D=#1.

Entitled Resolution authori-in* Senator )o2er P. Arro$o to ar*ue, to*ether ith theCounselDofDrecord, the +otion for reconsideration filed b$ the representative of the Senate tothe )udicial and Bar Council in the case of (rancisco Chave- v. )udicial and Bar Council,Sen. (rancis )oseph %. Escudero and Rep. Niel !upas, )r.7 id. at =##D=#.

6"d. at =#=D=#?.

4"d. at &=#4D"'D&=#4DK'.

0"d. at =#4D).

#1Petitioner>s Me+orandu+, id. at =D=417 Respondents> Me+orandu+, id. at =4#D??.

##Malolos Constitution Article 41 !itle I. F !he Chief )ustice of the Supre+e Court and theSolicitorD%eneral shall be chosen b$ the National Asse+bl$ in concurrence ith thePresident of the Republic and the Secretaries of the %overn+ent, and shall be absolutel$independent of the Le*islative and E/ecutive Poers.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt11


9/24

##0=@ Constitution Article 5""", Section @. F !he Me+bers of the Supre+e Court and all9ud*es of inferior courts shall be appointed b$ the President ith the consent of theCo++ission on Appoint+ents.

#=# Records of the Constitutional Co++ission Proceedin*s and


10/24

report in person or in ritin* to the Con*ress. !he Con*ress, votin* 9ointl$, b$ a vote of atleast a +a9orit$ of all its Me+bers in re*ular or special session, +a$ revo2e suchprocla+ation or suspension, hich revocation shall not be set aside b$ the President. ponthe initiative of the President, the Con*ress +a$, in the sa+e +anner, e/tend suchprocla+ation or suspension for a period to be deter+ined b$ the Con*ress, if the invasion orrebellion shall persist and public safet$ reuires it. &E+phasis supplied'

=#046 Constitution, Article 5" Section 6'. F Ever$ bill passed b$ the Con*ress shall,before it beco+es a la, be presented to the President. "f he approves the sa+e, he shallsi*n it7 otherise, he shall veto it and return the sa+e ith his ob9ections to the 8ouse hereit ori*inated, hich shall enter the ob9ections at lar*e in its )ournal and proceed to reconsiderit. "f, after such reconsideration, toDthirds of all the Me+bers of such 8ouse shall a*ree topass the bill, it shall be sent, to*ether ith the ob9ections, to the other 8ouse b$ hich it shallli2eise be reconsidered, and if approved b$ toDthirds of all the Me+bers of that 8ouse, itshall beco+e a la. "n all such cases, the votes of each 8ouse shall be deter+ined b$ $easor na$s, and the na+es of the Me+bers votin* for or a*ainst shall be entered in its )ournal.!he President shall co++unicate his veto of an$ bill to the 8ouse here it ori*inated ithinthirt$ da$s after the date of receipt thereof7 otherise, it shall beco+e a la as if he hadsi*ned it.

?#046 Constitution, Article 5" Section ?. F All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, billsauthori-in* increase of public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall ori*inatee/clusivel$ in the 8ouse of Representatives, but the Senate +a$ propose or concur itha+end+ents.

@#046 Constitution, Article 5" Section = '. F !he Con*ress, b$ a vote of toDthirds of both8ouses in 9oint session asse+bled, votin* separatel$, shall have the sole poer to declarethe e/istence of a state of ar.

#046 Constitution, Article 5"" Section ?. F !he returns of ever$ election for President and5iceDPresident, dul$ certified b$ the board of canvassers of each province or cit$, shall be

trans+itted to the Con*ress, directed to the President of the Senate. pon receipt of thecertificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirt$ da$s after theda$ of the election, open all certificates in the presence of the Senate and the 8ouse ofRepresentatives in 9oint public session, and the Con*ress, upon deter+ination of theauthenticit$ and due e/ecution thereof in the +anner provided b$ la, canvass the votes.

!he person havin* the hi*hest nu+ber of votes shall be proclai+ed elected, but incase to or +ore shall have an eual and hi*hest nu+ber of votes, one of the+ shallforthith be chosen b$ the vote of a +a9orit$ of all the Me+bers of both 8ouses ofthe Con*ress, votin* separatel$.

6#046 Constitution, Article I" Section = '. F !he 8ouse of Representatives shall have the

e/clusive poer to initiate all cases of i+peach+ent.

///

&' !he Senate shall have the sole poer to tr$ and decide all cases ofi+peach+ent. ;hen sittin* for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath oraffir+ation. ;hen the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief )ustice of theSupre+e Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted ithoutthe concurrence of toDthirds of all the Me+bers of the Senate.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#rnt27


11/24

4


12/24

#. ;hether or not the current practice of the )BC to perfor+ its functions ith ei*ht +e+bers, to ofho+ are +e+bers of Con*ress, runs counter to the letter and spirit of Section 4', Article 5""" ofthe #046 Constitution.

A. ;hether or not the )BC should be co+posed of seven +e+bers onl$.

B. ;hether or not Con*ress is entitled to +ore than one seat in the )BC.

C. Assu+in* Con*ress is entitled to +ore than one seat, hether or not each representative ofCon*ress should be entitled to e/ercise one hole vote.

" +aintain +$ dissent to the +a9orit$ opinion no bein* reconsidered.

!o reiterate, the vital uestion that needs to be resolved is: hether or not the Senate and the 8ouseof Representatives are entitled to one representative each in the )BC, both ith the ri*ht to cast onefull vote in its deliberations.

At the core of the present controvers$ is Section 4', Article 5""" of the #046 Constitution, hich

provides that:

Section 4. ' A )udicial and Bar Council is hereb$ created under the supervision of the Supre+eCourt co+posed of the Chief )ustice as e/ officio Chair+an, the Secretar$ of )ustice, and arepresentative of the Con*ress as e/ officio Me+bers, a representative of the "nte*rated Bar, aprofessor of la, a retired Me+ber of the Supre+e Court, and a representative of the private sector.&E+phasis supplied'

"n interpretin* Section 4' above, the +a9orit$ opinion reiterated that in optin* to use the sin*ularletter a to describe representative of the Con*ress, the (ilipino people throu*h the fra+ers of the#046 Constitution intended Con*ress to 9ust have one representative in the )BC. !he +a9orit$opinion added that there could not have been an$ plain oversi*ht in the ordin*s of the provision

since the other provisions of the #046 Constitution ere a+ended accordin*l$ ith the shift to abica+eral le*islative bod$.

!he +ere fact, hoever, that ad9ust+ents ere +ade in so+e provisions should not +islead theCourt into concludin* that all provisions have been a+ended to reco*ni-e the bica+eral nature ofCon*ress. As " have previousl$ noted in +$ dissentin* opinion, (r. )oauin %. Bernas, a +e+ber ofthe Constitutional Co++ission hi+self, ad+itted that the co++ittee char*ed ith +a2in*ad9ust+ents in the previousl$ passed provisions coverin* the )BC, failed to consider the i+pact ofthe chan*ed character of the Le*islature on the inclusion of a representative of the Con*ress in the+e+bership of the )BC.=

"ndeed, to insist that onl$ one +e+ber of Con*ress fro+ either the Senate or the 8ouse of

Representatives should sit at an$ ti+e in the )BC, is to i*nore the fact that the$ are still separate anddistinct fro+ each other althou*h the$ are both involved in laD+a2in*. Both le*islators are electeddifferentl$, +aintain separate ad+inistrative or*ani-ations, and deliberate on las independentl$. "nfact, neither the Senate nor the 8ouse of Representatives can b$ itself clai+ to represent theCon*ress.

A*ain, that the fra+ers of the #046 Constitution did not intend to li+it the ter+ Con*ress to 9usteither of the to 8ouses can be seen fro+ the ords that the$ used in craftin* Section 4 '. ;hile
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt3ahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt3a


13/24

the provision provides for 9ust a representative of the Con*ress, it also provides that suchrepresentation is e/ officio or b$ virtue of ones office, or position.?

nder the Senate rules, the Chairperson of its )ustice Co++ittee is auto+aticall$ the Senaterepresentative to the )BC. "n the sa+e a$, under the 8ouse of Representatives rules, theChairperson of its )ustice Co++ittee is the 8ouse representative to the )BC. Conseuentl$, there

are actuall$ to persons in Con*ress ho hold separate offices or positions ith the attachedfunction of sittin* in the )BC. "f the Court adheres to a literal translation of Section 4 ', norepresentative fro+ Con*ress ill ualif$ as e/ officio +e+ber of the )BC. !his ould den$Con*ress the representation that the fra+ers of the #046 Constitution intended it to have.

8avin* said that the Senate and the 8ouse of Representatives should have one representative eachin the )BC, it is lo*ical to conclude that each should also have the ri*ht to cast one full vote in itsdeliberations. !o split the vote beteen the to le*islators ould be an absurdit$ since it oulddi+inish their standin* and +a2e the+ second class +e+bers of the )BC, so+ethin* that theConstitution clearl$ does not conte+plate. "ndeed, the )BC abandoned the halfDaDvote practice on)anuar$ #, 111 and reco*ni-ed the ri*ht of both le*islators to cast one full vote each. Onl$ b$reco*ni-in* this ri*ht can the true spirit and reason of Section 4' be attained.

(or the above reasons, " vote to %RAN! the +otion for reconsideration.

RO#ERTO A. A#A!Associate )ustice

Foo*%o*/

#Rollo, pp. D@1.

"d. at @6D4?.

=http:opinion.inuirer.net=#4#=9bcDoddsDandDends &last accessed (ebruar$ #@, 1#='.

?;ebsters Ne ;orld Colle*e


14/24

Both the Senate and the 8ouse of Representatives +ust be represented in the )udicial and BarCouncil. !his is the Constitutions +andate read as a hole and in the li*ht of the ordinar$ andconte+porar$ understandin* of our people of the structure of our *overn+ent. An$ otherinterpretation di+inishes Con*ress and ne*ates the effectivit$ of its representation in the )udicialand Bar Council.

"t is a Constitution e are interpretin*. More than privile*in* a te/tual preposition, our dut$ is toensure that the constitutional pro9ect ratified b$ our people is *iven full effect.

At issue in this case is the interpretation of Article 5""", Section 4 of the Constitution hich providesthe folloin*:

Section 4. ' A )udicial and Bar Council is hereb$ created under the supervision of the Supre+eCourt co+posed of the Chief )ustice as e/ officio Chair+an, the Secretar$ of

)ustice, and a representative of the Con*ress as e/ officio Me+bers, a representative of the"nte*rated Bar, a professor of la, a retired Me+ber of the Supre+e Court, and a representative ofthe private sector. &E+phasis provided'

Mainl$ deplo$in* verba legisas its interpretative +odalit$, the +ain opinion chooses to focus on thearticle a. As correctl$ pointed out in the ori*inal dissent of )ustice Robert A bad, the entire phraseincludes the ords representative of Con*ress and e/ officio Me+bers. "n the conte/t of theconstitutional plan involvin* a bica+eral Con*ress, these ords create a+bi*uit$.

A Bicameral Congress

Our Constitution creates a Con*ress consistin* of to cha+bers. !hus, in Article 5", Section #, theConstitution provides the folloin*:

!he le*islative poer shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a

Senate and a House of Representatives/ / /. &E+phasis provided'

Senators are elected at lar*e b$ the ualified voters of the Philippines.#Me+bers of the 8ouse ofRepresentatives, on the other hand, are elected b$ le*islative districtsor throu*h the part$ lists$ste+.=!he ter+ of a Senator?is different fro+ that of a Me+ber of the 8ouse ofRepresentatives.@!herefore, the Senate and the 8ouse of Representatives hile co+ponent partsof the Con*ress are not the sa+e in ter+s of their representation. !he ver$ rationale of a bica+erals$ste+ is to have the Senators represent a national constituenc$. Representatives of the 8ouse ofRepresentatives, on the other hand, are do+inantl$ fro+ le*islative districts e/cept for one fifthhich are fro+ the part$ list s$ste+.

Each cha+ber is or*ani-ed separatel$.!he Senate and the 8ouse each pro+ul*ates their on

rules of procedure.

6

Each cha+ber +aintains separate )ournals.

4

!he$ each have separate Recordsof their proceedin*s.0!he Senate and the 8ouse of Representatives discipline their on respective+e+bers.#1

!o belabor the point: !here is no presidin* officer for the Con*ress of the Philippines, but there is aSenate President and a Spea2er of the 8ouse of Representatives. !here is no sin*le 9ournal for theCon*ress of the Philippines, but there is a 9ournal for the Senate and a 9ournal for the 8ouse ofRepresentatives. !here is no record of proceedin*s for the entire Con*ress of the Philippines, butthere is a Record of proceedin*s for the Senate and a Record of proceedin*s for the 8ouse of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt1lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt1lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt2lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt2lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt3lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt4lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt5lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt6lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt7lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt7lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt8lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt8lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt9lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt10lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt1lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt2lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt3lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt4lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt5lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt6lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt7lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt8lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt9lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt10l


15/24

Representatives. !he Con*ress of the Philippines does not discipline its +e+bers. "t is the Senatethat pro+ul*ates its on rules and disciplines its +e+bers. Li2eise, it is the 8ouse thatpro+ul*ates its on rules and disciplines its +e+bers.

No Senator reports to the Con*ress of the Philippines. Rather, he or she reports to the Senate. NoMe+ber of the 8ouse of Representatives reports to the Con*ress of the Philippines. Rather, he or

she reports to the 8ouse of Representatives.

Con*ress, therefore, is the Senate and the 8ouse of Representatives. Con*ress does not e/istseparate fro+ the Senate and the 8ouse of Representatives.

An$ Senator actin* e/ officio or as a representative of the Senate +ust *et directions fro+ theSenate. B$ constitutional desi*n, he or she cannot *et instructions fro+ the 8ouse ofRepresentatives. "f a Senator represents the Con*ress rather than si+pl$ the Senate, then he or she+ust be open to a+end or +odif$ the instructions *iven to hi+ or her b$ the Senate if the 8ouse ofRepresentatives> instructions are different. Het, the Constitution vests disciplinar$ poer onl$ on theSenate for an$ Senator.

!he sa+e ar*u+ent applies to a Me+ber of the 8ouse of Representatives.

No Senator +a$ carr$ instructions fro+ the 8ouse of Representatives. No Me+ber of the 8ouse ofRepresentatives +a$ carr$ instructions fro+ the Senate. Neither Senator nor Me+ber of the 8ouseof Representatives +a$ therefore represent Con*ress as a hole.

!he difference beteen the Senate and the 8ouse of Representative as a sub9ect of discussion inthe Constitutional Co++ission. "n the )ul$ #, #04 Records of the Constitutional Co++ission,Co++issioner )ose (. S. Ben*-on presented the folloin* ar*u+ent durin* the discussion onbica+eralis+, on the distinction beteen Con*ress+en and Senators, and the role of the (ilipinopeople in +a2in* these officials accountable:

" *rant the proposition that the Me+bers of the 8ouse of Representatives are closer to the peoplethat the$ represent. " *rant the proposition that the Me+bers of the 8ouse of Representativesca+pai*n on a oneDtoDone basis ith the people in the barrios and their constituencies. " also *rantthe proposition that the candidates for Senator do not have as +uch ti+e to +in*le around ith theirconstituencies in their respective ho+e bases as the candidates for the 8ouse. " also *rant theproposition that the candidates for the Senate *o around the countr$ in their efforts to in the votesof all the +e+bers of the electorate at a lesser ti+e than that *iven to the candidates for the 8ouseof Representatives. But then the lesson of the last #? $ears has +ade us +ature in our politicalthin2in* and has *iven us political ill and selfDdeter+ination. ;e reall$ cannot disassociate the factthat the Con*ress+an, the Me+ber of the 8ouse of Representatives, no +atter ho national heould li2e to thin2, is ver$ +uch stron*l$ dran into the proble+s of his local constituents in his ondistrict.


16/24

because the$ are supposed to represent the entire countr$. So hile the Me+bers of Con*ressbeco+e unconsciousl$ parochial in their desire to help their constituencies, the Me+bers of theSenate are there to ta2e a loo2 at all of these parochial proposals and coordinate the+ ith thenational proble+s. !he$ +a$ be detached in that sense but the$ are not detached fro+ the peoplebecause the$ the+selves 2no and reali-e that the$ oe their position not onl$ to the people fro+their respective provinces but also to the people fro+ the hole countr$. So, " sa$ that people poer

no ill be able to +onitor the activities of the Me+bers of the 8ouse of Representatives and thatver$ sa+e people poer can be also used to +onitor the activities of the Me+bers of the Senate.##

Co++issioner Ben*-on provided an illustration of the funda+ental distinction beteen the 8ouse ofRepresentatives and the Senate, particularl$ re*ardin* their respective constituencies andelectorate. !hese differences, hoever, onl$ illustrate that the or2 of the Senate and the 8ouse ofRepresentatives ta2en to*ether results in a Con*ress functionin* as one branch of *overn+ent.

Article 5", Section #, as approved b$ the Co++ission, spo2e of one Con*ress hose poers arevested in both the 8ouse of Representatives and the Senate.

!hus, hen the Constitution provides that a representative of Con*ress should participate in the)udicial and Bar Council, it cannot +ean a Senator carr$in* out the instructions of the 8ouse or a

Me+ber of the 8ouse of Representative carr$in* out instructions fro+ the Senate. "t is not the 2indof a sin*le Con*ress conte+plated b$ our Constitution. !he opinion therefore that a Senator or aMe+ber of the 8ouse of Representative +a$ represent the Con*ress as a hole is contrar$ to theintent of the Constitution. "t is unor2able.

One +echanis+ used in the past to or2 out the conseuence of the +a9orit$>s opinion is to allo aSenator and a Me+ber of the 8ouse of Representative to sit in the )udicial and Bar Council but toeach allo the+ onl$ half a vote.

;ithin the )udicial and Bar Council, the Chief )ustice is entitled to one vote. !he Secretar$ of )usticeis also entitled to one hole vote and so are the "nte*rated Bar of the Philippines, the private sector,le*al acade+ia, and retired 9ustices. Each of these sectors are *iven eual i+portance andrearded ith one hole vote. 8oever, in this vie, the Senate is onl$ orth fift$ percent of the

isdo+ of these sectors. Li2eise, the isdo+ of the 8ouse of Representatives is onl$ orth fift$percent of these institutions.

!his is constitutionall$ abo+inable. "t is inconceivable that our people, in ratif$in* the Constitution*rantin* aeso+e poers to Con*ress, intended to di+inish its co+ponent parts. After all, the$ areinstitutions co+posed of people ho have sub+itted the+selves to the electorate. "n creatin*shortlists of possible candidates to the 9udiciar$, e can safel$ suppose that their input is not lessthan the input of the professor of la or the +e+ber of the "nte*rated Bar of the Philippines or the+e+ber fro+ the private sector.

!he other solution done in the past as to alternate the seat beteen a Senator and a Me+ber ofthe 8ouse of Representatives.

!o alternate the seat *iven to Con*ress beteen the Senate and the 8ouse of Representativesould +ean not *ivin* a seat to the Con*ress at all. A*ain, hen a Senator is seated, he or sherepresents the Senate and not Con*ress as a hole. ;hen a Me+ber of the 8ouse ofRepresentative is seated, he or she can onl$ represent Con*ress as a hole. !hus, alternatin* theseat not onl$ di+inishes con*ressional representation7 it ne*ates it.

Constitutional Interpretation
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt11lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt11l


17/24

!he ar*u+ent that sa$ed the +a9orit$ in this case>s ori*inal decision as that if those ho craftedour Constitution intended that there be to representatives fro+ Con*ress, it ould not have usedthe preposition a in Article 5""", Section 4 '. 8oever, be$ond the nu+ber of representatives, theConstitution intends that in the )udicial and Bar Council, there ill be representation fro+ Con*ressand that it ill be e/ officio, i.e., b$ virtue of their positions or offices. ;e note that the provision didnot provide for a nu+ber of +e+bers to the )udicial and Bar Council. !his is unli2e the provisions

creatin* +an$ other bodies in the Constitution.#

"n other ords, e could privile*e or start our interpretation onl$ fro+ the preposition a and fro+there provide a +eanin* that ensures a difficult and unor2able result DD one hich under+ines theconcept of a bica+eral con*ress i+plied in all the other ##? other places in the Constitution thatuses the ord Con*ress.

Or, e could *ive the provision a reasonable interpretation that is ithin the e/pectations of thepeople ho ratified the Constitution b$ also seein* and readin* the ords representative ofCon*ress and ex officio.

!his proposed interpretation does not violate the basic tenet re*ardin* the authoritativeness of the

te/t of the Constitution. "t does not detract fro+ the te/t. "t follos the canonical reuire+ent of verbale*is. But in doin* so, e encounter an a+bi*uit$.

"n Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral !ribunal,#=e said:

As the Constitution is not pri+aril$ a la$er>s docu+ent, it bein* essential for the rule of la toobtain that it should ever be present in the people>s consciousness, its lan*ua*e as +uch aspossible should be understood in the sense the$ have in co++on use. ;hat it sa$s accordin* to thete/t of the provision to be construed co+pels acceptance and ne*ates the poer of the courts toalter it, based on the postulate that the fra+ers and the people +ean hat the$ sa$. !hus these arecases here the need for construction is reduced to a +ini+u+.

8oever, here there is a+bi*uit$ or doubt, the ords of the Constitution should be interpreted inaccordance ith the intent of its fra+ers or ratio le*is et ani+a. A doubtful provision +ust bee/a+ined in li*ht of the histor$ of the ti+es, and the condition and circu+stances surroundin* thefra+in* of the Constitution. "n folloin* this *uideline, courts should bear in +ind the ob9ect sou*htto be acco+plished in adoptin* a doubtful constitutional provision, and the evils sou*ht to beprevented or re+edied. Conseuentl$, the intent of the fra+ers and the people ratif$in* theconstitution, and not the panderin*s of selfDindul*ent +en, should be *iven effect.

Last, ut magis valeat quam pereatF the Constitution is to be interpreted as a hole. ;e intoned thusin the land+ar2 case of Civil Liberties Union v. xecutive !ecretar":

"t is a ellDestablished rule in constitutional construction that no one provision of the Constitution isto be separated fro+ all the others, to be considered alone, but that all the provisions bearin* upon a

particular sub9ect are to be brou*ht into vie and to be so interpreted as to effectuate the *reatpurposes of the instru+ent. Sections bearin* on a particular sub9ect should be considered andinterpreted to*ether as to effectuate the hole purpose of the Constitution and one section is not tobe alloed to defeat another, if b$ an$ reasonable construction, the to can be +ade to standto*ether.

In other wor#s$ the court must harmoni%e them$ if practicable$ an# must lean in favor of aconstruction which will ren#er ever" wor# operative$ rather than one which ma" ma&e the wor#s i#lean# nugator". &E+phasis provided'
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt12lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt12lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt13lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt12lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt13l


18/24

And in Civil Liberties Union v. xecutive !ecretar",#=e said:

A foolproof $ardstic2 in constitutional construction is the intention underl$in* the provision underconsideration. !hus, it has been held that the Court in construin* a Constitution should bear in +indthe ob9ect sou*ht to be acco+plished b$ its adoption, and the evils, if an$, sou*ht to be prevented orre+edied. A doubtful provision ill be e/a+ined in the li*ht of the histor$ of the ti+es, and the

condition and circu+stances under hich the Constitution as fra+ed. !he ob9ect is to ascertain thereason hich induced the fra+ers of the Constitution to enact the particular provision and thepurpose sou*ht to be acco+plished thereb$, in order to construe the hole as to +a2e the ordsconsonant to that reason and calculated to effect that purpose.

'he authoritativeness of text is no excuse to provi#e an unwor&able result or one which un#erminesthe inten#e# structure of government provi#e# in the Constitution. 'ext is authoritative$ but it is notexhaustive of the entire universe of meaning.

!here is no co+pellin* reason h$ e should blind ourselves as to the +eanin* of representativeof Con*ress and ex officio. !here is no co+pellin* reason h$ there should onl$ be onerepresentative of a bica+eral Con*ress.

(ropose# )easons for *nl" *ne )epresentative of Congress

!he first reason to support the need for onl$ one representative of Con*ress is the belief that thereneeds to be an odd nu+ber in the )udicial and Bar Council.

!his is true onl$ if the decision of the constitutional or*an in uestion is a dichoto+ous one, i.e., a$es or a no. "t is in this sense that a tieDbrea2er ill be necessar$.

8oever, the )udicial and Bar Council is not that sort of a constitutional or*an. "ts dut$ is to providethe President ith a shortlist of candidates to ever$ 9udicial position. ;e ta2e 9udicial notice that forvacancies, each +e+ber of the )udicial and Bar Council is as2ed to list at least three &=' na+es. All

these votes are tallied and those ho *arner a specific pluralit$ are thus put on the list andtrans+itted to the President. !here had been no occasion hen the )udicial and Bar Council everneeded to brea2 a tie. !he )udicial and Bar Council>s functions proceed re*ardless of hether the$have seven or ei*ht +e+bers.

!he second reason that the +ain opinion accepted as persuasive as the opinion that Con*ressdoes not dischar*e its function to chec2 and balance the poer of both the )udiciar$ and theE/ecutive in the )udicial and Bar Council. (ro+ this pre+ise, it then proceeds to ar*ue that theRepresentative of Con*ress, ho is e/ officio, does not need to consult ith Con*ress as a hole.

!his is ver$ perple/in* and difficult to accept.

B$ virtue of the funda+ental pre+ise of separation of poers, the appointin* poer in the 9udiciar$should be done b$ the Supre+e Court. 8oever, for 9udicial positions, this is vested in theE/ecutive. (urther+ore, because of the i+portance of these appoint+ents, the President>s discretionis li+ited to a shortlist sub+itted to hi+ b$ the )udicial and Bar Council hich is under thesupervision of the Supre+e Court but co+posed of several co+ponents.

!he )udicial and Bar Council represents the constituents affected b$ 9udicial appoint+ents and b$e/tension, 9udicial decisions. "t provides for those ho have so+e function vis a vis the la thatshould be applied and interpreted b$ our courts. 8ence, represented are practicin* la$ers
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt13lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt13l


19/24

&"nte*rated Bar of the Philippines', prosecutors &Secretar$ of the


20/24

therefore depends more on how it was understood b the people adopting it than in theframers understanding thereof.#@&E+phasis provided'

Also orth Our recall is the celebrated co++ent of Charles P. Curtis, )r. on the role of histor$ inconstitutional e/e*esis:#

!he intention of the fra+ers of the Constitution, even assu+in* e could discover hat it as, henit is not adeuatel$ e/pressed in the Constitution, that is to sa$, hat the$ +eant hen the$ did notsa$ it, surel$ that has no bindin* force upon us. !f we loo" behind or beond what the set downin the document# pring into what else the wrote and what the said# anthing we ma findis onl advisor. The ma sit in at our councils. There is no reason wh we shouldeavesdrop on theirs.#6&E+phasis provided'

"n addition to the interpretative value of the discussion in the Constitutional Co++ission, e shouldala$s be careful hen e uote fro+ their records ithout understandin* their conte/t.

!he Co++ittees of the Constitutional Co++ission ere all tas2ed to finish their reports not laterthan )ul$ 6, #04.#4!he Second and !hird Readin*s ere scheduled to finish not later than Au*ust

#@, #04.#0

!he +e+bers of the Sponsorship and St$le Co++ittee ere tas2ed to finish their or2 offor+ulatin* and polishin* the st$le of the final draft of the ne Constitution scheduled for sub+issionto the entire +e+bership of the Co++ission not later than Au*ust @, #04.1

!he Rules of the Constitutional Co++ission also provided for a process of approvin* resolutionsand a+end+ents.

Constitutional proposals ere e+bodied in resolutions si*ned b$ the author.#"f the$ e+anated fro+a co++ittee, the resolution as si*ned b$ its chair+an.Resolutions ere filed ith the Secretar$D%eneral.=!he (irst Readin* too2 place hen the titles of the resolutions ere read and referred tothe appropriate co++ittee.?

!he Co++ittees then sub+itted a Report on each resolution.@

!he Steerin* Co++ittee too2 char*eof includin* the co++ittee report in the Calendar for Second Readin*.!he Second Readin* too2place on the da$ set for the consideration of a resolution.6!he provisions ere read in full ith thea+end+ents proposed b$ the co++ittee, if there ere an$.4

A +otion to close debate too2 place after three speeches for and to a*ainst, or if onl$ one speechhas been raised and none a*ainst it.0!he President of the Constitutional Co++ission had theprero*ative to allo debates a+on* those ho had indicated that the$ intended to be heard oncertain +atters.=1After the close of the debate, the Constitutional Co++ission proceeded to considerthe Co++ittee a+end+ents.=#

After a resolution as approved on Second Readin*, it as included in the Calendar for !hirdReadin*.=Neither further debate nor a+end+ent shall be +ade on the resolution on its !hirdReadin*.==All constitutional proposals approved b$ the Co++ission after !hird Readin* erereferred to the Co++ittees on Sponsorship and St$le for collation, or*ani-ation, and consolidationinto a co+plete and final draft of the Constitution.=?!he final draft as sub+itted to the Co++issionfor the sole purpose of deter+inin* hether it reflects faithfull$ and accuratel$ the proposals asapproved on Second Readin*.=@

;ith respect to the provision hich is no Article 5""", Section 4 ', the ti+etable as as follos:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt15lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt16lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt16lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt17lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt18lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt19lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt20lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt21lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt22lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt23lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt24lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt25lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt26lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt27lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt28lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt29lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt29lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt30lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt30lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt31lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt32lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt33lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt34lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt35lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt15lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt16lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt17lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt18lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt19lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt20lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt21lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt22lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt23lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt24lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt25lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt26lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt27lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt28lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt29lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt30lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt31lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt32lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt33lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt34lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt35l


21/24

On )ul$ #1, #04, the Co++ittee on the )udiciar$ presented its Report to theCo++ission.=


22/24

of seven +e+bers, called the )udicial and Bar Council. And hile the President ill still appoint the+e+bers of the 9udiciar$, he ill be li+ited to the reco++endees of this Council.

/ / / /

MR. RO


23/24

*enerals of the Ar+$ ill not co+e under this restriction. ;h$ are e *oin* to se*re*ate the)udiciar$ fro+ the rest of our *overn+ent in the appoint+ent of the hi*hDran2in* officials

Another reason is that this Council ill be ineffective. "t ill 9ust bes+irch the honor of our Presidentithout bein* effective at all because this Council ill be under the influence of the President. (ourout of seven are appointees of the President, and the$ can be reappointed hen their ter+ ends.

!herefore, the$ ould 2oto to the President. A fifth +e+ber is the Minister of )ustice, an alter e*oof the President. Another +e+ber represents the le*islature. "n all probabilit$, the controllin* part$ inthe le*islature belon*s to the President and, therefore, this representative fro+ the National

Asse+bl$ is also under the influence of the President. And +a$ " sa$, Mr. Presidin* Officer, that eventhe Chief )ustice of the Supre+e Court is an appointee of the President. So, it is futile7 he ill beinfluenced an$a$ b$ the President.@=

"t +ust a*ain be noted that durin* this da$ and period of a+end+ents after the uoted passa*e inthe and not Con*ress>a*ain:

MR. MAAMBON%: Presidin* Officer and +e+bers of the Co++ittee, " propose to delete the last

sentence on Section #, lines 4 to =1 hich reads: !he Chief )ustice shall address the NationalAsse+bl$ at the openin* of each re*ular session.

Ma$ " e/plain that " have *one over the operations of other deliberative asse+blies in so+e parts ofthe orld, and " noticed that it is onl$ the Chief E/ecutive or head of state ho addresses theNational Asse+bl$ at its openin*. ;hen e sa$ openin*, e are referrin* to the first convenin* ofan$ national asse+bl$. 8ence, hen the Chief E/ecutive or head of state addresses the National

Asse+bl$ on that occasion, no other spea2er is alloed to address the bod$.

So " +ove for the deletion of this last sentence.@?

Based on the chronolo*$ of events, the discussions cited b$ the +ain ponencia too2 place hen the

co++issioners ere still conte+platin* a unica+eral le*islature in the course of this discussion.Necessaril$, onl$ one Representative ould be needed to full$ effect the participation of aunica+eral le*islature. !herefore, an$ +ention of the co+position of the )BC havin* seven+e+bers in the records of the Constitutional Co++ission, particularl$ durin* the dates cited, asobviousl$ ithin the conte/t that the Co++ission had not $et voted and a*reed upon a bica+eralle*islature.

!he co+position of the Con*ress as a bilateral le*islature beca+e final onl$ after the )BCdiscussions as a sevenD+e+ber Council indicated in the Records of the Constitutional Co++issiontoo2 place. !his puts into the proper conte/t the reco*nition b$ Co++issioner Christian Monsod on)ul$ =1, #04, hich runs as follos:

Last ee2, e voted for a bica+eral le*islature. Perhaps it is s$+pto+atic of hat the thin2in* of

this *roup is, that all the provisions that ere bein* drafted up to that ti+e assu+ed a unica+eral*overn+ent.@@

!he repeated +entions of the )BC havin* seven +e+bers as indicated in the Records of theConstitutional Co++ission do not 9ustif$ the points raised b$ petitioner. !his is a situation here therecords of the Constitutional Co++ission do not serve even as persuasive +eans to ascertain intentat least in so far as the intended nu+bers for the )udicial and Bar Council. Certainl$ the$ are notrelevant even to advise us on ho Con*ress is to be represented in that constitutional or*an.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt53lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt54lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt55lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt55lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt53lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt54lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_202242_2013.html#fnt55l


24/24

;e should never for*et that hen e interpret the Constitution, e do so ith full appreciation ofever$ part of the te/t ithin an entire docu+ent understood b$ the people as the$ ratified it and ithall its conte+porar$ conseuences. As an e+inent author in constitutional theor$ has observed hile*oin* throu*h the various interpretative +odes presented in 9urisprudence: / / / all of the+ethodolo*ies that ill be discussed, properl$ understood, fi*ure in constitutional anal$sis asopportunities: as startin* points, constituent parts of co+ple/ ar*u+ents, or concludin*

evocations.@

4. Chavez v JBC

Documents

Transcript of 4. Chavez v JBC