G.R. No. 202242 July 17, 2012
Facts:
A
body representative of all the stakeholders in the judicial appointment process
was conceived and called the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) and its
composition, term and functions are provided under Section 8, Article VIII of
the 1987 Constitution which also indicates that the JBC shall be composed of
seven (7) members.
In
1994, instead of having only seven members, an eighth member was added to the
JBC as two representatives from Congress began sitting in the JBC – one from
the House of Representatives and one from the Senate, with each having one-half
(1/2) of a vote. In separate meetings held in 2000 and 2001, the JBC En Banc
decided to allow the representatives from the Senate and the House of
Representatives one full vote each. At present, Senator Francis Joseph G.
Escudero and Congressman Niel C. Tupas, Jr. (respondents) simultaneously sit in
the JBC as representatives of the legislature. Francisco I. Chavez, (petitioner) questioned this
practice in this petition.
The
Supreme Court granted the petition.
Issues:
(1)
Whether or not the conditions sine qua
non for the exercise of the power of judicial review have been met in this
case; and
(2)
Whether or not the current practice of the JBC to perform its functions with
eight (8) members, two (2) of whom are members of Congress, runs counter to the
letter and spirit of the 1987 Constitution.
Held:
(1)
Yes. The Courts’ power of judicial review is subject to several limitations,
namely: (a) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the
exercise of judicial power; (b) the person challenging the act must have
“standing” to challenge; he must have a personal and substantial interest in
the case, such that he has sustained or will sustain, direct injury as a result
of its enforcement; (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the
earliest possible opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality must be
the very lis mota of the case.
The
Court disagrees with the respondents’ argument that petitioner lost his
standing to sue because he is not an official nominee for the post of Chief
Justice. To question the JBC composition for being unconstitutional is not
limited to official nominees for the post of Chief Justice.
The
court recognizes the petitioner’s right to sue in this case and that he has the
legal standing to bring the present action because he has a personal stake in the
outcome of the controversy. According to petitioner, “since the JBC derives
financial support for its functions, operation and proceedings from taxes paid,
petitioner possesses as taxpayer both right and legal standing to demand that
the JBC’s proceedings are not tainted with illegality and that its composition
and actions do not violate the Constitution”.
The
legality of the very process of the nominations to the positions in the
judiciary is the nucleus of the controversy which is considered by the court as
a constitutional issue that must be passed upon and that the allegations are
substantiated by facts and, therefore, deserve an evaluation from the court.
(2)
Yes. The word “Congress” used in Article VIII, Section 8(1) of the Constitution
is used in its basic sense, and not pertaining to either House of Representatives
or Senate is referred to, but that, can only have one representative. The practical
purpose of the seven-member composition of the JBC is solution to stalemate
voting.
Bicameralism
of “Congress” refers to its legislative function in the government. The
Constitution is clear in the distinction of the role of each house in the
process of lawmaking. In the JBC, since there is no need for a liaison between
the Senate and House of Representatives when nominating judicial officers.
“Congress” must therefore refer to the entire Legislative department. It is
clear that the Constitution orders that the JBC be composed of seven (7)
members only.
Even
though finding the current composition of the JBC as unconstitutional, all its
prior official actions are valid. Actions previous to the declaration of
unconstitutionality are legally recognized under the doctrine of operative
facts. These official actions are not nullified.
