TITLE: Chavez v.

JBC
G.R. NO. 202242 DATE: 17 July 2012
PONENTE: Mendoza, J. TOPIC: Sec. 1, Art. 6
FACTS OF THE CASE:
- CJ Renato Corona was impeached on May 29, 2012. Nominations for the vacant seat of CJ were
conducted, and included in the nomination is the petitioner, Chavez (a former Solicitor General).
- Grounds for allowance of the petition: (1) Art 8, sec 8 is clear, definite, and needs no interpretation. That
JBC shall ONLY have 1 representative from Congress; (2) The framers of the Constitution clearly
envisioned, contemplated and decided on a JBC composed of only 7 members; (3) If it was the framers
intention to have 1 rep from Senate and House of Rep, then they could have easily said so; (4)
Composition of JBC providing for 3 ex-officio members is purposely designed for a balanced
representation of each of the 3 branches of the govt.; (5) 1 of the 2 members of the JBC from Congress
has no right (not even 1⁄2 right) to sit in the Constitutional body and perform duties and functions of a
member thereof; & (6) JBC cannot conduct valid proceedings as its composition is illegal and
unconstitutional.
- History of JBC Composition: In 1994, JBC composition was substantially altered. 2 members from the
Congress was allowed with each having 1⁄2 vote. In 2000 and 2001 JBC en banc, decided to allow the 2
rep from Congress 1 full vote each.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
On July 9, 2012, the JBC filed its Comment. It, however, abstained from recommending on how this constitutional
issue should be disposed in gracious deference to the wisdom of the Court. Nonetheless, the JBC was more than
generous enough to offer the insights of various personalities previously connected with it. Through the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG), respondents defended their position as members of the JBC in their Comment filed
on July 12, 2012. According to them, the crux of the controversy is the phrase “a representative of Congress.”
Reverting to the basics, they cite Section 1, Article VI of the Constitution to determine the meaning of the term
“Congress.” It is their theory that the two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives, are permanent
and mandatory components of “Congress,” such that the absence of either divests the term of its substantive
meaning as expressed under the Constitution. In simplistic terms, the House of Representatives, without the
Senate and vice-versa, is not Congress. Bicameralism, as the system of choice by the Framers, requires that both
houses exercise their respective powers in the performance of its mandated duty which is to legislate. Thus,
when Section 8(1), Article VIII of the Constitution speaks of “a representative from Congress,” it should mean one
representative each from both Houses which comprise the entire Congress. Tracing the subject provision’s
history, the respondents claim that when the JBC was established, the Framers originally envisioned a unicameral
legislative body, thereby allocating “a representative of the National Assembly” to the JBC. The phrase, however,
was not modified to aptly jive with the change to bicameralism, the legislative system finally adopted by the
Constitutional Commission on July 21, 1986. According to respondents, if the Commissioners were made aware
of the consequence of having a bicameral legislature instead of a unicameral one, they would have made the
corresponding adjustment in the representation of Congress in the JBC. Placing either of the respondents in the
JBC will effectively deprive a house of Congress of its representation. In the same vein, the electorate
represented by Members of Congress will lose their only opportunity to participate in the nomination process for
the members of the Judiciary, effectively diminishing the republican nature of the government. The respondents
further argue that the allowance of two (2) representatives of Congress to be members of the JBC does not
render the latter’s purpose nugatory. While they admit that the purpose in creating the JBC was to insulate
1
appointments to the Judiciary from political influence, they likewise cautioned the Court that this constitutional
vision did not intend to entirely preclude political factor in said appointments. Therefore, no evil should be
perceived in the current set-up of the JBC because two (2) members coming from Congress, whose membership
to certain political parties is irrelevant, does not necessarily amplify political partisanship in the JBC. In fact, the
presence of two (2) members from Congress will most likely provide balance as against the other six (6) members
who are undeniably presidential appointees.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE/S:
W/N 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.
HOLDING
YES. 1. It is a well-settled principle of constitutional construction that the language employed in the Constitution
must be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed. (Reason of this principle: 1s t.
it is assumed that the words in which constitutional provisions are couched express the objective sought to be
attained; 2n d: Constitution is essentially people’s document). The use of the singular letter a p receding
representative of Congress is unequivocal. Verbal egis non est recedendum (from the words of the statue, there
should be no departure).

2. Noscitur a Sociis. Under this maxim, where a particular word is ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of
various meanings, its correct construction may be made clear and specific by considering the company of words
in which it is founded or with which it is associated. The particular words, clauses and phrases should not be
studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in
fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce harmonious whole.

3. The framers of our 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. During the session of the
Constitutional Commission, their intention is to create a composition of 7 members.

*Notwithstanding its finding of unconstitutionality in the current composition of JBC, all its prior official actions
are nonetheless valid.
General rule: Unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection;
it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not been passed at all. Exception: Doctrine of operative facts.
According to this doctrine, a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may
have consequences which cannot always be ignored. Thus, actions previous to the declaration of
unconstitutionality are legally recognized. They are not nullified.
notes, if any:
DISSENTING (Abad J) Main Point: It is a basic principle in statutory construction that the law must be given a
reasonable interpretation at all times.
Discussion: The court may, in some instances, consider the spirit and reason of the statute, where a literal
meaning would lead to absurdity. To insist that only 1 member of Congress, from either the Senate or the House
of Rep should sit at any time in the JBC, is to ignore the fact that while these 2 houses of Congress are involved in
the common task of making law, they are separate and distinct. Moreover, a Senator and a Congressman to sit
alternatively at any one time cannot be a solution since each of them would actually be representing only his half
of Congress when he takes part in JBC deliberations.

2
The presence of an elected Senator and an elected member of the House of Rep in the JBC is more consistent
with the republican nature of our government where all government authority emanates from the people and is
exercised by representatives chosen by them.