Republic of the Philippines decreed that it was immediately executory.

The decretal
SUPREME COURT portion of the August 3, 2012 Resolution8 reads:
Manila
WHEREFORE, the parties are hereby directed to submit their
EN BANC respective MEMORANDA within ten (10) days from notice. Until
further orders, the Court hereby SUSPENDS the effect of the
G.R. No. 202242               April 16, 2013 second paragraph of the dispositive portion of the Court’s July
17, 2012 Decision, which reads: "This disposition is immediately
FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, Petitioner,  executory."9
vs.
JUDICIALAND BAR COUNCIL, SEN. FRANCIS JOSEPH G. Pursuant to the same resolution, petitioner and respondents
ESCUDERO and REP. NIEL C. TUPAS, JR.,Respondents. filed their respective memoranda.10

RESOLUTION Brief Statement of the Antecedents

MENDOZA, J.: In this disposition, it bears reiterating that from the birth of the
Philippine Republic, the exercise of appointing members of the
This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration 1 filed by the Office Judiciary has always been the exclusive prerogative of the
of the Solicitor General (OSG) on behalf of the respondents, executive and legislative branches of the government. Like their
Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero and Congressman Niel C. progenitor of American origins, both the Malolos
Tupas, Jr. (respondents), duly opposed2 by the petitioner, Constitution11 and the 1935 Constitution12vested the power to
former Solicitor General Francisco I. Chavez (petitioner). appoint the members of the Judiciary in the President, subject
to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. It was
during these times that the country became witness to the
By way of recapitulation, the present action stemmed from the
deplorable practice of aspirants seeking confirmation of their
unexpected departure of former Chief Justice Renato C. Corona
appointment in the Judiciary to ingratiate themselves with the
on May 29, 2012, and the nomination of petitioner, as his
members of the legislative body.13
potential successor. In his initiatory pleading, petitioner asked
the Court to determine 1] whether the first paragraph of
Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution allows more than Then, under the 1973 Constitution,14 with the fusion of the
one (1) member of Congress to sit in the JBC; and 2] if the executive and legislative powers in one body, the appointment
practice of having two (2) representatives from each House of of judges and justices ceased to be subject of scrutiny by
Congress with one (1) vote each is sanctioned by the another body. The power became exclusive and absolute to the
Constitution. Executive, subject only to the condition that the appointees
must have all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications.
On July 17, 2012, the Court handed down the assailed subject
decision, disposing the same in the following manner:
Prompted by the clamor to rid the process of appointments to
the Judiciary of the evils of political pressure and partisan
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The current numerical
activities,15 the members of the Constitutional Commission saw
composition of the Judicial and Bar Council is declared
it wise to create a separate, competent and independent body
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Judicial and Bar Council is hereby
to recommend nominees to the President.
enjoined to reconstitute itself so that only one (1) member of
Congress will sit as a representative in its proceedings, in
accordance with Section 8(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Thus, it conceived of a body, representative of all the
Constitution. stakeholders in the judicial appointment process, and called it
the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). The Framers carefully
worded Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution in this
This disposition is immediately executory.
wise:
SO ORDERED.
Section 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under
the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief
On July 31, 2012, following respondents’ motion for Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a
reconsideration and with due regard to Senate Resolution Nos. representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a
111,3 112,4 113,5 and 114,6 the Court set the subject motion for representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a
oral arguments on August 2, 2012.7 On August 3, 2012, the retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of
Court discussed the merits of the arguments and agreed, in the the private sector.
meantime, to suspend the effects of the second paragraph of
the dispositive portion of the July 17, 2012 Decision which
From the moment of the creation of the JBC, Congress say. The language used in the Constitution must be taken to
designated one (1) representative to sit in the JBC to act as one have been deliberately chosen for a definite purpose. Every
of the ex-officio members.16 Pursuant to the constitutional word employed in the Constitution must be interpreted to
provision that Congress is entitled to one (1) representative, exude its deliberate intent which must be maintained inviolate
each House sent a representative to the JBC, not together, but against disobedience and defiance. What the Constitution
alternately or by rotation. clearly says, according to its text, compels acceptance and bars
modification even by the branch tasked to interpret it.
In 1994, the seven-member composition of the JBC was
substantially altered.1âwphi1 An eighth member was added to For this reason, the Court cannot accede to the argument of
the JBC as the two (2) representatives from Congress began plain oversight in order to justify constitutional construction. As
sitting simultaneously in the JBC, with each having one-half stated in the July 17, 2012 Decision, in opting to use the
(1/2) of a vote.17 singular letter "a" to describe "representative of Congress," the
Filipino people through the Framers intended that Congress be
In 2001, the JBC En Banc decided to allow the representatives entitled to only one (1) seat in the JBC. Had the intention been
from the Senate and the House of Representatives one full vote otherwise, the Constitution could have, in no uncertain terms,
each.18 It has been the situation since then. so provided, as can be read in its other provisions.

Grounds relied upon by Respondents A reading of the 1987 Constitution would reveal that several
provisions were indeed adjusted as to be in tune with the shift
Through the subject motion, respondents pray that the Court to bicameralism. One example is Section 4, Article VII, which
reconsider its decision and dismiss the petition on the following provides that a tie in the presidential election shall be broken
grounds: 1] that allowing only one representative from "by a majority of all the Members of both Houses of the
Congress in the JBC would lead to absurdity considering its Congress, voting separately."20 Another is Section 8 thereof
bicameral nature; 2] that the failure of the Framers to make the which requires the nominee to replace the Vice-President to be
proper adjustment when there was a shift from unilateralism to confirmed "by a majority of all the Members of both Houses of
bicameralism was a plain oversight; 3] that two representatives the Congress, voting separately." 21 Similarly, under Section 18,
from Congress would not subvert the intention of the Framers the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
to insulate the JBC from political partisanship; and 4] that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be revoked or
rationale of the Court in declaring a seven-member continued by the Congress, voting separately, by a vote of at
composition would provide a solution should there be a least a majority of all its Members." 22 In all these provisions, the
stalemate is not exactly correct. bicameral nature of Congress was recognized and, clearly, the
corresponding adjustments were made as to how a matter
would be handled and voted upon by its two Houses.
While the Court may find some sense in the reasoning in
amplification of the third and fourth grounds listed by
respondents, still, it finds itself unable to reverse the assailed Thus, to say that the Framers simply failed to adjust Section 8,
decision on the principal issues covered by the first and second Article VIII, by sheer inadvertence, to their decision to shift to a
grounds for lack of merit. Significantly, the conclusion arrived bicameral form of the legislature, is not persuasive enough.
at, with respect to the first and second grounds, carries greater Respondents cannot just lean on plain oversight to justify a
bearing in the final resolution of this case. conclusion favorable to them. It is very clear that the Framers
were not keen on adjusting the provision on congressional
representation in the JBC because it was not in the exercise of
As these two issues are interrelated, the Court shall discuss
its primary function – to legislate. JBC was created to support
them jointly.
the executive power to appoint, and Congress, as one whole
body, was merely assigned a contributory non-legislative
function.

Ruling of the Court The underlying reason for such a limited participation can easily
be discerned. Congress has two (2) Houses. The need to
The Constitution evinces the direct action of the Filipino people recognize the existence and the role of each House is essential
by which the fundamental powers of government are considering that the Constitution employs precise language in
established, limited and defined and by which those powers are laying down the functions which particular House plays,
distributed among the several departments for their safe and regardless of whether the two Houses consummate an official
useful exercise for the benefit of the body politic. 19 The Framers act by voting jointly or separately. Whether in the exercise of
reposed their wisdom and vision on one suprema lex to be the its legislative23 or its non-legislative functions such as inter alia,
ultimate expression of the principles and the framework upon the power of appropriation,24 the declaration of an existence of
which government and society were to operate. Thus, in the a state of war, 25 canvassing of electoral returns for the
interpretation of the constitutional provisions, the Court firmly President and Vice-President,26 and impeachment,27 the
relies on the basic postulate that the Framers mean what they dichotomy of each House must be acknowledged and
recognized considering the interplay between these two the JBC. As such, the interpretation of two votes for Congress
Houses. In all these instances, each House is constitutionally runs counter to the intendment of the framers. Such
granted with powers and functions peculiar to its nature and interpretation actually gives Congress more influence in the
with keen consideration to 1) its relationship with the other appointment of judges. Also, two votes for Congress would
chamber; and 2) in consonance with the principle of checks and increase the number of JBC members to eight, which could lead
balances, as to the other branches of government. to voting deadlock by reason of even-numbered membership,
and a clear violation of 7 enumerated members in the
In checkered contrast, there is essentially no interaction Constitution. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
between the two Houses in their participation in the JBC. No
mechanism is required between the Senate and the House of In an undated position paper,30 then Secretary of Justice Agnes
Representatives in the screening and nomination of judicial VST Devanadera opined:
officers. Rather, in the creation of the JBC, the Framers arrived
at a unique system by adding to the four (4) regular members, As can be gleaned from the above constitutional provision, the
three (3) representatives from the major branches of JBC is composed of seven (7) representatives coming from
government - the Chief Justice as ex-officio Chairman different sectors. From the enumeration it is patent that each
(representing the Judicial Department), the Secretary of Justice category of members pertained to a single individual only.
(representing the Executive Department), and a representative Thus, while we do not lose sight of the bicameral nature of our
of the Congress (representing the Legislative Department). The legislative department, it is beyond dispute that Art. VIII,
total is seven (7), not eight. In so providing, the Framers simply Section 8 (1) of the 1987 Constitution is explicit and specific
gave recognition to the Legislature, not because it was in the that "Congress" shall have only "xxx a representative." Thus,
interest of a certain constituency, but in reverence to it as a two (2) representatives from Congress would increase the
major branch of government. number of JBC members to eight (8), a number beyond what
the Constitution has contemplated. (Emphases and
On this score, a Member of Congress, Hon. Simeon A. underscoring supplied)
Datumanong, from the Second District of Maguindanao,
submitted his well-considered position28 to then Chief Justice In this regard, the scholarly dissection on the matter by retired
Reynato S. Puno: Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, a former JBC consultant, is
worth reiterating.31 Thus:
I humbly reiterate my position that there should be only one
representative of Congress in the JBC in accordance with Article A perusal of the records of the Constitutional Commission
VIII, Section 8 (1) of the 1987 Constitution x x x. reveals that the composition of the JBC reflects the
Commission’s desire "to have in the Council a representation
The aforesaid provision is clear and unambiguous and does not for the major elements of the community." xxx The ex-officio
need any further interpretation. Perhaps, it is apt to mention members of the Council consist of representatives from the
that the oft-repeated doctrine that "construction and three main branches of government while the regular members
interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that are composed of various stakeholders in the judiciary. The
application is impossible or inadequate without them." unmistakeable tenor of Article VIII, Section 8(1) was to treat
each ex-officio member as representing one co-equal branch of
Further, to allow Congress to have two representatives in the government. xxx Thus, the JBC was designed to have seven
Council, with one vote each, is to negate the principle of voting members with the three ex-officio members having
equality among the three branches of government which is equal say in the choice of judicial nominees.
enshrined in the Constitution.
xxx
In view of the foregoing, I vote for the proposition that the
Council should adopt the rule of single representation of No parallelism can be drawn between the representative of
Congress in the JBC in order to respect and give the right Congress in the JBC and the exercise by Congress of its
meaning to the above-quoted provision of the Constitution. legislative powers under Article VI and constituent powers
(Emphases and underscoring supplied) under Article XVII of the Constitution. Congress, in relation to
the executive and judicial branches of government, is
On March 14, 2007, then Associate Justice Leonardo A. constitutionally treated as another co-equal branch in the
Quisumbing, also a JBC Consultant, submitted to the Chief matter of its representative in the JBC. On the other hand, the
Justice and ex-officio JBC Chairman his opinion, 29 which reads: exercise of legislative and constituent powers requires the
Senate and the House of Representatives to coordinate and act
8. Two things can be gleaned from the excerpts and citations as distinct bodies in furtherance of Congress’ role under our
above: the creation of the JBC is intended to curtail the constitutional scheme. While the latter justifies and, in fact,
influence of politics in Congress in the appointment of judges, necessitates the separateness of the two Houses of Congress as
and the understanding is that seven (7) persons will compose they relate inter se, no such dichotomy need be made when
Congress interacts with the other two co-equal branches of It would not be amiss to point out, however, that as a general
government. rule, an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it
imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office;
It is more in keeping with the co-equal nature of the three it is inoperative as if it has not been passed at all. This rule,
governmental branches to assign the same weight to however, is not absolute. Under the doctrine of operative facts,
considerations that any of its representatives may have actions previous to the declaration of unconstitutionality are
regarding aspiring nominees to the judiciary. The legally recognized. They are not nullified. This is essential in the
representatives of the Senate and the House of interest of fair play. To reiterate the doctrine enunciated in
Representatives act as such for one branch and should not have Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation: 32
any more quantitative influence as the other branches in the
exercise of prerogatives evenly bestowed upon the three. The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general
Sound reason and principle of equality among the three rule, only applies as a matter of equity and fair play. It nullifies
branches support this conclusion. [Emphases and underscoring the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the
supplied] existence of a statute prior to a determination of
unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have
The argument that a senator cannot represent a member of the consequences which cannot always be ignored. The past
House of Representatives in the JBC and vice-versa is, thus, cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The
misplaced. In the JBC, any member of Congress, whether from doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality
the Senate or the House of Representatives, is constitutionally will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the
empowered to represent the entire Congress. It may be a invalid law. Thus, it was applied to a criminal case when a
constricted constitutional authority, but it is not an absurdity. declaration of unconstitutionality would put the accused in
double jeopardy or would put in limbo the acts done by a
From this score stems the conclusion that the lone municipality in reliance upon a law creating it. 33
representative of Congress is entitled to one full vote. This
pronouncement effectively disallows the scheme of splitting Under the circumstances, the Court finds the exception
the said vote into half (1/2), between two representatives of applicable in this case and holds that notwithstanding its
Congress. Not only can this unsanctioned practice cause finding of unconstitutionality in the current composition of the
disorder in the voting process, it is clearly against the essence JBC, all its prior official actions are nonetheless valid.
of what the Constitution authorized. After all, basic and
reasonable is the rule that what cannot be legally done directly Considering that the Court is duty bound to protect the
cannot be done indirectly. To permit or tolerate the splitting of Constitution which was ratified by the direct action of the
one vote into two or more is clearly a constitutional Filipino people, it cannot correct what respondents perceive as
circumvention that cannot be countenanced by the Court. a mistake in its mandate. Neither can the Court, in the exercise
Succinctly put, when the Constitution envisioned one member of its power to interpret the spirit of the Constitution, read into
of Congress sitting in the JBC, it is sensible to presume that this the law something that is contrary to its express provisions and
representation carries with him one full vote. justify the same as correcting a perceived inadvertence. To do
so would otherwise sanction the Court action of making
It is also an error for respondents to argue that the President, amendment to the Constitution through a judicial
in effect, has more influence over the JBC simply because all of pronouncement.
the regular members of the JBC are his appointees. The
principle of checks and balances is still safeguarded because In other words, the Court cannot supply the legislative
the appointment of all the regular members of the JBC is omission. According to the rule of casus omissus "a case
subject to a stringent process of confirmation by the omitted is to be held as intentionally omitted." 34 "The principle
Commission on Appointments, which is composed of members proceeds from a reasonable certainty that a particular person,
of Congress. object or thing has been omitted from a legislative
enumeration."35 Pursuant to this, "the Court cannot under its
Respondents’ contention that the current irregular composition power of interpretation supply the omission even though the
of the JBC should be accepted, simply because it was only omission may have resulted from inadvertence or because the
questioned for the first time through the present action, case in question was not foreseen or contemplated." 36 "The
deserves scant consideration. Well-settled is the rule that acts Court cannot supply what it thinks the legislature would have
done in violation of the Constitution no matter how frequent, supplied had its attention been called to the omission, as that
usual or notorious cannot develop or gain acceptance under would be judicial legislation."37
the doctrine of estoppel or laches, because once an act is
considered as an infringement of the Constitution it is void Stated differently, the Court has no power to add another
from the very beginning and cannot be the source of any power member by judicial construction.
or authority.
The call for judicial activism fails to stir the sensibilities of the
Court tasked to guard the Constitution against usurpation. The
Court remains steadfast in confining its powers in the sphere Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, T hereby
granted by the Constitution itself. Judicial activism should never certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been
be allowed to become judicial exuberance. 38 In cases like this, reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
no amount of practical logic or convenience can convince the writer of the opinion of the Court.
Court to perform either an excision or an insertion that will
change the manifest intent of the Framers. To broaden the MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
scope of congressional representation in the JBC is tantamount Chief Justice
to the inclusion of a subject matter which was not included in
the provision as enacted. True to its constitutional mandate, Footnotes
the Court cannot craft and tailor constitutional provisions in
order to accommodate all of situations no matter how ideal or 1
 Rollo, pp. 257-286.
reasonable the proposed solution may sound. To the exercise
of this intrusion, the Court declines. 2
 Id. at 287-298.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by 3
 Entitled "Resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that
respondents is hereby DENIED.
the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) defer the consideration of all
nominees and the preparation of the short list to be submitted
The suspension of the effects of the second paragraph of the
to the President for the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme
dispositive portion of the July 17, 2012 Decision of the Court,
Court;" id. at 303-304.
which reads, "This disposition is immediately executory," is
hereby LIFTED. 4
 Entitled "Resolution expressing anew the sense of the Senate
that the Senate and House of Representatives should have one
SO ORDERED.
(1) representative each in the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) and
that each representative is entitled to a full vote;" id. at 305-
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA 307.
Associate Justice
5
 Entitled "Resolution to file an urgent motion with the
WE CONCUR: Supreme Court to set for oral argument the motion for
reconsideration filed by the representatives of Congress to the
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) in the case of Francisco Chavez v.
Chief Justice Judicial and Bar Council, Sen. Francis Joseph G.. Escudero and
Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., G.R. No. 2022242 considering the
primordial importance of the constitutional issues involved;" id.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. at 308-310.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
6
 Entitled "Resolution authorizing Senator Joker P. Arroyo to
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE argue, together with the Counsel-of-record, the motion for
ARTURO D. BRION
CASTRO reconsideration filed by the representative of the Senate to the
Associate Justice
Associate Justice Judicial and Bar Council in the case of Francisco Chavez v.
Judicial and Bar Council, Sen. Francis Joseph G. Escudero and
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Rep. Niel Tupas, Jr.;" id. at 311-312.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
7
 Id. at 313-314.
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice Associate Justice 8
 Id. at (318-I)-(318-K).

9
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ  Id. at 318-J.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
10
 Petitioner’s Memorandum, id. at 326-380; Respondents’
BIENVENIDO L. REYES ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE Memorandum, id. at 381-424.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
11
 Malolos Constitution Article 80 Title X. – The Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court and the Solicitor-General shall be chosen by
MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN the National Assembly in concurrence with the President of the
Associate Justice Republic and the Secretaries of the Government, and shall be
absolutely independent of the Legislative and Executive
CERTIFICATION Powers."
12 22
 1935 Constitution Article VIII, Section 5. – The Members of  1987 Constitution, Article VII, Section 18. – The President
the Supreme Court and all judges of inferior courts shall be shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the
appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call
on Appointments." out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the
13
 1 Records of the Constitutional Commission Proceedings and public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding
Debates, 437. sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or
place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.
14
 Section 4 Article X of the 1973 Constitution provides: "The Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law
Members of the Supreme Court and judges of inferior courts or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus,
shall be appointed by the President." the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the
Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a
15 majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may
 1 Records, Constitutional Commission, Proceedings and
revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall
Debates, p. 487.
not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the
16
President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such
 List of JBC Chairpersons, Ex-Officio and Regular Members, Ex proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by
Officio Secretaries and Consultants, issued by the Office of the the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public
Executive Officer, Judicial and Bar Council, rollo, pp. 62-63. safety requires it. (Emphasis supplied)
17
 Id. 23
 1987 Constitution, Article VI Section 27(1). – Every bill passed
by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to
18
 Id. at 80, citing Minutes of the 1st En Banc Executive Meeting, the President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it;
January 12, 2000 and Minutes of the 12th En Banc Meeting, otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his
May 30, 2001. objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter
the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider
19
 Malcolm, The Constitutional Law of the Philippine Islands it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members
(2nd ed. 1926), p. 26. of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent,
together with the objections, to the other House by which it
20
 1987 Constitution, Article VII, Section 4. – The President and shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of
the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people all the Members of that House, it shall become a law. In all such
for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or
day of June next following the day of the election and shall end nays, and the names of the Members voting for or against shall
at noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The President be entered in its Journal. The President shall communicate his
shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person who has veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty
succeeded as President and has served as such for more than days after the date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall
four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at become a law as if he had signed it.
any time.
24
 1987 Constitution, Article VI Section 24. – All appropriation,
xxx revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of public debt,
bills of local application, and private bills shall originate
The person having the highest number of votes shall be exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate
proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an may propose or concur with amendments.
equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith
25
be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both  1987 Constitution, Article VI Section 23 (1). – The Congress,
Houses of the Congress, voting separately. (Emphasis supplied) by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session
assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to
x x x. declare the existence of a state of war.

26
21
 1987 Constitution, Article VII, Section 9. – Whenever there is  1987 Constitution, Article VII Section 4. – The returns of every
a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President during the term for election for President and Vice-President, duly certified by the
which he was elected, the President shall nominate a Vice- board of canvassers of each province or city, shall be
President from among the Members of the Senate and the transmitted to the Congress, directed to the President of the
House of Representatives who shall assume office upon Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the
confirmation by a majority vote of all the Members of both President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after
Houses of the Congress, voting separately. (Emphasis supplied) the day of the election, open all certificates in the presence of
the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public
session, and the Congress, upon determination of the
authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided dissenting opinion of former Chief Justice Fernando, citing
by law, canvass the votes. Malcolm.

The person having the highest number of votes shall be

proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith
be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both
Houses of the Congress, voting separately.

27
 1987 Constitution, Article XI Section 3 (1). – The House of
Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all
cases of impeachment.

xxx

(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all
cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the
Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of
the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be
convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the
Members of the Senate.

28
 Dated March 27, 2007; Annex "D," rollo, p. 104.

29
 Annex C, id. at 95. Quoting the interpretation of Article VIII,
Section (1) of the Constitution by Fr. Joaquin Bernas in page
984 of his book, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines, A Commentary. He quoted another author, Hector
de Leon, and portions of the decisions of this Court in Flores v.
Drilon, and Escalante v. Santos, before extensively quoting the
Record of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 (pages 444 to
491).

30
 Annex "E," id. at 1205.

31
 Rollo, pp. 91-93.

32
 G.R. No. 166006, March 14, 2008, 548 SCRA 485.

33
 Id. at 516-517. (Citations omitted.)

34 DISSENTING OPINION
 Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth ed., p. 198.

35 ABAD, J.:
 Agpalo, Statutory Construction, 2009 ed., p. 231.

36 On July 17, 2012, the Court rendered a Decision 1 granting the

 Id., citing Cartwrite v. Cartwrite, 40 A2d 30, 155 ALR 1088
petition for declaration of unconstitutionality, prohibition, and
(1944).
injunction filed by petitioner Francisco I. Chavez, and declaring
37
that the current numerical composition of the Judicial and Bar
 Id., Agpalo, p. 232 Council (JBC) is unconstitutional. The Court also enjoined the
JBC to reconstitute itself so that only one member of Congress
38
 Dissenting Opinion, Chief Justice Panganiban, Central Bank will sit as a representative in its proceedings, in accordance
(Now Bangko Sentral Ng Pilipinas) Employees Association, Inc. with Section 8(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 148208, December 15,
2004, 446 SCRA 299, citing Peralta v. COMELEC. No. L-47771, On July 24, 2012, respondents Senator Francis Joseph G.
March 11, 1978, 82 SCRA 30, 77, citing concurring and Escudero and Congressman Niel C. Tupas, Jr. moved for
reconsideration.2 The Court then conducted and heard the Indeed, to insist that only one member of Congress from either
parties in oral arguments on the following Issues: the Senate or the House of Representatives should sit at any
time in the JBC, is to ignore the fact that they are still separate
1. Whether or not the current practice of the JBC to perform its and distinct from each other although they are both involved in
functions with eight members, two of whom are members of law-making. Both legislators are elected differently, maintain
Congress, runs counter to the letter and spirit of Section 8(1), separate administrative organizations, and deliberate on laws
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. independently. In fact, neither the Senate nor the House of
Representatives can by itself claim to represent the Congress.
A. Whether or not the JBC should be composed of seven
members only. Again, that the framers of the 1987 Constitution did not intend
to limit the term "Congress" to just either of the two Houses
B. Whether or not Congress is entitled to more than one seat in can be seen from the words that they used in crafting Section
the JBC. 8(1 ). While the provision provides for just "a representative of
the Congress," it also provides that such representation is "ex
officio" or "by virtue of one's office, or position." 4
C. Assuming Congress is entitled to more than one seat,
whether or not each representative of Congress should be
entitled to exercise one whole vote. Under the Senate rules, the Chairperson of its Justice
Committee is automatically the Senate representative to the
JBC. In the same way, under the House of Representatives
I maintain my dissent to the majority opinion now being
rules, the Chairperson of its Justice Committee is the House
reconsidered.
representative to the JBC. Consequently, there are actually two
persons in Congress who hold separate offices or positions with
To reiterate, the vital question that needs to be resolved is: the attached function of sitting in the JBC. If the Court adheres
whether or not the Senate and the House of Representatives to a literal translation of Section 8(1 ), no representative from
are entitled to one representative each in the JBC, both with Congress will qualify as "ex officio" member of the JBC. This
the right to cast one full vote in its deliberations. would deny Congress the representation that the framers of
the 1987 Constitution intended it to have.
At the core of the present controversy is Section 8(1), Article
VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that: Having said that the Senate and the House of Representatives
should have one representative each in the JBC, it is logical to
Section 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under conclude that each should also have the right to cast one full
the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief vote in its deliberations. To split the vote between the two
Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a legislators would be an absurdity since it would diminish their
representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a standing and make them second class members of the JBC,
representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a something that the Constitution clearly does not contemplate.
retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of Indeed, the JBC abandoned the half-a-vote practice on January
the private sector. (Emphasis supplied) 12, 2000 and recognized the right of both legislators to cast one
full vote each. Only by recognizing this right can the true spirit
In interpreting Section 8(1) above, the majority opinion and reason of Section 8(1) be attained.
reiterated that in opting to use the singular letter "a" to
describe "representative of the Congress," the Filipino people For the above reasons, I vote to GRANT the motion for
through the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended reconsideration.
Congress to just have one representative in the JBC. The
majority opinion added that there could not have been any ROBERTO A. ABAD
plain oversight in the wordings of the provision since the other Associate Justice
provisions of the 1987 Constitution were amended accordingly
with the shift to a bicameral legislative body.
Footnotes
The mere fact, however, that adjustments were made in some 1
 Rollo, pp. 226-250.
provisions should not mislead the Court into concluding that all
provisions have been amended to recognize the bicameral 2
nature of Congress. As I have previously noted in my dissenting  Id. at 257-284.
opinion, Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, a member of the Constitutional
3
Commission himself, admitted that the committee charged  http://opinion.inquirer.net/31813/jbc-odds-and-ends (last
with making adjustments in the previously passed provisions accessed February 15, 2013).
covering the JBC, failed to consider the impact of the changed
4
character of the Legislature on the inclusion of "a  Webster's New World College Dictionary, 3rd Edition, p. 477.
representative of the Congress" in the membership of the JBC. 3
 Senate and the House of Representatives while component
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation parts of the Congress are not the same in terms of their
representation. The very rationale of a bicameral system is to
have the Senators represent a national constituency.
DISSENTING OPINION Representatives of the House of Representatives, on the other
hand, are dominantly from legislative districts except for one
LEONEN, J.: fifth which are from the party list system.

I dissent. Each chamber is organized separately.6 The Senate and the

House each promulgates their own rules of procedure. 7 Each
chamber maintains separate Journals. 8 They each have
Both the Senate and the House of Representatives must be
separate Records of their proceedings. 9The Senate and the
represented in the Judicial and Bar Council. This is the
House of Representatives discipline their own respective
Constitution's mandate read as a whole and in the light of the
members.10
ordinary and contemporary understanding of our people of the
structure of our government. Any other interpretation
diminishes Congress and negates the effectivity of its To belabor the point: There is no presiding officer for the
representation in the Judicial and Bar Council. Congress of the Philippines, but there is a Senate President and
a Speaker of the House of Representatives. There is no single
journal for the Congress of the Philippines, but there is a
It is a Constitution we are interpreting. More than privileging a
journal for the Senate and a journal for the House of
textual preposition, our duty is to ensure that the constitutional
Representatives. There is no record of proceedings for the
project ratified by our people is given full effect.
entire Congress of the Philippines, but there is a Record of
proceedings for the Senate and a Record of proceedings for the
At issue in this case is the interpretation of Article VIII, Section 8 House of Representatives. The Congress of the Philippines does
of the Constitution which provides the following: not discipline its members. It is the Senate that promulgates its
own rules and disciplines its members. Likewise, it is the House
Section 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under that promulgates its own rules and disciplines its members.
the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief
Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of No Senator reports to the Congress of the Philippines. Rather,
he or she reports to the Senate. No Member of the House of
Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Representatives reports to the Congress of the Philippines.
Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of Rather, he or she reports to the House of Representatives.
law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a
representative of the private sector. (Emphasis provided) Congress, therefore, is the Senate and the House of
Representatives. Congress does not exist separate from the
Mainly deploying verba legis as its interpretative modality, the Senate and the House of Representatives.
main opinion chooses to focus on the article "a." As correctly
pointed out in the original dissent of Justice Robert A bad, the Any Senator acting ex officio or as a representative of the
entire phrase includes the words "representative of Congress" Senate must get directions from the Senate. By constitutional
and "ex officio Members." In the context of the constitutional design, he or she cannot get instructions from the House of
plan involving a bicameral Congress, these words create Representatives. If a Senator represents the Congress rather
ambiguity. than simply the Senate, then he or she must be open to amend
or modify the instructions given to him or her by the Senate if
A Bicameral Congress the House of Representatives’ instructions are different. Yet,
the Constitution vests disciplinary power only on the Senate for
Our Constitution creates a Congress consisting of two any Senator.
chambers. Thus, in Article VI, Section 1, the Constitution
provides the following: The same argument applies to a Member of the House of
Representatives.
The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the
Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of No Senator may carry instructions from the House of
Representatives x x x. (Emphasis provided) Representatives. No Member of the House of Representatives
may carry instructions from the Senate. Neither Senator nor
Senators are "elected at large by the qualified voters of the Member of the House of Representatives may therefore
Philippines".1 Members of the House of Representatives, on the represent Congress as a whole.
other hand, are elected by legislative districts 2 or through the
party list system.3 The term of a Senator4 is different from that
of a Member of the House of Representatives. 5 Therefore, the
The difference between the Senate and the House of and the Senate, particularly regarding their respective
Representative was a subject of discussion in the Constitutional constituencies and electorate. These differences, however, only
Commission. In the July 21, 1986 Records of the Constitutional illustrate that the work of the Senate and the House of
Commission, Commissioner Jose F. S. Bengzon presented the Representatives taken together results in a Congress
following argument during the discussion on bicameralism, on functioning as one branch of government. Article VI, Section 1,
the distinction between Congressmen and Senators, and the as approved by the Commission, spoke of one Congress whose
role of the Filipino people in making these officials accountable: powers are vested in both the House of Representatives and
the Senate.
I grant the proposition that the Members of the House of
Representatives are closer to the people that they represent. I Thus, when the Constitution provides that a "representative of
grant the proposition that the Members of the House of Congress" should participate in the Judicial and Bar Council, it
Representatives campaign on a one-to-one basis with the cannot mean a Senator carrying out the instructions of the
people in the barrios and their constituencies. I also grant the House or a Member of the House of Representative carrying
proposition that the candidates for Senator do not have as out instructions from the Senate. It is not the kind of a single
much time to mingle around with their constituencies in their Congress contemplated by our Constitution. The opinion
respective home bases as the candidates for the House. I also therefore that a Senator or a Member of the House of
grant the proposition that the candidates for the Senate go Representative may represent the Congress as a whole is
around the country in their efforts to win the votes of all the contrary to the intent of the Constitution. It is unworkable.
members of the electorate at a lesser time than that given to
the candidates for the House of Representatives. But then the One mechanism used in the past to work out the consequence
lesson of the last 14 years has made us mature in our political of the majority’s opinion is to allow a Senator and a Member of
thinking and has given us political will and self-determination. the House of Representative to sit in the Judicial and Bar
We really cannot disassociate the fact that the Congressman, Council but to each allow them only half a vote.
the Member of the House of Representatives, no matter how
national he would like to think, is very much strongly drawn Within the Judicial and Bar Council, the Chief Justice is entitled
into the problems of his local constituents in his own district. to one vote. The Secretary of Justice is also entitled to one
whole vote and so are the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the
Due to the maturity of the Filipinos for the last 14 years and private sector, legal academia, and retired justices. Each of
because of the emergence of people power, I believe that this these sectors are given equal importance and rewarded with
so-called people power can be used to monitor not only the one whole vote. However, in this view, the Senate is only worth
Members of the House of Representatives but also the fifty percent of the wisdom of these sectors. Likewise, the
Members of the Senate. As I said we may have probably wisdom of the House of Representatives is only worth fifty
adopted the American formula in the beginning but over these percent of these institutions.
years, I think we have developed that kind of a system and
adopted it to our own needs. So at this point in time, with This is constitutionally abominable. It is inconceivable that our
people power working, it is not only the Members of the House people, in ratifying the Constitution granting awesome powers
who can be subjected to people power but also the Members to Congress, intended to diminish its component parts. After
of the Senate because they can also be picketed and criticized all, they are institutions composed of people who have
through written articles and talk shows. And even the people submitted themselves to the electorate. In creating shortlists of
not only from their constituencies in their respective regions possible candidates to the judiciary, we can safely suppose that
and districts but from the whole country can exercise people their input is not less than the input of the professor of law or
power against the Members of the Senate because they are the member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or the
supposed to represent the entire country. So while the member from the private sector.
Members of Congress become unconsciously parochial in their
desire to help their constituencies, the Members of the Senate
The other solution done in the past was to alternate the seat
are there to take a look at all of these parochial proposals and
between a Senator and a Member of the House of
coordinate them with the national problems. They may be
Representatives.
detached in that sense but they are not detached from the
people because they themselves know and realize that they
To alternate the seat given to Congress between the Senate
owe their position not only to the people from their respective
and the House of Representatives would mean not giving a seat
provinces but also to the people from the whole country. So, I
to the Congress at all. Again, when a Senator is seated, he or
say that people power now will be able to monitor the activities
she represents the Senate and not Congress as a whole. When
of the Members of the House of Representatives and that very
a Member of the House of Representative is seated, he or she
same people power can be also used to monitor the activities
can only represent Congress as a whole. Thus, alternating the
of the Members of the Senate.11
seat not only diminishes congressional representation; it
negates it.
Commissioner Bengzon provided an illustration of the
fundamental distinction between the House of Representatives
Constitutional Interpretation Last, ut magis valeat quam pereat – the Constitution is to be
interpreted as a whole. We intoned thus in the landmark case
The argument that swayed the majority in this case’s original of Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary:
decision was that if those who crafted our Constitution
intended that there be two representatives from Congress, it It is a well-established rule in constitutional construction that
would not have used the preposition "a" in Article VIII, Section no one provision of the Constitution is to be separated from all
8 (1). However, beyond the number of representatives, the the others, to be considered alone, but that all the provisions
Constitution intends that in the Judicial and Bar Council, there bearing upon a particular subject are to be brought into view
will be representation from Congress and that it will be "ex and to be so interpreted as to effectuate the great purposes of
officio", i.e., by virtue of their positions or offices. We note that the instrument. Sections bearing on a particular subject should
the provision did not provide for a number of members to the be considered and interpreted together as to effectuate the
Judicial and Bar Council. This is unlike the provisions creating whole purpose of the Constitution and one section is not to be
many other bodies in the Constitution.12 allowed to defeat another, if by any reasonable construction,
the two can be made to stand together.
In other words, we could privilege or start our interpretation
only from the preposition "a" and from there provide a In other words, the court must harmonize them, if practicable,
meaning that ensures a difficult and unworkable result -- one and must lean in favor of a construction which will render every
which undermines the concept of a bicameral congress implied word operative, rather than one which may make the words
in all the other 114 other places in the Constitution that uses idle and nugatory. (Emphasis provided)
the word "Congress".
And in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary,13 we said:
Or, we could give the provision a reasonable interpretation that
is within the expectations of the people who ratified the A foolproof yardstick in constitutional construction is the
Constitution by also seeing and reading the words intention underlying the provision under consideration. Thus, it
"representative of Congress" and "ex officio." has been held that the Court in construing a Constitution
should bear in mind the object sought to be accomplished by
This proposed interpretation does not violate the basic tenet its adoption, and the evils, if any, sought to be prevented or
regarding the authoritativeness of the text of the Constitution. remedied. A doubtful provision will be examined in the light of
It does not detract from the text. It follows the canonical the history of the times, and the condition and circumstances
requirement of verba legis. But in doing so, we encounter an under which the Constitution was framed. The object is to
ambiguity. ascertain the reason which induced the framers of the
Constitution to enact the particular provision and the purpose
In Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, 13 we said: sought to be accomplished thereby, in order to construe the
whole as to make the words consonant to that reason and
As the Constitution is not primarily a lawyer’s document, it calculated to effect that purpose.
being essential for the rule of law to obtain that it should ever
be present in the people’s consciousness, its language as much The authoritativeness of text is no excuse to provide an
as possible should be understood in the sense they have in unworkable result or one which undermines the intended
common use. What it says according to the text of the structure of government provided in the Constitution. Text is
provision to be construed compels acceptance and negates the authoritative, but it is not exhaustive of the entire universe of
power of the courts to alter it, based on the postulate that the meaning.
framers and the people mean what they say. Thus these are
cases where the need for construction is reduced to a There is no compelling reason why we should blind ourselves as
minimum. to the meaning of "representative of Congress" and "ex officio."
There is no compelling reason why there should only be one
However, where there is ambiguity or doubt, the words of the representative of a bicameral Congress.
Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the
intent of its framers or ratio legis et anima. A doubtful provision Proposed Reasons for Only One Representative of Congress
must be examined in light of the history of the times, and the
condition and circumstances surrounding the framing of the The first reason to support the need for only one
Constitution. In following this guideline, courts should bear in representative of Congress is the belief that there needs to be
mind the object sought to be accomplished in adopting a an odd number in the Judicial and Bar Council.
doubtful constitutional provision, and the evils sought to be
prevented or remedied. Consequently, the intent of the This is true only if the decision of the constitutional organ in
framers and the people ratifying the constitution, and not the question is a dichotomous one, i.e., a yes or a no. It is in this
panderings of self-indulgent men, should be given effect. sense that a tie-breaker will be necessary.
However, the Judicial and Bar Council is not that sort of a for political accommodations if there be any. Keeping in mind
constitutional organ. Its duty is to provide the President with a the independence required of our judges and justices, the
shortlist of candidates to every judicial position. We take Members of Congress may be able to appreciate the kind of
judicial notice that for vacancies, each member of the Judicial balance that will be necessary -- the same balance that the
and Bar Council is asked to list at least three (3) names. All President might be able to likewise appreciate -- when putting a
these votes are tallied and those who garner a specific plurality person in the shortlist of judicial candidates. Not only do they
are thus put on the list and transmitted to the President. There appreciate this balance, they embody it. Senators and
had been no occasion when the Judicial and Bar Council ever Members of the House of Representatives (unlike any of the
needed to break a tie. The Judicial and Bar Council’s functions other members of the Judicial and Bar Council), periodically
proceed regardless of whether they have seven or eight submit themselves to the electorate.
members.
It is for these reasons that the Congressional representatives in
The second reason that the main opinion accepted as the Judicial and Bar Council may be instructed by their
persuasive was the opinion that Congress does not discharge its respective chambers to consider some principles and
function to check and balance the power of both the Judiciary directions. Through resolutions or actions by the Congressional
and the Executive in the Judicial and Bar Council. From this Committees they represent, the JBC Congressional
premise, it then proceeds to argue that the Representative of representatives’ choices may be constrained. Therefore, they
Congress, who is ex officio, does not need to consult with do not sit there just to represent themselves. Again, they are
Congress as a whole. "representatives of Congress" "ex officio".

This is very perplexing and difficult to accept. The third reason to support only one representative of
Congress is the belief that there is the "unmistakable tenor" in
By virtue of the fundamental premise of separation of powers, the provision in question that one co-equal branch should be
the appointing power in the judiciary should be done by the represented only by one Representative. 14 It may be true that
Supreme Court. However, for judicial positions, this is vested in the Secretary of Justice is the political alter ego of the President
the Executive. Furthermore, because of the importance of or the Executive. However, Congress as a whole does not have
these appointments, the President’s discretion is limited to a a political alter ego. In other words, while the Executive may be
shortlist submitted to him by the Judicial and Bar Council which represented by a single individual, Congress cannot be
is under the supervision of the Supreme Court but composed of represented by an individual. Congress, as stated earlier,
several components. operates through the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Unlike the Executive, the Legislative branch cannot be
The Judicial and Bar Council represents the constituents represented by only one individual.
affected by judicial appointments and by extension, judicial
decisions. It provides for those who have some function vis a A Note on the Work of the Constitutional Commission
vis the law that should be applied and interpreted by our
courts. Hence, represented are practicing lawyers (Integrated Time and again, we have clarified the interpretative value to Us
Bar of the Philippines), prosecutors (Secretary of the of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. Thus
Department of Justice), legal academia (professor of law), and in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, we emphasized:
judges or justices (retired justice and the Chief Justice). Also
represented in some way are those that will be affected by the While it is permissible in this jurisdiction to consult the debates
interpretation directly (private sector representative). and proceedings of the constitutional convention in order to
arrive at the reason and purpose of the resulting Constitution,
Congress is represented for many reasons. resort thereto may be had only when other guides fail as said
proceedings are powerless to vary the terms of the
One, it crafts statutes and to that extent may want to ensure Constitution when the meaning is clear. Debates in the
that those who are appointed to the judiciary are familiar with constitutional convention ‘are of value as showing the views of
these statutes and will have the competence, integrity, and the individual members, and as indicating the reason for their
independence to read its meaning. votes, but they give Us no light as to the views of the large
majority who did not talk, much less of the mass or our fellow
Two, the power of judicial review vests our courts with the citizens whose votes at the polls gave that instrument the force
ability to nullify their acts. Congress, therefore, has an interest of fundamental law. We think it safer to construe the
in the judicial philosophy of those considered for appointment constitution from what appears upon its face.’The proper
into our judiciary. interpretation therefore depends more on how it was
understood by the people adopting it than in the framers’
understanding thereof.15 (Emphasis provided)
Three, Congress is a political organ. As such, it is familiar with
the biases of our political leaders including that of the
President. Thus, it will have greater sensitivity to the necessity Also worth Our recall is the celebrated comment of Charles P.
Curtis, Jr. on the role of history in constitutional exegesis: 16
The intention of the framers of the Constitution, even assuming of the Constitution.34 The final draft was submitted to the
we could discover what it was, when it is not adequately Commission for the sole purpose of determining whether it
expressed in the Constitution, that is to say, what they meant reflects faithfully and accurately the proposals as approved on
when they did not say it, surely that has no binding force upon Second Reading.35
us. If we look behind or beyond what they set down in the
document, prying into what else they wrote and what they With respect to the provision which is now Article VIII, Section
said, anything we may find is only advisory. They may sit in at 8 (1), the timetable was as follows:
our councils. There is no reason why we should eavesdrop on
theirs.17 (Emphasis provided) On July 10, 1986, the Committee on the Judiciary presented its
Report to the Commission.36 Deliberations then took place on
In addition to the interpretative value of the discussion in the the same day; on July 11, 1986; and on July 14, 1986. It was on
Constitutional Commission, we should always be careful when July 10 that Commissioner Rodrigo raised points regarding the
we quote from their records without understanding their Judicial and Bar Council.37 The discussion spoke of the Judicial
context. and Bar Council having seven members.

The Committees of the Constitutional Commission were all Numerous mentions of the Judicial and Bar Council being
tasked to finish their reports not later than July 7, 1986. 18 The comprised of seven members were also made by
Second and Third Readings were scheduled to finish not later Commissioners on July 14, 1986. On the same day, the
than August 15, 1986.19 The members of the Sponsorship and amended article was approved by unanimous voting.38
Style Committee were tasked to finish their work of formulating
and polishing the style of the final draft of the new Constitution On July 19, 1986, the vote on Third Reading on the Article on
scheduled for submission to the entire membership of the the Judiciary took place.39 The vote was 43 and none against.40
Commission not later than August 25, 1986. 20
Committee Report No. 22 proposing an article on a National
The Rules of the Constitutional Commission also provided for a Assembly was reported out by July 21, 1986. 41 It provided for a
process of approving resolutions and amendments. unicameral assembly. Commissioner Hilario Davide, Jr., made
the presentation and stated that they had a very difficult
Constitutional proposals were embodied in resolutions signed decision to make regarding bicameralism and
by the author.21 If they emanated from a committee, the unicameralism.42 The debate occupied the Commission for the
resolution was signed by its chairman. 22 Resolutions were filed whole day.
with the Secretary-General.23 The First Reading took place
when the titles of the resolutions were read and referred to the Then, a vote on the structure of Congress took place. 43 Forty
appropriate committee.24 four (44) commissioners cast their votes during the roll
call.44 The vote was 23 to 22.45
The Committees then submitted a Report on each
resolution.25 The Steering Committee took charge of including On October 8, 1986, the Article on the Judiciary was reopened
the committee report in the Calendar for Second Reading. 26 The for purposes of introducing amendments to the proposed
Second Reading took place on the day set for the consideration Sections 3, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 14.46
of a resolution.27 The provisions were read in full with the
amendments proposed by the committee, if there were any. 28
On October 9, 1986, the entire Article on the Legislature was
approved on Third Reading.47
A motion to close debate took place after three speeches for
and two against, or if only one speech has been raised and
By October 10, 1986, changes in style on the Article on the
none against it.29 The President of the Constitutional
Legislature were introduced.48
Commission had the prerogative to allow debates among those
who had indicated that they intended to be heard on certain
On October 15, 1986, Commissioner Guingona presented the
matters.30 After the close of the debate, the Constitutional
1986 Constitution to the President of the Constitutional
Commission proceeded to consider the Committee
Commission, Cecilia Munoz-Palma.49
amendments.31

It is apparent that the Constitutional Commission either

After a resolution was approved on Second Reading, it was
through the Style and Sponsorship Committee or the
included in the Calendar for Third Reading. 32 Neither further
Committees on the Legislature and the Judiciary was not able
debate nor amendment shall be made on the resolution on its
to amend the provision concerning the Judicial and Bar Council
Third Reading.33 All constitutional proposals approved by the
after the Commission had decided to propose a bicameral
Commission after Third Reading were referred to the
Congress. We can take judicial notice of the chronology of
Committees on Sponsorship and Style for collation,
events during the deliberations of the Constitutional
organization, and consolidation into a complete and final draft
Commission. The chronology should be taken as much as the
substance of discussions exchanged between the
Commissioners.

The quotations from the Commissioners mentioned in the main

opinion and in the proposed resolution of the present Motion
for Reconsideration should thus be appreciated in its proper
context.

The interpellation involving Commissioners Rodrigo and

Concepcion took place on July 10, 1986 and on July 14,
1986.50 These discussions were about Committee Report No. 18
on the Judiciary. Thus:

MR. RODRIGO: Let me go to another point then.

On page 2, Section 5, there is a novel provision about

appointments of members of the Supreme Court and of judges
of lower courts. At present it is the President who appoints
them. If there is a Commission on Appointments, then it is the
President with the confirmation of the Commission on
Appointments. In this proposal, we would like to establish a
new office, a sort of a board composed of seven m