Statutory_Umali Case

The LAWPHIL Project ARELLANO LAW FOUNDATION PHILIPPINE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE DATABANK

REP. REYNALDO V. UMALI, in his capacity as Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Justice and Ex Officio Member of the JBC, Petitioner

VS. THE JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL, chaired by THE HON. MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO, Chief Justice and Ex Officio Chairperson, Respondent

DECISION

VELASCO, JR., J .:

Stare decisis et non quieta movere. This principle of adherence to precedents has not lost its luster and continues to guide the bench in keeping with the need to maintain stability in the law.

This Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule sixty-five of the Rules of Court filed directly with this Court by herein petitioner Rep. Reynaldo V. Umali, current Chair of the House of Representatives Committee on Justice, impugns the present-day practice of six-month rotational representation of Congress in the Judicial and Bar Council for it unfairly deprives both Houses of Congress of their full participation in the said body. The aforementioned practice was adopted by the JBC in light of the ruling in Chavez versus Judicial and Bar Council.

As an overview, in Chavez, the constitutionality of the practice of having two representatives from both houses of Congress with one vote each in the JBC, thus, increasing its membership from seven to eight, was challenged. With that, this Court examined the constitutional provision that states the composition of the JBC, that is, Section eight sub-section one, Article eight of the nineteen eighty-seven Constitution, which reads:

SECTION EIGHT. (ONE) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector. (Emphasis supplied.)

Following a painstaking analysis, this Court, in a Decision dated July seventeen, twenty twelve, declared the said practice of having two representatives from Congress with one vote each in the JBC unconstitutional. This Court enunciated that the use of the singular letter "a" preceding "representative of the Congress" in the aforequoted provision is unequivocal and leaves no room for any other construction or interpretation. The same is indicative of the Framers' intent that Congress may designate only one representative to the JBC. Had it been otherwise, they could have, in no uncertain terms, so provided. This Court further articulated that in the context of JBC representation, the term "Congress" must be taken to mean the entire legislative department as no liaison between the two houses exists in the workings of the JBC. There is no mechanism required between the Senate and the House of Representatives in the screening and nomination of judicial officers. Moreover, this Court, quoting the keen observation of Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, who is also a JBC Consultant, stated that the ex officio members of the JBC consist of representatives from the three main branches of government, to wit: the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court representing the judiciary, the Secretary of Justice representing the executive, and a representative of the Congress representing the legislature. It can be deduced therefrom that the unmistakable tenor of Section eight sub-section one, Article eight of the nineteen eighty-seven Constitution was to treat each ex officio member as representing one co-equal branch of government having equal say in the choice of judicial nominees. Now, to allow the legislature to have more than one representative in the JBC would negate the principle of equality among these three branches of the government, which is enshrined in the Constitution.

The subsequent motion for reconsideration thereof was denied in a Resolution dated April sixteen, twenty thirteen, where this Court reiterated that Section eight sub-section one, Article eight of the nineteen eighty-seven Constitution providing for "a representative of the Congress" in the JBC is clear and unambiguous and does not need any further interpretation. Besides, this Court is not convinced that the Framers simply failed to adjust the aforesaid constitutional provision, by sheer inadvertence, to their decision to shift to a bicameral form of legislature. Even granting that there was, indeed, such omission, this Court cannot supply the same. Following the rule of casus omissus, that is, a case omitted is to be held as intentionally omitted, this Court cannot under its power of interpretation supply the omission even if the same may have resulted from inadvertence or it was not foreseen or contemplated for to do so would amount to judicial legislation. Ergo, this Court has neither power nor authority to add another member in the JBC simply by judicial construction.

In light of these Decision and Resolution, both Houses of Congress agreed on a six-month rotational representation in the JBC, wherein the House of Representatives will represent Congress from January to June and the Senate from July to December. This is now the current practice in the JBC. It is by reason of this arrangement that the votes cast by the petitioner for the selection of nominees for the vacancies of then retiring Supreme Court Associate Justices Jose P. Perez (Perez) and Arturo Brion (Brion) were not counted by the JBC during its En Banc deliberations held last December two and nine, twenty sixteen. Instead, the petitioner's votes were simply placed in an envelope and sealed subject to any further disposition as this Court may direct in a proper proceeding. This is the root of the present controversy that prompted the petitioner to file the instant Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus based on the following grounds:

THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS PROPER TO ENJOIN THE JBC TO CORRECT ITS UNWARRANTED DENIAL OF THE VOTES REGISTERED BY HEREIN PETITIONER DURING THE EN BANC DELIBERATIONS ON DECEMBER TWO AND NINE, TWENTY SIXTEEN BECAUSE THE DECISION IN THE CHAVEZ CASE IS DEFECTIVE/FLAWED.

THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS PROPER TO MANDATE THE JBC TO ACCEPT/COUNT SAID VOTES CAST BY PETITIONER BECAUSE THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE JBC IS DEFECTIVE/FLAWED AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.