Chaves vs.

JBC digest have locus standi, this is not to say that only official nominees for the post of
Facts: Chief Justice can come to the Court and question the JBC composition for
being unconstitutional. The JBC likewise screens and nominates other
members of the Judiciary. Albeit heavily publicized in this regard, the JBC’s
In 1994, instead of having only 7 members, an eighth member was added to duty is not at all limited to the nominations for the highest magistrate in the
the JBC as two representatives from Congress began sitting in the JBC – one land. A vast number of aspirants to judicial posts all over the country may be
from the House of Representatives and one from the Senate, with each having affected by the Court’s ruling. More importantly, the legality of the very process
one-half (1/2) of a vote. Then, the JBC En Banc, in separate meetings held in of nominations to the positions in the Judiciary is the nucleus of the
2000 and 2001, decided to allow the representatives from the Senate and the controversy. The claim that the composition of the JBC is illegal and
House of Representatives one full vote each. Senator Francis Joseph G. unconstitutional is an object of concern, not just for a nominee to a judicial
Escudero and Congressman Niel C. Tupas, Jr. (respondents) simultaneously post, but for all citizens who have the right to seek judicial intervention for
sit in the JBC as representatives of the legislature. It is this practice that rectification of legal blunders.
petitioner has questioned in this petition. Respondents argued that the crux of
the controversy is the phrase “a representative of Congress.” It is their theory 2. Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
that the two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives, are
permanent and mandatory components of “Congress,” such that the absence of Section 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the
either divests the term of its substantive meaning as expressed under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio
Constitution. Bicameralism, as the system of choice by the Framers, requires Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex
that both houses exercise their respective powers in the performance of its officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a
mandated duty which is to legislate. Thus, when Section 8(1), Article VIII of the retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private
Constitution speaks of “a representative from Congress,” it should mean one sector.
representative each from both Houses which comprise the entire Congress.
From a simple reading of the above-quoted provision, it can readily be
Issue: discerned that the provision is clear and unambiguous. The first paragraph
calls for the creation of a JBC and places the same under the supervision of
1. Are the conditions sine qua non for the exercise of the power of judicial the Court. Then it goes to its composition where the regular members are
review have been met in this case? enumerated: a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired
member of the Court and a representative from the private sector. On the
2. Is the JBC’s practice of having members from the Senate and the House of second part lies the crux of the present controversy. It enumerates the ex
Representatives making 8 instead of 7 sitting members unconstitutional? officio or special members of the JBC composed of the Chief Justice, who shall
be its Chairman, the Secretary of Justice and “a representative of Congress.”
3. What is the effect of the Court's finding that the current composition of the
JBC is unconstitutional? The use of the singular letter “a” preceding “representative of Congress” is
unequivocal and leaves no room for any other construction. It is indicative of
Ruling: what the members of the Constitutional Commission had in mind, that is,
Congress may designate only one (1) representative to the JBC. Had it been the
1. Yes. The Courts’ power of judicial review is subject to several limitations,
intention that more than one (1) representative from the legislature would sit in
namely: (a) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise
the JBC, the Framers could have, in no uncertain terms, so provided.
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
One of the primary and basic rules in statutory construction is that where the
that he has sustained or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its
words of a statute are clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its
enforcement; (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. It is a well-
possible opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis
settled principle of constitutional construction that the language employed in
mota of the case. Generally, a party will be allowed to litigate only when these
the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except where technical
conditions sine qua non are present, especially when the constitutionality of an
terms are employed. As much as possible, the words of the Constitution should
act by a co-equal branch of government is put in issue.
be understood in the sense they have in common use. What it says according
to the text of the provision to be construed compels acceptance and negates
The Court disagrees with the respondents’ contention that petitioner lost his
the power of the courts to alter it, based on the postulate that the framers and
standing to sue because he is not an official nominee for the post of Chief
the people mean what they say. Verba legis non est recedendum – from the
Justice. While it is true that a “personal stake” on the case is imperative to
words of a statute there should be no departure. law by recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a determination of
unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences which
Applying the foregoing principle to this case, it becomes apparent that the word cannot always be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial
“Congress” used in Article VIII, Section 8(1) of the Constitution is used in its declaration. The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of
generic sense. No particular allusion whatsoever is made on whether the unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on
Senate or the House of Representatives is being referred to, but that, in either the invalid law. Thus, it was applied to a criminal case when a declaration of
case, only a singular representative may be allowed to sit in the JBC. unconstitutionality would put the accused in double jeopardy or would put in
limbo the acts done by a municipality in reliance upon a law creating it.3
It is worthy to note that the seven-member composition of the JBC serves a
practical purpose, that is, to provide a solution should there be a stalemate in Under the circumstances, the Court finds the exception applicable in this case
voting. This underlying reason leads the Court to conclude that a single vote and holds that notwithstanding its finding of unconstitutionality in the current
may not be divided into half (1/2), between two representatives of Congress, or composition of the JBC, all its prior official actions are nonetheless valid
among any of the sitting members of the JBC for that matter. This
unsanctioned practice can possibly cause disorder and eventually muddle the
JBC’s voting process, especially in the event a tie is reached. The aforesaid
purpose would then be rendered illusory, defeating the precise mechanism
which the Constitution itself createdWhile it would be unreasonable to expect
that the Framers provide for every possible scenario, it is sensible to presume
that they knew that an odd composition is the best means to break a voting
deadlock.

The respondents insist that owing to the bicameral nature of Congress, the
word “Congress” in Section 8(1), Article VIII of the Constitution should be read
as including both the Senate and the House of Representatives. They theorize
that it was so worded because at the time the said provision was being drafted,
the Framers initially intended a unicameral form of Congress. Then, when the
Constitutional Commission eventually adopted a bicameral form of Congress,
the Framers, through oversight, failed to amend Article VIII, Section 8 of the
Constitution.

It is evident that the definition of “Congress” as a bicameral body refers to its

primary function in government – to legislate. In the passage of laws, the
Constitution is explicit in the distinction of the role of each house in the
process. The same holds true in Congress’ non-legislative powers. An inter-play
between the two houses is necessary in the realization of these powers causing
a vivid dichotomy that the Court cannot simply discount. This, however,
cannot be said in the case of JBC representation because no liaison between
the two houses exists in the workings of the JBC. Hence, the term “Congress”
must be taken to mean the entire legislative department.

3. As a general 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 inoperative
as if it has not been passed at all. This rule, however, is not absolute. Under
the doctrine of operative facts, actions previous to the declaration of
unconstitutionality are legally recognized. They are not nullified. This is
essential in the interest of fair play.

The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies
as a matter of equity and fair play. It nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional