Rep. Umali filed a petition challenging the JBC's denial of counting his vote during deliberations to elect new Associate Justices. He argued that more than one representative from the Senate and House should be allowed to vote. The Court dismissed the petition, finding that the 6-month rotational practice of the JBC having only one representative vote on behalf of Congress is constitutional based on previous case Chavez v. JBC. The Court applied the doctrine of stare decisis and found the Constitution's provision on the JBC representation to be clear without need for interpretation.
Rep. Umali filed a petition challenging the JBC's denial of counting his vote during deliberations to elect new Associate Justices. He argued that more than one representative from the Senate and House should be allowed to vote. The Court dismissed the petition, finding that the 6-month rotational practice of the JBC having only one representative vote on behalf of Congress is constitutional based on previous case Chavez v. JBC. The Court applied the doctrine of stare decisis and found the Constitution's provision on the JBC representation to be clear without need for interpretation.
Rep. Umali filed a petition challenging the JBC's denial of counting his vote during deliberations to elect new Associate Justices. He argued that more than one representative from the Senate and House should be allowed to vote. The Court dismissed the petition, finding that the 6-month rotational practice of the JBC having only one representative vote on behalf of Congress is constitutional based on previous case Chavez v. JBC. The Court applied the doctrine of stare decisis and found the Constitution's provision on the JBC representation to be clear without need for interpretation.
July 25, 2017 | J. Peralta | The Judicial and Bar Council 1. On December 2 and 9, 2016, there was a Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) En Banc deliberation to determine who will be the new Associate Chief Justices as Supreme Court Associate Justices Arturo D. Brion and Jose P. Perez were retiring. There PETITIONER: Rep. Reynaldo V. Umali, Chairman of the House of was a non-counting of the petitioner’s votes for this selection of Representatives Committee on Justice the Supreme Court Justices, which caused Rep. Umali to file a RESPONDENTS: The Judicial Bar and Council, chaired by Hon. Maria Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65 of the Lourdes P.A. Sereno Rules of Court. 2. In the petition, Rep. Umali prays that: SUMMARY: Rep. Umali filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus a. The JBC’s denial of petitioner Umali’s vote as ex officio subsequent to his vote not being counted during the Judicial and Bar Council member during the En Banc sessions on December 2 and En Banc deliberation for the election of the new Associate Chief Justices. He 9, 2016, be reversed and set aside; argued that more than one (1) representative from each house; in the Senate b. The JBC be directed to count the votes of petitioner Umali and in the House of Representatives; during deliberations such as the one as ex officio member during the En Banc sessions on stated. The Court further says that the JBC cannot be faulted for simply December 2 and 9, 2016; complying with the jurisprudence and the Constitution, applying Chavez v. c. The current six-month rotational representation of JBC as Stare Decisis in this present case. The Court explained in Chavez v. Congress by the Senate and the House of JBC that the ruling in Article VIII, Section 8(1) of the 1987 Constiutiton was Representatives in the JBC be declared unconstitutional; applied word for word and is not open to interpretation. Thus, the Petition for and Certiorari and Mandamus is dismissed for lack of merit. d. The JBC be directed to revert back to its prior representational arrangement where two representatives ISSUE: W/N the 6-month rotational practice of the JBC is constitutional -- YES from Congress are recognized and allowed to vote, or the status quo ante, prior to the Chavez ruling, and in RULING: It is constitutional. WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari and accordance with such specific guidelines that the Supreme Mandamus is dismissed for lack of merit. Court will promulgate to ensure full and proper representation and voting by both members from the DOCTRINE: The Doctrine of Stare Decisis et non quieta movere (to stand by Senate and the House of Representatives, and thereafter and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled) was followed. Once a to recognize, accept and count the votes cast by the question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled petitioner Umali in all proceedings of the JBC. and closed to further argument. The similar case with similar facts was Chavez 3. The following were the following grounds for the petition for v. JBC—which also talked about the constitutionality of JBC’s 6-month Certiorari and Mandamus: rotational representation rule. The Supreme Court ruled that in the Chavez v. I. THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS PROPER TO JBC case and in this case, Section 8(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution ENJOIN THE JBC TO CORRECT ITS was clear and unambiguous without need for interpretation, the intent was to UNWARRANTED DENIAL OF THE VOTES create equal representation in each branch of government, so to have more REGISTERED BY [HEREIN PETITIONER] DURING than one (1) representative would go against its own underlying principle THE EN BANC DELIBERATIONS ON DECEMBER 2 AND 9, 2016 BECAUSE THE DECISION IN THE CHAVEZ CASE IS DEFECTIVE/FLAWED. II. THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS PROPER TO representatives from both houses of Congress with one vote MANDATE THE JBC TO ACCEPT/COUNT SAID each in the JBC was deemed unconstitutional—there was a VOTES CAST BY [PETITIONER] BECAUSE THE verba legis interpretation of Articile VIII, Section 8(1) of the RECONSTITUTION OF THE JBC IS 1987 Consitutition. Following the rule of statutory construction, DEFECTIVE/FLAWED AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. it disregarded the bicameral nature of the Congress, III. THE PRESENT PRACTICE OF THE JBC IN emphasizing “a” as one (1) representative of the Congress: ALLOWING ONLY ONE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE SENATE OR THE HOUSE OF “A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the [REPRESENTATIVES] TO PARTICIPATE AND supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief VOTE ON A [6-MONTH] ROTATION BASIS IS Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and A IMPRACTICABLE, ABSURD AND representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a UNCONSTITUTIONAL, CREATES AN representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a [INSTITUTIONAL] IMBALANCE BETWEEN THE retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of TWO INDEPENDENT CHAMBERS OF CONGRESS, the private sector.” AND INSTITUTES AN INHERENT AND CONTINUING CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT IN THE Furthermore, the term "Congress" was taken to mean the PROCEEDINGS OF THE JBC THAT ADVERSELY entire legislative department as no liaison between the two AFFECTS APPOINTMENTS TO THE JUDICIAL houses exists in the workings of the JBC. DEPARTMENT, INCLUDING AND PARTICULARLY [THIS COURT]. The Congress themselves agreed on the 6-month rotational IV. THE 1987 CONSTITUTION CLEARLY REQUIRES representation ruling in the JBC wherein the House of PARTICIPATION AND VOTING BY Representatives would represent the department from January REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE SENATE AND to June and the Senate would represent the department from THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN JBC July to December. PROCEEDINGS AND ALL APPOINTMENTS TO THE 2. It was said that the JBC cannot be faulted for simply complying JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, INCLUDING AND with the jurisprudence and the Constitution, applying Chavez v. PARTICULARLY [THIS COURT]. JBC in this present case. A verba legis interpretation of Article VIII, Section 8(1) of the ISSUE/S: Constitution leads to an ambiguity and disregards the 1. Whether or not the 6-month rotational practice of the Judicial bicameral nature of Congress. Chavez presumes that one (1) and Bar Council (JBC)--wherein only 1 member of the member of Congress can vote on behalf of the entire Congress is allowed to represent their department—is Congress. It is a basic rule of statutory construction that constitutional? constitutional provisions must be harmonized so that all words 2. With this rule, does Congress still practice bicameralism? are operative. 3. Restated, the Court said Chavez cannot be questionaed as RATIO: constitutional, because it merely applies the clear mandate of 1. The Court applied Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council, 676 the law, which goes accordingly with Article VIII, Section 8(1) SCRA 579 (2012), as Stare Decisis in the present case. In of the 1987 Constitution. The Court further claims that there is Chavez v Judicial Bar Council, the practice of having two no room for interpretation, only application--Verba Legis non est recedendum.
DISPOSITION: ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Certiorari and
Mandamus is dismissed for lack of merit
** Section 8, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution: 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. **Article 8, Civil Code: Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines