UMALI v.

JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC) FACTS:

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