G.R.
No. 202242 April 16, 2013
FRANCISCO
I. CHAVEZ, Petitioner,
vs.
JUDICIALAND BAR COUNCIL, SEN. FRANCIS JOSEPH G. ESCUDERO and REP. NIEL C. TUPAS, JR.,Respondents.
vs.
JUDICIALAND BAR COUNCIL, SEN. FRANCIS JOSEPH G. ESCUDERO and REP. NIEL C. TUPAS, JR.,Respondents.
MENDOZA, J.:
NATURE:
The case is a motion for
reconsideration filed by the JBC in a prior decision rendered July 17, 2012
that JBC’s action of allowing more than one member of the congress to represent
the JBC to be unconstitutional
FACTS:
In 1994, instead of
having only seven members, an eighth member was added to the JBC as two
representatives from Congress began sitting in the JBC – one from the House of
Representatives and one from the Senate, with each having one-half (1/2) of a
vote. Then, the JBC En Banc, in separate meetings held in 2000 and 2001,
decided to allow the representatives from the Senate and the House of
Representatives one full vote each. Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero and
Congressman Niel C. Tupas, Jr. (respondents) simultaneously sit in the JBC as
representatives of the legislature. It is this practice that petitioner has
questioned in this petition. it should mean one representative each from both
Houses which comprise the entire Congress. Respondent contends that the
phrase “ a representative of congress” refers that both houses of congress
should have one representative each, and that these two houses are permanent
and mandatory components of “congress” as part of the bicameral system of
legislature. Both houses have their respective powers in performance of their
duties. Art VIII Sec 8 of the constitution provides for the component of the
JBC to be 7 members only with only one representative from congress.
ISSUE:
Whether the JBC’s
practice of having members from the Senate and the House of Representatives making
8 instead of 7 sitting members to be unconstitutional as provided in Art VIII
Sec 8 of the constitution.
HELD:
Yes. The practice is unconstitutional; the court
held that the phrase “a representative of congress” should be construed as to
having only one representative that would come from either house, not both.
That the framers of the constitution only intended for one seat of the JBC to
be allotted for the legislative.
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. The Constitution mandates that the JBC be composed of
seven (7) members only.
FALLO: The motion was denied.
salamat Attorney jeng
ReplyDelete