CHAVEZ vs.

JBC
G.R. No. 202242 April 16, 2013

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. The
motion was denied.