Quantcast

With Due Respect

Two JBC problems

By

The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), the agency mandated to recommend appointees to the judiciary, is facing two serious and urgent constitutional problems: First, is Congress entitled to two seats and two votes in the JBC? And second, in lieu of acting Chief Justice Antonio T. Carpio who inhibited, who should preside over the JBC proceedings to select nominees for the top judicial post?

Congressional entitlement. The JBC, to quote the Constitution verbatim, is “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.”

A physical count of the above constitutional enumeration shows a total of seven members, three-ex officio and four regular. However, actually sitting, deliberating and voting at present are eight members because two members of Congress—a senator and a congressman—instead of “a representative” participate in the JBC sessions.

The correct count is important because, under Rule 10, Sec. 1 of the JBC Rules, an applicant needs “to obtain the affirmative votes of at least a majority of all the Members of the Council” to be included in the short list to be submitted to the President. If the total JBC membership is reckoned at eight, then the majority vote is five; if it is seven, then it is only four.

Legal arithmetic. When Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee originally convened the JBC in 1987, Congress had only one representative; a senator or a congressman, who sat alternately, not simultaneously, in the council. Later on, a senator and a congressman sat simultaneously, but each of them cast only one-half vote. Thus, only seven votes were actually available even if eight members took part in the sessions.

However, during the term of Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., the Senate’s representative to the JBC—Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr.—convinced the council to allow the two representatives of Congress to cast one vote each, thereby bloating the JBC’s membership to eight, on the ground that the grant of only one representative to Congress was premised on the originally-proposed unicameral legislature (the National Assembly).

After the Constitutional Commission voted to junk the unicameral system and adopted the bicameral Congress composed of the Senate and House of Representatives, the Committee on Style of the Constitutional Commission overlooked changing the JBC composition to reflect the bicameral nature of the legislature, so Pimentel argued.

When I became Chief Justice and ex  officio JBC chair, I remember that Dean Amado L. Dimayuga, JBC member representing the academe, formally asked the JBC in 2006 to revert to the old practice of allowing Congress only one representative and one vote.

However, Senator Francis Pangilinan, the then Senate representative, persuaded the council to table the Dimayuga proposal on the ground that only the Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to rule on the issue. I did not render my opinion to the council because I would have had to inhibit (for prejudging the case), had the matter been brought to the Court. Sadly, however, nobody brought the issue to the high court.

Comes now former Solicitor General Francisco I. Chavez who filed a formal petition in the Supreme Court formally challenging the dual representation and dual votes of Congress. I agree with him that Congress should be allowed only one vote because the Constitution is clear: the legislature is entitled only to “a representative.”

Besides, with two representatives and two votes, Congress enjoys an unfair advantage over the two other branches of government, which have only one ex officio representative each, the secretary of justice for the executive branch and the chief justice for the judicial branch. Even the other sectors (bar, law professors, retired Supreme Court justices, and private sector) are each entitled to only one member.

Acting presiding officer. The second problem had been settled on July 3, 2012 when the Supreme Court ruled in “Dulay vs JBC” that “the most senior justice of this Court who is not an applicant for the position of Chief Justice should participate in the deliberations for the selection of nominees for the said vacant post and preside over its proceedings in the absence of the constitutionally named Ex  Officio Chairman…”

Despite this ruling, some JBC members claim that the matter is unsettled because the above-quoted portion of the ruling is only an “obiter.” I respectfully disagree. The issue of who is to preside the JBC was specifically raised in the Dulay case. The above quotation is thus the “ratio decidendi,” not merely an obiter. Further, the JBC, by express provision of the Constitution, is “under the supervision of the Supreme Court.” Hence, the Court’s duly authorized representative should head it.

Finally, under Republic Act 296, “In case of vacancy in the office of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or of his inability to perform the duties and powers of his office, they shall devolve upon the Associate Justice who is first in precedence, until such disability is removed, or another Chief Justice is appointed and duly qualified.” Thus, the most senior justice who is not applying for the vacancy should preside over the JBC proceedings to fill up the vacant chief justice post because such duty “devolves” upon him or her under RA 296.

* * *

Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com


Follow Us


Follow us on Facebook Follow on Twitter Follow on Twitter


More from this Column:

Recent Stories:

Complete stories on our Digital Edition newsstand for tablets, netbooks and mobile phones; 14-issue free trial. About to step out? Get breaking alerts on your mobile.phone. Text ON INQ BREAKING to 4467, for Globe, Smart and Sun subscribers in the Philippines.

Short URL: http://opinion.inquirer.net/?p=32609

Tags: artemio v. panganiban , chief justice , JBC , Judical and Bar Council , judiciary , opinion , Supreme Court , With Due Respect



Copyright © 2014, .
To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.
Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:
c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94
Advertisement
Advertisement

News

  • Save the queen? Aide takes fall for Enrile, Gigi Reyes
  • Napoles turnaround alarms whistle-blowers
  • Palace prepared to charge its allies
  • 12 senators on Napoles ‘pork’ list, says Lacson
  • PNP chief on plunder raps: ‘Amateurish’
  • Sports

  • Mixers trim Aces, force do-or-die tiff
  • Donaire junks Garcia as coach, taps father
  • ’Bye Ginebra: No heavy heart this time
  • UAAP board tackles new rules
  • Baguio climb to decide Le Tour de Filipinas
  • Lifestyle

  • Entering the monkhood a rite of passage
  • Haneda International Airport: A destination on its own
  • Wanted: Beauty queen with a heart that beats for the environment
  • Kim Atienza: At home with art and design
  • Life lessons I want to teach my son
  • Entertainment

  • Return of ‘Ibong Adarna’
  • Practical Phytos plans his future
  • In love … with acting
  • From prison to the peak of success
  • ‘Asedillo’ location thrives
  • Business

  • Philippine Airlines to stop shipment of shark fins
  • PH banks not ready for Asean integration
  • Stocks down on profit-taking
  • Banks allowed to use ‘cloud’
  • SMIC to issue P15-B bonds
  • Technology

  • ‘Unlimited’ Internet promos not really limitless; lawmakers call for probe
  • Viber releases new design for iPhone, comes to Blackberry 10 for the first time
  • Engineers create a world of difference
  • Bam Aquino becomes Master Splinter’s son after Wiki hack
  • Mark Caguioa lambasts Ginebra teammates on Twitter
  • Opinion

  • Editorial cartoon, April 24, 2014
  • Talking to Janet
  • Respite
  • Bucket list
  • JPII in 1981: walking a tightrope
  • Global Nation

  • China and rivals sign naval pact to ease maritime tensions
  • What Went Before: Manila bus hostage crisis
  • Obama arrives in Tokyo, first stop of 4-nation tour
  • Believe it or not: Filipinos love US more than Yanks
  • PH, HK end bitter row; sanctions lifted
  • Marketplace