FACTS:

This case revolves around the issue of whether more than one member of Congress is allowed to sit in the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). The Court recognizes the urgency of resolving this matter due to the constitutional deadline for selecting nominees for the vacant Chief Justice seat. The petitioner questions the practice of having two representatives from each house of Congress with one vote each in the JBC. The historical background of the appointment of members of the Judiciary is discussed, and the creation of the JBC as a separate and independent body to recommend nominees to the President is explained. Initially, Congress designated one representative to sit in the JBC, but in 1994, the composition was altered to include two representatives from Congress. At present, Senator Escudero and Congressman Tupas simultaneously sit in the JBC. The petitioner argues that the Constitution only allows for one representative from Congress in the JBC.

The case involves a petition challenging the composition of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), with the petitioner arguing that members of Congress who sit in the JBC do not have the right to perform the duties and functions of a member of the said body. The respondents argue that the term "Congress" should refer to both the Senate and the House of Representatives and that the literal adherence to the disputed provision would result in absurdity and incongruity with the bicameral nature of Congress. The issues include whether the current composition of the JBC is consistent with the 1987 Constitution.

This case involves a petition for declaratory relief and prohibition filed by the petitioner, who is a taxpayer and nominee for the position of Chief Justice. The petitioner seeks to declare a provision of the Constitution as unconstitutional and to enjoin Congress from sending two representatives with one full vote each to the JBC. The petitioner argues that the composition and actions of the JBC violate the Constitution and that his rights as a taxpayer are being infringed upon. The respondent argues that the petitioner lost his standing to sue because he is not an official nominee for the position of Chief Justice, but the Court recognizes the petitioner's right to sue.

This case involves the legality of the nominations process for positions in the Judiciary. The controversy centers on whether the process followed by the JBC is constitutional. Petitioner argues that the JBC violated the Constitution by excluding representatives from the legislative branch in the nominations for the position of Chief Justice. Respondents argue that the process followed by the JBC is valid. The Court is called upon to resolve the issues concerning the constitutionality of the nominations process and the composition of the JBC.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petitioner has legal standing to bring the present action.

2. Whether only official nominees for the position of Chief Justice can question the composition of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) for being unconstitutional.

3. Whether the question regarding the composition of the JBC is of transcendental importance.

4. Whether the word "Congress" in Article VIII, Section 8(1) of the Constitution refers to the Senate and the House of Representatives.

5. Whether the composition of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) should be limited to seven members only.

6. Whether the term "Congress" in Section 8(1), Article VIII of the Constitution includes both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

7. Whether the representative of Congress in the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) should have equal voting power as the other representatives.

8. Whether the current numerical composition of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) is unconstitutional.

9. Whether the actions of the JBC prior to the declaration of unconstitutionality should be considered valid.

10. Is there a valid reason for the inhibition of Justices Sereno and **?

11. Should Justice Del Castillo be compelled to join the dissenting opinion of Justice Abad?

RULING:

1. The petitioner has legal standing to bring the present action because he has a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as a taxpayer. He invokes his right to demand that taxes paid by citizens are spent for lawful purposes.

2. Official nominees for the position of Chief Justice are not the only ones who can question the composition of the JBC for being unconstitutional. The JBC also screens and nominates other members of the Judiciary and citizens have a right to seek judicial intervention for rectification of legal blunders.

3. The question regarding the composition of the JBC is of transcendental importance because it involves the character of the funds involved in the case, the presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by the JBC, and the lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest in the questions being raised.

4. The word "Congress" in Article VIII, Section 8(1) of the Constitution is used in its generic sense and does not refer to any specific chamber of Congress.

5. The JBC should be composed of seven members only, as intended by the framers of the Constitution.

6. The term "Congress" in Section 8(1), Article VIII of the Constitution should be considered as one body, referring to the entire legislative department.

7. The representative of Congress in the JBC should have equal voting power as the other representatives.

8. The Supreme Court ruled that the current numerical composition of the JBC is unconstitutional. The Constitution mandates that the JBC be composed of seven members only, and allowing the Legislature to have more influence in the JBC through the inclusion of more representatives goes against the principle of equality among the three branches of government. The Court held that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any circumvention of its mandate should not be countenanced.

9. The Supreme Court applied the doctrine of operative fact, which recognizes that actions done prior to a declaration of unconstitutionality have legal consequences and should not be nullified. Therefore, despite finding the JBC's current composition unconstitutional, the Court held that all its prior official actions are valid.

10. Justices Sereno and ** are both inhibited from participating in the case due to their application as nominees for the Chief Justice position in the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).

11. Justice Del Castillo cannot be compelled to join the dissenting opinion of Justice Abad as his decision to not participate in the case is valid.

PRINCIPLES:

• Legal standing can be established by showing a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.

• Citizens have the right to seek judicial intervention for rectification of legal blunders.

• The transcendental importance of a case can be determined by the character of the funds or other assets involved, the presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition, and the lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest in the questions being raised.

• Verba legis non est recedendum - From the words of a statute, there should be no departure.

• Noscitur a sociis - Where a particular word or phrase is ambiguous, its correct construction may be made clear by considering the company of words in which it is founded or associated.

• Statutes must be construed to harmonize and give effect to all its provisions whenever possible.

• The spirit and reason of a statute may be considered if a literal meaning would lead to absurdity, contradiction, injustice, or defeat the clear purpose of the lawmakers.

• The Constitution is not primarily a lawyer's document but essentially that of the people, in whose consciousness it should ever be present as an important condition for the rule of law to prevail.

• The seven-member composition of the JBC serves a practical purpose and a single vote may not be divided between two representatives of Congress or among any of the sitting members of the JBC.

• The JBC was designed to have seven voting members, with the three ex-officio members having equal say in the choice of judicial nominees.

• The term "Congress" in the context of JBC representation should be considered as one body, in keeping with the co-equal nature of the three branches of government.

• The definition of "Congress" as a bicameral body refers to its primary function in government - to legislate, and the roles of each house in non-legislative powers are laid down in the Constitution.

• No liaison between the two houses of Congress exists in the workings of the JBC, thus the term "Congress" must be understood to mean the entire legislative department.

• The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and must be followed. Any act of the government or public official contrary to the Constitution is considered illegal, null and void.

• The doctrine of operative fact applies as an exception to the general rule that an unconstitutional act has no effect. It recognizes that actions taken under an unconstitutional law may have consequences that should not be ignored, particularly when it would impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law.

• The power and duty of the Court is to interpret and apply the law, not to correct or expand the meaning of the Constitution. The remedy for expanding or changing the meaning of a constitutional provision lies in its amendment.

• A justice has a duty to inhibit from a case when there is a potential conflict of interest, such as being an applicant for a position related to the case.

• The decision of a justice to not participate in a case is valid and cannot be compelled, even if it results in a dissenting opinion.