BC Postpones Voting For Final CJ Nominees

MANILA, Philippines --- The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) decided to postpone anew voting for the final three nominees to the position of Chief Justice as it awaits the Supreme Court’s (SC) final decision on the the issue of Congress’ representation in the council.

Yesterday, the SC decided to conduct oral arguments starting at 9 a.m. tomorrow (Thursday) on a motion to reconsider its ruling that Congress should have only one member in the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).

Subject of the oral argument is the motion filed by Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. and Sen. Francis Escudero – Congress’ members in the JBC – through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

With the oral argument, JBC Member, Atty. Jose Mejia, said the council will defer its “final deliberations” originally set tomorrow. “We have to give way to the oral arguments of the Supreme Court and wait whether (or not) the High Tribunal will affirm its earlier ruling that only one member from Congress should participate in the JBC deliberations,” Mejia said.

The JBC had finished its four-day interview of the 20 applicants from whom it will choose its official nominees for submission to the President for appointment.

Tupas attended the first three days of interview. But on the fourth and last day, neither Tupas nor Escudero was in attendance, a move viewed as a protest against the SC decision.

Ruling that Congress should have only one member in the JBC, the SC directed the JBC to reconstitute itself so that only one member of Congress, either from the Senate or the House of Representatives, will sit as a representative in the council.

The SC said the composition of the JBC of seven members is provided for under Section 8(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

According to the SC, the use of the singular letter “a” preceding the phrase “representative of Congress” in Section 8(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution is unequivocal and leaves no room for any other construction.

It said the word “Congress” is used in its generic sense. Considering the language of the subject constitutional provision is clear and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to extrinsic aids such as the records of the Constitutional Commission, it also said.

It stressed that the framers of the Constitution intended to create a JBC as an innovative solution in response to the public clamor in favor of eliminating politics in the appointment of members of the Judiciary.

It pointed out that to ensure judicial independence, the framers adopted a holistic approach and hoped that, in creating a JBC, the private sector and the three branches of government would have an active role and equal voice in the selection of the members of the Judiciary.

“To allow the Legislature to have more quantitative influence in the JBC by having more than one voice speak, whether with one full vote or one-half a vote each, would, as one former congressman and member of the JBC put it, ‘negate the principle of equality among the three branches of government which is enshrined in the Constitution,’” the SC emphasized.

At the same time, the SC said the seven memberships in the JBC “serves a practical purpose, that is, to provide a solution should there be a stalemate in voting.”

Concurring with Justice Mendoza were Justices Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose Portugal Perez, Bienvenido L. Reyes, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.

Justice Roberto A. Abad wrote a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo.

Acting Chief Justice Antonio T. Carpio and Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, and Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno took no part as they are among those considered for nomination by the JBC to the Chief Justice post. Justice Arturo D. Brion, also a nominee, did not take part as he was on leave.

Apart from the issue on the composition of the JBC, the council may need more time to study and evaluate the candidates, said Mejia.