FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, Petitioner,
vs.
JUDICIALAND BAR COUNCIL, SEN. FRANCIS JOSEPH G. ESCUDERO and REP. NIEL C. TUPAS, JR., Respondents
TOPIC: DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT
FACTS:
1. This action stemmed from the unexpected departure of former Chief Justice Renato C. Corona on May 29, 2012, and the nomination of herein petitioner, Francisco Chavez, as his potential successor.
2. Herein petitioner then raised the following issues:
1] whether the first paragraph of Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution allows more than one (1) member of Congress to sit in the JBC; and
2] if the practice of having two (2) representatives from each House of Congress with one (1) vote each is sanctioned by the Constitution.
4. Respondents were seated in the JBC Escudero, representing the Senate, and Tupaz, the HOR. They countered:
1] that allowing only one representative from Congress in the JBC would lead to absurdity considering its bicameral nature;
2] that the failure of the Framers to make the proper adjustment when there was a shift from unilateralism to bicameralism was a plain oversight;
3] that two representatives from Congress would not subvert the intention of the Framers to insulate the JBC from political partisanship; and
4] that the rationale of the Court in declaring a seven-member composition would provide a solution should there be a stalemate is not exactly correct.
2. If so, whether the previous official actions of the current composition of JBC are valid.
RULING:
1. YES. The current numerical composition of the JBC is unconstitutional.
Section 8. (1) of the 1987 Constitution provides:
A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court 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.
From the moment of the creation of the JBC, Congress designated one (1) representative to sit in the JBC to act as one of the ex-officio members. Pursuant to the constitutional provision that Congress is entitled to one (1) representative, each House sent a representative to the JBC, not together, but alternately or by rotation.
In 1994, the seven-member composition of the JBC was substantially altered. An eighth member was added to the JBC as the two (2) representatives from Congress began sitting simultaneously in the JBC, with each having one-half (1/2) of a vote.
In 2001, the JBC En Banc decided to allow the representatives from the Senate and the House of Representatives one full vote each. It has been the situation since then.
However, that was not the intention of the framers when unicameralism shifted to bicameralism. Several provisions of the 1987 Constitution were adjusted to bicameralism. An example is Section 4, Article VII, which provides that a tie in the presidential election shall be broken "by a majority of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately. Same with Article VII, Sections 9 and 18.
Thus, the singular letter "a" to describe "representative of Congress," the Filipino people through the Framers intended that Congress be entitled to only one (1) seat in the JBC. Had the intention been otherwise, the Constitution could have so provided, as can be read in its other provisions.
2. YES, the official actions of the current composition of JBC are valid prior to the declaration of its current numerical composition remain valid.
As a general rule, an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not been passed at all. This rule, however, is not absolute. Under the doctrine of operative facts, actions previous to the declaration of unconstitutionality are legally recognized. They are not nullified. This is essential in the interest of fair play.
As enunciated in the case of Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation:
The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies as a matter of equity and fair play. It nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot always be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law. Thus, it was applied to a criminal case when a declaration of unconstitutionality would put the accused in double jeopardy or would put in limbo the acts done by a municipality in reliance upon a law creating it.
Under the circumstances, the Court finds the exception applicable in this case and holds that notwithstanding its finding of unconstitutionality in the current composition of the JBC, all its prior official actions are nonetheless valid.
Comments
Post a Comment