Chiz, Tupas defend JBC composition, ask SC to junk Chavez petition

MANILA, Philippines - Sen. Francis Escudero and Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., the two representatives of Congress in the Judicial and Bar Council, yesterday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to dismiss a petition questioning their participation in JBC proceedings.

In a 46-page comment filed through the Office of the Solicitor General, Escudero and Tupas defended before the JBC’s practice of giving them separate votes despite a provision in Article VIII Section 8 (1) of the Constitution that there should only be “a representative of the Congress.”

They argued that the separate representation of the Senate and House of Representatives in the council does not violate the Constitution.

They said the phrase being cited by petitioner Frank Chavez in questioning their participation in the JBC “was a case of plain oversight” on the part of the framers of the Constitution, who failed to realize that the legislative branch of government was bicameral.

“When section 8(1) article viii of the Constitution speaks of ‘a representative from Congress,’ it should mean one representative each from both houses which comprise the entire Congress,” they stressed.

As proof, petitioners quoted one of the members of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the Charter in 1986, Ateneo law dean emeritus Fr. Joaquin Bernas: “The provision was approved when the constitutional commission was still thinking in terms of a unicameral national assembly. Thus, only one representative for the legislative body was provided for. After the commission decided to go bicameral, no adjustment was made.”

They explained that this admission of Fr. Bernas justified the move of the JBC in 1994 to increase its members to eight, with two representatives coming from each house of Congress with one-half vote each.

“This practice continued until 2000 when, in its meeting on Jan. 12, 2000, the representatives from two houses were given one vote each,” they recalled.

They argued that there is nothing wrong with having eight members, as it does not subvert the intention of the framers of the 1987 Constitution to insulate the JBC from political partisanship.

They further argued that petitioner Chavez has lost his standing in the case after he did not accept his nomination for chief justice.

They said Chavez has no personal or substantial interest in the case, which is required for a judicial inquiry on constitutional questions, since he is not a candidate anymore for the top SC post.

Lastly, the respondent cited Chavez’s failure to raise the issue at an earlier possible time – another requirement under the law – after he admitted having knowledge of the JBC practice since 1994.

The JBC through its most senior member, retired SC justice Regino Hermosisima, filed a separate comment earlier this week deferring to the high court the resolution on the issue of its eight-member composition.

Hermosisima, Escudero, Tupas, lawyer Milagros Fernan-Cayosa from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, lawyer Jose Mejia from academe, and retired Court of Appeals justice Aurora Lagman from the private sector would sit in deliberations of the JBC for the new chief justice.

The High Court had appointed Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta as its representative in the JBC following the nomination as chief justice of acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio and his inhibition as council chair.

Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, ex-officio vice chair of the JBC, also inhibited from the proceedings after accepting her nomination.   

Meanwhile, a former lawyer of ousted chief justice Renato Corona filed an opposition before the JBC against the nomination of De Lima.

Lawyer Rico Paolo Quicho said De Lima had lost her neutrality as member of the SC, which was required by the rules of the JBC. – With Christina Mendez