REP. REYNALDO V. UMALI, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND EX OFFICIO MEMBER OF THE JBC, PETITIONER, VS. THE JUDICIAL AND BAR C…

Umali versus Judicial and Bar Council

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari and mandamus filed directly with the Supreme Court by Representative Reynaldo Umali, in his capacity as Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Justice and as an ex officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council. He assails the present-day practice of six-month rotational representation of Congress in the Judicial and Bar Council, whereby the House of Representatives sits from January to June and the Senate from July to December. The practice was adopted by the Council in light of the earlier ruling in Chavez versus Judicial and Bar Council, which struck down the presence of two congressional representatives with one vote each. The case matters because it tests whether that earlier ruling stands as binding precedent, and whether a single member of Congress may sue to protect the prerogatives of the institution to which he belongs.

Procedural History

This is an original action. The petitioner went straight to the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, imputing grave abuse of discretion to the Judicial and Bar Council. There were no proceedings in a trial court and no appeal through the Court of Appeals. As instructed by the Supreme Court, both Houses of Congress, through the Office of the Solicitor General acting as the People's Tribune, and the Judicial and Bar Council itself submitted their comments on the petition. The Court then resolved the case in the first instance.

Facts

In Chavez versus Judicial and Bar Council, decided in July 2012, the Supreme Court examined Section 8, paragraph 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution and declared unconstitutional the practice of having two representatives from Congress in the Judicial and Bar Council, each with one vote. The Court held that the singular word "a" before "representative of the Congress" is unequivocal, and that Congress may designate only one representative. A motion for reconsideration was denied in April 2013, with the Court adding that it could not supply an alleged omission by judicial construction.

In light of these rulings, both Houses of Congress agreed on a six-month rotational representation, with the House of Representatives representing Congress from January to June and the Senate from July to December. This became the current practice in the Council. It was by reason of this arrangement that the votes cast by the petitioner for the selection of nominees to the vacancies left by retiring Associate Justices Jose Perez and Arturo Brion were not counted during the Council's en banc deliberations held in December 2016. His votes were instead placed in an envelope and sealed, subject to any further disposition the Supreme Court might direct.

This prompted the petitioner to file the present petition, arguing that the Chavez ruling is flawed, that the reconstitution of the Council is unconstitutional, and that the rotational scheme is impracticable and creates an institutional imbalance between the two chambers. The Office of the Solicitor General asked the Court to revisit Chavez, while the Council sought dismissal on grounds of mootness, lack of legal standing, failure to exhaust remedies, and stare decisis. By the time of decision, the appointments of Associate Justices Martires and Tijam had been made, rendering the petitioner's specific prayers moot, yet the Court chose to proceed in order to settle the constitutional question once and for all.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner has legal standing to file the petition even without an enabling resolution from both Houses of Congress.
• Whether or not the petitioner's direct resort to the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari and mandamus is the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available to him.
• Whether or not the Judicial and Bar Council acted with grave abuse of discretion in adopting the six-month rotational scheme, resulting in the non-counting of the petitioner's votes.
• Whether or not the Judicial and Bar Council can be compelled through mandamus to count the petitioner's votes.
• Whether or not the ruling in Chavez versus Judicial and Bar Council applies as stare decisis, that is, as binding precedent, to the present case.

Applicable Provisions

Section 8, paragraph 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides:

SECTION 8. (1) 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.

This is the provision whose singular phrase "a representative of the Congress" the Court construes as permitting only one congressional representative in the Council.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court sustained the petitioner's legal standing. It held that each member of Congress has legal standing to sue even without an enabling resolution, so long as the questioned acts invade the powers, prerogatives, and privileges of Congress. The Court quoted its earlier doctrine that "a member of the House of Representatives has standing to maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in his office."

On the second issue, the Court upheld the propriety of the direct resort, treating the constitutional question as one of paramount public interest and capable of repetition yet evading review.

On the third and fourth issues, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The Council merely acted in accordance with the Constitution and with Chavez. Mandamus will not lie to control the performance of a discretionary act, and the votes could not be compelled to be counted.

On the fifth issue, the Court applied stare decisis et non quieta movere, meaning adherence to precedents and not disturbing settled things. It declined to revisit Chavez, holding that the singular "a" in the constitutional text is unequivocal and leaves no room for another construction, and that any change in the Council's composition must come by constitutional amendment, not by judicial fiat.

Doctrine

First, the singular phrase "a representative of the Congress" in Section 8, paragraph 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution means that Congress may designate only one representative to the Judicial and Bar Council. Second, each ex officio member represents one co-equal branch of government with an equal say, so allowing the legislature more than one representative would negate the equality of the three branches. Third, under the rule of casus omissus, a case omitted is held to be intentionally omitted, and the Court cannot supply an omission even if it resulted from inadvertence, for that would amount to judicial legislation. Fourth, stare decisis binds the Court to its settled interpretation absent a substantial reason or supervening event. Fifth, any member of Congress has legal standing to question acts that invade the prerogatives of Congress, even without an enabling resolution.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, and the Court upheld the six-month rotational representation of Congress in the Judicial and Bar Council, leaving the petitioner's sealed votes uncounted.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the singular "a representative of the Congress" admits only one congressional voice in the Judicial and Bar Council, and that the Court will not supply by construction what the Constitution omitted. Examiners use this case to test stare decisis, the casus omissus rule, and the legal standing of a legislator suing to protect institutional prerogatives.