CJ nominee Justice Abad refuses to inhibit, calls a 7-member JBC 'absurd'

With the exception of one, all Supreme Court justices vying for the post of Chief Justice have inhibited from a case questioning the composition of the body that undertakes the selection process for the vacant post.   The lone magistrate-nominee who chose to participate in the case is Associate Justice Roberto Abad.   To avoid accusations of partiality or bias, judges usually inhibit or distance themselves from cases they were a protagonist in or have an interest.   In his dissenting opinion, however, Abad explained why—unlike the other five incumbent SC justices—he chose to be involved in the voting.   "Some of my colleagues who  have been nominated to the position  of Chief Justice like me have inhibited themselves from this  case at the outset," Abad said in a five-page dissent.   "I respect their judgments. I, on the other hand, chose not to inhibit myself from the case since I have found no compelling reason for doing so," he added.   In his dissent, Abad sided with respondents Sen. Francis Escudero and Rep. Niel Tupas Jr, explaining that framers of the Constitution - as shown in their initial draft - thought Congress as a unilateral entity called the National Assembly.   Subsequently, however, by a close vote of 23 versus 22, the Constitutional Commission decided to adopt a bicameral legislative body composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives.   In a 7-2 ruling, the high court en banc said that Section 8(1) of Artcile VIII of the Constitution should be interpreted in its ordinary meaning of delegating seven, and not eight, members of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).   The JBC is the constitutional body tasked to screen and draw up a shortlist of nominees for vacant posts in the judiciary and the offices of the Ombudsmand and Deputy Ombudsman.   The en banc thus ruled that Congress is entitled to only one representative and one vote to in the JBC. As a result, the SC said the JBC should trim down its membership from eight to just seven members.   Currently, the JBC is composed of eight members, including four ex-officio members representing the three branches of government, namely the chief justice (ex-officio chairman) representing the judiciary; the Justice Secretary for the exectuive , and the Justice committee chairmen of the Senate and the House of Representatives representing Congress.   The remaining four members come from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the academe, and the private sector, as well as a retired member of the Supreme Court.   Abad, however, insisted that particular section of the Constitution should not be taken literally and, instead, its intent or its "true spirit" should be the one considered to be of greater weight.   "Applying a verba legis or strictly literal interpretation of the constitution may render its provisions meaningless and lead to inconvenience, an absurd situation, or an injustice," Abad said.   Abad also opposed the idea of having a senator or a congressman sit alternately in the JBC since it would mean only half of Congress would be represented at a given time. The associate justice likewise did not like the idea of the two congressional representatives being entitled to half a vote each.   "[That is] absurd since that would diminish their standing and make them second class members of JBC, something that the Constitution clearly does not contemplate," Abad said.   Abad also allayed fears of the majority in the decision that allowing two representatives from Congress would "undermine... the balance of power" among the three branches of government, since the legislative body would have more representatives in the JBC than the executive and the judiciary.   "Actually, if the Court would go by numbers, it is the President who appoints six of the members of the JBC (the Chief Justice, the Secretary of Justice, and the four regular members), thus establishing an edge in favor of presidential appointees," Abad said. — ELR, GMA News