The constitutional issue on composition and voting rights of the Judical Bar and Council (JBC)’s two congressional members, one from the House of Representatives and another from the Senate has been decided by the high court, but its release to the public will be delayed.
Sources, however, said that the Supreme Court (SC), following the constitutional rule of seven members of the JBC, clipped the voting rights of the two members of Congress.
The SC came to a decision in connection with the suit of former Solicitor General Frank Chavez questioning the composition of the collegial body.
Speaking to reporters, acting Public Information Office chief, lawyer Ma.

Victoria Gleoresty Guerra,however said she was not authorized as yet to disclose the result of the voting that was conducted by the magistrates during their regular full court session yesterday and that the ruling would be promulgated Thursday.
“The information given to me is that the decision will be released this Thursday but a vote has already been reached...It’s just a matter of preparing the dissenting opinion and the decision,” Guerra told reporters while noting that the vote may still change until the decision is officially promulgated.
It was not explained by the Guerra why there could still be a change in the vote of justices, since they had already voted on the issue.
The development arose amid unverified reports from sources that the SC has agreed with Chavez’s position  that the representative of Congress can cast only one vote as representative of the legislative department.
If the sources are accurate, the ruling would clip the voting powers Sen. Francis Escudero and Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas at the JBC.
Sources  claim the majority ruling was penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza and  ruled that it is now up to Tupas and Escudero if they shall enjoy a half vote for each or one of them shall vote in the JBC.
SC’s Guerra for her part said magistrates of the SC who opted to accept their nomination to the position of  chief justice did not take part in the proceedings leaving just eight justices to deliberate and vote on the issue.
The six Justices who accepted the nomination for chief justice were Antonio Carpio, Presbitero Velasco, Teresita Leornardo-De Castro, Arturo Brion, Roberto Abad and Maria Lourdes Aranal-Sereno.
It will be recalled that Chavez asked the SC to restrain the JBC from further functioning.
Chavez  says the composition of the JBC should not be 8 but only 7 as he urged the High Court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop the council from taking further actions.
The council is a duly authorized board or collegial body with a power to nominate members of the High Court and judges of the lower courts, including the post of Ombudsman and Deputy Ombudsmen.
Chavez cited a phrase in Sec. 8, Art. VIII of the Constitution which states “a representative of the Congress.”
The JBC always had seven members in the council, with just one representative from the legislature.
However, it was during the time of Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., on the persuasive powers of then Sen. Aquilino “Nene” Pimentel Jr. for the Congress to be represented by two members that Davide allowed the inclusion of yet another congressional representatives, in violation of the Charter provision on the composition of the JBC members with only one representative from the legislature.
Earlier, Malacañang in a virtual order to the JBC  asked for, and quickly got the council to allow a substitute for Justice Secretary Leila de Lima to sit in the collegial body’s proceedings to screen applicants and vote in the matter of filling up the the chief justice post vacated by Renato Corona following the latter’s removal from office.
De Lima inhibited herself from the JBC’s selection process, as she was nominated for the highest judicial post, but apparently, President Aquino wanted to ensure that despite her inhibition, the vote will not be lost.
A member of the JBC, lawyer Jose Mejia said they agreed in principle to allow a “substitue” for De Lima who has chosen to inhibit herself from the proceedings after she expressed interest in joining the race to become chief justice herself.
Mejia said the JBC received a letter from Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. invoking Palace’s right to be represented in the JBC proceedings.
“The executive does not want to be deprived of that representation and we agreed to grant the request, although we have yet to discuss the issue of who can substitute for the secretary of Justice as a member. We haven’t decided on that yet,” he explained.
Under the Constitution,  the Secretary of Justice is an ex-officio member of the JBC. Mejia insists a person other than the Secretary of Justice may sit as a substitute and said they  were initially looking at “an undersecretary who is a lawyer” or “someone also from the department of Justice” as minimum qualification for Secretary De Lima’s substitute.
Yet the JBC insists that there is no violation of the rules binding the JBC nor even the Constitution, despite the fact that the Charter clearly states that the members of the JBC are the Chief Justice of the Philippines—not an acting Chief Justice, nor his substitute; the Justice Secretary, not her substitute  nor an undersecretary of Justice can take the Justice chief’s place as a voting member of the JBC.
But the Palace letter claimed that the executive loses its vote in the JBC, on account of the inhibition of a member.