Both the House of Representatives and the Senate passed a bill which: (a) increases the number of Supreme Court Justices from 15 to 20; (b) assigns the five most senior Justices, including the Chief Justice, exclusively to a Special Division that will tackle only constitutional cases; and (c) removes from the Supreme Court En Banc the power to hear and decide cases involving alleged violations of the Constitution. The Chief Presidential Legal Counsel advises the President to veto the bill, arguing that the law is unconstitutional because its contents should be the subject of constitutional amendment rather than of legislation. Is the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel’s argument constitutionally sound? Explain briefly.
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Yes, the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel's argument is constitutionally sound.
Under Article VIII, Section 4(1) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is composed of fifteen Members. Under Section 4(2), all cases involving the constitutionality of a law or treaty must be heard and decided by the Supreme Court En Banc. Congress cannot alter the Court's fixed composition or divest the En Banc of its jurisdiction through ordinary legislation.
Here, the bill increases the number of Justices to twenty, creates a Special Division, and removes constitutional cases from the Supreme Court En Banc. Because these changes conflict with explicit constitutional provisions, they require a constitutional amendment rather than mere legislation.
Therefore, the Counsel correctly advised the President to veto the bill.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Is the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel's argument that the Supreme Court bill is unconstitutional sound?
The argument is sound because Congress cannot alter the constitutionally fixed composition or En Banc jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by ordinary legislation.
Under Article VIII, Section 4(1) of the 1987 Constitution, how many Members compose the Supreme Court?
Article VIII, Section 4(1) explicitly fixes the membership of the Supreme Court at fifteen Justices.
Which body of the Supreme Court is constitutionally mandated to hear and decide cases involving the constitutionality of a law?
Article VIII, Section 4(2) mandates that constitutional cases must be heard and decided by the Supreme Court En Banc.
Why is a bill transferring constitutional cases from the En Banc to a Special Division invalid?
Divesting the En Banc of its constitutional jurisdiction violates express provisions of the Constitution.
What legal mechanism is required to alter the fixed composition of fifteen Justices of the Supreme Court?
Changing the constitutionally mandated composition of the Supreme Court requires a formal constitutional amendment.
Learn more about these topics
1. Supreme Court Composition
Under Article VIII, Section 4(1) of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court is composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. This constitutional membership of fifteen Justices is fixed and mandatory. Congress possesses no legislative authority to increase or decrease the number of Supreme Court Justices through ordinary legislation. Any statutory attempt to alter the Court's membership from fifteen to twenty Justices directly violates explicit constitutional text. Altering the structural composition of the Supreme Court can only be accomplished through a formal constitutional amendment passed pursuant to Article XVII.
2. En Banc Jurisdiction
Article VIII, Section 4(2) of the 1987 Constitution explicitly mandates that all cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law shall be heard and decided by the Supreme Court En Banc. The Constitution reserves constitutional adjudication exclusively to the full Court sitting En Banc. Congress cannot divest the En Banc of this constitutional power, nor can it delegate constitutional cases exclusively to a division or special panel of Justices. A bill stripping the En Banc of constitutional jurisdiction violates express constitutional provisions.
3. Constitutional Amendment Required
When a proposed bill conflicts with explicit structural mandates established in the Constitution, ordinary legislation is legally ineffective. Congress cannot alter constitutional provisions governing judicial organization, membership, and jurisdiction under the guise of statutory enactment. The Chief Presidential Legal Counsel correctly advised the President to veto the bill because modifying the Supreme Court's composition and divesting the En Banc of constitutional jurisdiction requires a constitutional amendment. Enacting statutory changes that override express constitutional text violates the fundamental principle of constitutional supremacy.