CAYETANO vs. MONSOD ( 201 SCRA 210, 1991 ) COMELEC, A.
Qualification of Members Facts: Monsod was nominated by resident A!uino to t"e #osition of C"airman of t"e COMELEC on A#ril $%, &''&. Cayetano o##osed t"e nomination because alle(edly Monsod does not #ossess t"e re!uired !ualification of "a)in( been en(a(ed in t"e #ractice of law for at least ten years. C"allen(in( t"e )alidity of t"e confirmation by t"e Commission on A##ointments of Monsod*s nomination, #etitioner filed a #etition for Certiorari and ro"ibition #rayin( t"at said confirmation and t"e conse!uent a##ointment of Monsod as C"airman of t"e Commission on Elections be declared null and )oid because Monsod did not meet t"e re!uirement of "a)in( #racticed law for t"e last ten years. +ssue: ,"et"er or not Monsod satisfies t"e re!uirement of t"e #osition of C"airman of t"e COMELEC. -eld: ."e #ractice of law is not limited to t"e conduct of cases in court. A #erson is also considered to be in t"e #ractice of law w"en "e: . . . for )aluable consideration en(a(es in t"e business of ad)isin( #erson, firms, associations or cor#orations as to t"eir ri("ts under t"e law, or a##ears in a re#resentati)e ca#acity as an ad)ocate in #roceedin(s #endin( or #ros#ecti)e, before any court, commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission constituted by law or aut"ori/ed to settle contro)ersies. Ot"erwise stated, one w"o, in a re#resentati)e ca#acity, en(a(es in t"e business of ad)isin( clients as to t"eir ri("ts under t"e law, or w"ile so en(a(ed #erforms any act or acts eit"er in court or outside of court for t"at #ur#ose, is en(a(ed in t"e #ractice of law. Atty. C"ristian Monsod is a member of t"e "ili##ine 0ar, "a)in( #assed t"e bar e1aminations of &'23 wit" a (rade of 42.%%5. -e "as been a dues #ayin( member of t"e +nte(rated 0ar of t"e "ili##ines since its ince#tion in &'6$768. -e "as also been #ayin( "is #rofessional license fees as lawyer for more t"an ten years. Atty. Monsod s #ast wor9 e1#eriences as a lawyer7economist, a lawyer7mana(er, a lawyer7entre#reneur of industry, a lawyer7ne(otiator of contracts, and a lawyer7le(islator of bot" t"e ric" and t"e #oor : )erily more t"an satisfy t"e constitutional re!uirement : t"at "e "as been en(a(ed in t"e #ractice of law for at least ten years.
BRILLANTES vs. YORAC ( 192 SCRA 358, 1990 ) COMELEC, A. Qualification of Members Facts: ."e resident desi(nated Associate Commissioner ;orac as Actin( C"airman of t"e Commission on Elections, in #lace of C"airman -ilario 0. <a)ide, w"o "ad been named c"airman of t"e fact7findin( commission to in)esti(ate t"e <ecember &'4' cou# d* etat attem#t. 0rillantes c"allen(ed t"e act of t"e resident as contrary to t"e constitutional #ro)ision t"at ensures t"e inde#endence t"e Commission on Elections as an inde#endent constitutional body and t"e s#ecific #ro)ision t"at =+>n no case s"all any Member =of t"e Commission on Elections> be a##ointed or desi(nated in a tem#orary or actin( ca#acity. 0rillantes contends t"at t"e c"oice of t"e Actin( C"airman of t"e Commission on Elections is an internal matter t"at s"ould be resol)ed by t"e members t"emsel)es and t"at t"e intrusion of t"e resident of t"e "ili##ines )iolates t"eir inde#endence. ."e ?olicitor @eneral t"e desi(nation made by t"e resident of t"e "ili##ines s"ould t"erefore be sustained for reasons of administrati)e e1#ediency, to #re)ent disru#tion of t"e functions of t"e COMELEC. +ssue: ,"et"er or not t"e resident may desi(nate t"e Actin( C"airman of t"e COMELEC in t"e absence of t"e re(ular C"airman. -eld: AO. ."e Constitution e1#ressly describes all t"e Constitutional Commissions as inde#endent. ."ey are not under t"e control of t"e resident of t"e "ili##ines in t"e disc"ar(e of t"eir res#ecti)e functions. Eac" of t"ese Commissions conducts its own #roceedin(s under t"e a##licable laws and its own rules and in t"e e1ercise of its own discretion. +ts decisions, orders and rulin(s are subBect only to re)iew on certiorari by t"is Court as #ro)ided by t"e Constitution. ."e c"oice of a tem#orary c"airman in t"e absence of t"e re(ular c"airman comes under t"at discretion. ."at discretion cannot be e1ercised for it, e)en wit" its consent, by t"e resident of t"e "ili##ines. ."e lac9 of a statutory rule co)erin( t"e situation at bar is no Bustification for t"e resident of t"e "ili##ines to fill t"e )oid by e1tendin( t"e tem#orary desi(nation in fa)or of t"e res#ondent. ."e situation could "a)e been "andled by t"e members of t"e Commission on Elections t"emsel)es wit"out t"e #artici#ation of t"e resident, "owe)er well7meanin(.
+n t"e c"oice of t"e Actin( C"airman, t"e members of t"e Commission on Elections would most li9ely "a)e been (uided by t"e seniority rule as t"ey t"emsel)es would "a)e a##reciated it. +n any e)ent, t"at c"oice and t"e basis t"ereof were for t"em and not t"e resident to ma9e.
SANIDAD vs. COMELEC (181 SCRA 529) Cam#ai(n, A. Lawful C ro"ibited Election ro#a(anda Facts: On $8 October &'4', DA 2622 =Act #ro)idin( for an or(anic act for t"e Cordillera Autonomous De(ion> was enacted into law. ."e #lebiscite was sc"eduled 83 Eanuary &''3. ."e Comelec, by )irtue of t"e #ower )ested by t"e &'46 Constitution, t"e Omnibus Election Code =0 44&>, DA 2622 and ot"er #ertinent election laws, #romul(ated Desolution $&26, to (o)ern t"e conduct of t"e #lebiscite on t"e said Or(anic Act for t"e Cordillera Autonomous De(ion. ablito F. ?anidad, a news#a#er columnist of O)er)iew for t"e 0a(uio Midland Courier assailed t"e constitutionality of ?ection &' = ro"ibition on columnists, commentators or announcers> of t"e said resolution, w"ic" #ro)ides <urin( t"e #lebiscite cam#ai(n #eriod, on t"e day before and on #lebiscite day, no mass media columnist, commentator, announcer or #ersonality s"all use "is column or radio or tele)ision time to cam#ai(n for or a(ainst t"e #lebiscite issues. +ssue: ,"et"er columnists are #ro"ibited from e1#ressin( t"eir o#inions, or s"ould be under Comelec re(ulation, durin( #lebiscite #eriods. -eld: Article +G7C of t"e &'46 Constitution t"at w"at was (ranted to t"e Comelec was t"e #ower to su#er)ise and re(ulate t"e use and enBoyment of franc"ises, #ermits or ot"er (rants issued for t"e o#eration of trans#ortation or ot"er #ublic utilities, media of communication or information to t"e end t"at e!ual o##ortunity, time and s#ace, and t"e ri("t to re#ly, includin( reasonable, e!ual rates t"erefor, for #ublic information cam#ai(ns and forums amon( candidates are ensured. Aeit"er Article +G7C of t"e Constitution nor ?ection &&7b, $nd #ara(ra#" of DA 22H2 =a columnist, commentator, announcer or #ersonality, w"o is a candidate for any electi)e office is re!uired to ta9e a lea)e of absence from "is wor9 durin( t"e cam#ai(n #eriod> can be construed to mean t"at t"e Comelec "as also been (ranted t"e ri("t to su#er)ise and re(ulate t"e e1ercise by media #ractitioners t"emsel)es of t"eir ri("t to e1#ression durin( #lebiscite #eriods. Media #ractitioners e1ercisin( t"eir freedom of e1#ression durin( #lebiscite #eriods are neit"er t"e franc"ise "olders nor t"e candidates. +n fact, t"ere are no candidates in)ol)ed in a #lebiscite. ."erefore, ?ection &' of Comelec Desolution $&26 "as no statutory basis. JAVIER vs. COMELEC ( 144 SCRA 194 ) Election Contests, @. +nter#retation of Certain ,ords and "rases
Facts: ."e #etitioner and t"e #ri)ate res#ondent were candidates in Anti!ue for t"e 0atasan( ambansa in t"e May &'4H elections. ."e former a##eared to enBoy more #o#ular su##ort but t"e latter "ad t"e ad)anta(e of bein( t"e nominee of t"e I0L wit" all its #er!uisites of #ower. On t"e e)e of t"e elections, t"e bitter contest between t"e two came to a "ead w"en se)eral followers of t"e #etitioner were ambus"ed and 9illed, alle(edly by t"e latter*s men. ?e)en sus#ects, includin( res#ondent acificador, are now facin( trial for t"ese murders. Concei)ably, it intimidated )oters a(ainst su##ortin( t"e O##osition candidate or into su##ortin( t"e candidate of t"e rulin( #arty. +t was in t"is atmos#"ere t"at t"e )otin( was "eld, and t"e #ost7election de)elo#ments were to run true to form. Owin( to w"at "e claimed were attem#ts to railroad t"e #ri)ate res#ondent*s #roclamation, t"e #etitioner went to t"e Comelec to !uestion t"e can)ass of t"e election returns. -is com#laints were dismissed and t"e #ri)ate res#ondent was #roclaimed winner by t"e ?econd <i)ision of t"e said body. ."e #etitioner t"ereu#on came to t"is Court, ar(uin( t"at t"e #roclamation was )oid because made only by a di)ision and not by t"e Comelec en banc as re!uired by t"e Constitution. +ssue: ,"et"er or not t"e ?econd <i)ision of t"e Comelec aut"ori/ed to #romul(ate its decision of Euly $8, &'4H, #roclaimin( t"e #ri)ate res#ondent t"e winner in t"e election. -eld: Article G++7C, ?ection 8, of t"e &'68 Constitution #ro)ides t"at: ."e COMELEC may sit en banc or in t"ree di)isions. All election cases may be "eard and decided by di)isions e1ce#t contests in)ol)in( members of t"e 0atasan( ambansa, w"ic" s"all be "eard and decided en banc.
