Case Digest (G.R. No. 101083)
Facts:
In Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. v. Haydee B. Yorac, decided by the Supreme Court En Banc on December 18, 1990, petitioner Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. challenged the President’s designation of Associate Commissioner Haydee B. Yorac as Acting Chairperson of the Commission on Elections (“COMELEC”). The designation replaced Chairman Hilario B. Davide, who had been assigned to head a fact‐finding commission investigating the December 1989 coup attempt. Petitioner conceded respondent’s qualifications but questioned the President’s authority over COMELEC, an independent constitutional body, under Article IX‐C, Section 1(2) of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that “in no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.” Relying on Nacionalista Party v. Bautista (85 Phil. 101), petitioner argued the designation usurped the Commission’s internal discretion and violated the prohibition against acting appointments. The Solicitor General defended the PresidenCase Digest (G.R. No. 101083)
Facts:
- Designation by the President
- Chairman Hilario B. Davide of the Commission on Elections was appointed to head a fact-finding commission investigating the December 1989 coup attempt, leaving a vacancy in COMELEC leadership.
- President Corazon C. Aquino designated Associate Commissioner Haydee B. Yorac as Acting Chairman of COMELEC.
- Petition and parties’ contentions
- Petitioner Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. challenged the designation, invoking Article IX-C, Section 1(2) of the Constitution—which prohibits any COMELEC member from serving in a temporary or acting capacity—and citing Nacionalista Party v. Bautista (85 Phil. 101). He also argued that Yorac was not the senior associate commissioner.
- The Solicitor General defended the designation on grounds of administrative expediency and the absence of a statutory provision for COMELEC internal succession, contrasting it with provisions for the Supreme Court (Judiciary Act of 1948, Sec. 12) and the Court of Appeals (B.P. 129, Sec. 5).
- Constitutional and jurisprudential background
- Article IX-A, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution classifies COMELEC as an “independent” constitutional commission.
- Article IX-C, Section 1(2) expressly states that “(I)n no case shall any Member [of the Commission on Elections] be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.”
Issues:
- Does the President have constitutional authority to designate an Acting Chairman of COMELEC despite Article IX-C, Section 1(2)’s prohibition on temporary or acting appointments?
- Can administrative expediency and the lack of a statutory succession scheme justify presidential intervention in COMELEC’s internal choice of an Acting Chairman?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)