Case Summary (G.R. No. 93867)
Petitioner
Brillantes contests the President’s power to designate an Acting Chairman of an independent constitutional body, alleging the designation contravenes the Constitution and internal seniority norms of the Commission.
Respondent
Haydee B. Yorac was designated by the President as Acting Chairman in place of Chairman Hilario B. Davide, who had been named chairman of a fact-finding commission.
Key Dates
Decision date: December 18, 1990. Because the decision date is 1990 or later, the Court applied the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Applicable Law
1987 Constitution provisions invoked: Article IX-C, Section 1(2) — “(I)n no case shall any Member (of the Commission on Elections) be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity;” Article IX-A, Section 1 (describing constitutional commissions as “independent”); Article IX-A, Section 7 (providing for this Court’s certiorari review over commission actions). Also referenced: Judiciary Act of 1948 (Section 12) and BP Blg. 129 (Section 5) as examples of statutory succession rules for other courts.
Issue Presented
Whether the President had constitutional authority to designate an Associate Commissioner as Acting Chairman of the COMELEC despite Article IX-C, Section 1(2)’s prohibition on temporary or acting appointments of Commission members and despite the Commission’s constitutional independence.
Background Facts
Chairman Davide was assigned elsewhere (to head a fact-finding commission investigating the December 1989 coup attempt). The President designated Associate Commissioner Yorac as Acting Chairman. The petitioner concedes Yorac’s qualifications but alleges procedural and constitutional infirmity in the designation and raises a seniority dispute (another Associate Commissioner, Alfredo E. Abueg, Jr., being senior).
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argues: (1) Article IX-C, Section 1(2) bars any temporary or acting designation of COMELEC members; (2) the President’s designation intrudes upon the Commission’s independence and internal prerogatives (including seniority-based selection), analogous to internal succession practices in the judiciary where seniority governs acting capacity without presidential intervention; and (3) Nacionalista Party v. Bautista is controlling, where a prior designation by the President of an acting COMELEC member was revoked as unconstitutional.
Government’s Argument (Solicitor General)
The Solicitor General contended that, unlike the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals whose interim succession is governed by statute (Judiciary Act Section 12; BP 129 Section 5), no such statutory mechanism exists for the COMELEC; therefore the President’s designation was justified on grounds of administrative expediency to prevent disruption of the Commission’s functions.
Court’s Analysis — Independence of Constitutional Commissions
The Court emphasized that under the 1987 Constitution the constitutional commissions are expressly “independent.” Although these commissions are executive in nature, they are not subject to presidential control in the discharge of their functions. Each commission acts under its own rules and discretion, and their actions are reviewable only by certiorari from this Court per Article IX-A, Section 7. The selection of a temporary chairman in the chairman’s absence falls squarely within the Commission’s internal discretion and cannot constitutionally be exercised by the President, even with the Commission’s consent.
Court’s Analysis — Article IX-C, Section 1(2) and Precedent
The Court relied on Article IX-C, Section 1(2)’s explicit prohibition on temporary or acting appointments of COMELEC members. It invoked the Bautista precedent, where a presidential designation of an acting COMELEC member was struck down, to reinforce that the President’s intervention in selecting temporary officers of the Commission is unconstitutional.
Court’s Analysis — Administrative Expediency and Statutory Gaps
The Court rejected administrative expediency as a sufficient constitutional justification. The absence of a statutory rule providing a presidential role in such interim appointments does not authorize the President to fill the gap. The Court held that responding to any administrative difficulty should have been handled internally by the Commission rather than by presidential designation.
Court’s Analysis — Nature and Consequences of Acting Designation
The Court observed that a presidential designation as Acting Chairman is inherently temporary and revocable at will, rendering the designee’s tenure and powers insecure; the President could withdraw the designation at any time without cause. Although the respondent’s permanent position as Associate Commissioner would remain secure a
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 93867)
Citation and Procedural Posture
- Full citation: 270 Phil. 466 EN BANC [ G.R. No. 93867. December 18, 1990 ].
- Nature of proceeding: Petition challenging the designation by the President of the Philippines of Associate Commissioner Haydee B. Yorac as Acting Chairman of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
- Posture: En banc decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines rendered by Justice Cruz.
- Parties: Petitioner — Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr.; Respondent — Haydee B. Yorac, in her capacity as Acting Chairperson of the Commission on Elections.
- Final action: The Court declared the President’s designation of respondent as Acting Chairman UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ordered the respondent to desist from serving as such; the decision is without prejudice to the incumbent Associate Commissioners restoring her to that position or choosing another member in her place pending appointment of a permanent Chairman by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments.
Factual Background
- Chairman Hilario B. Davide of the Commission on Elections had been named chairman of a fact-finding commission to investigate the December 1989 coup d’état attempt.
- The President of the Philippines designated Associate Commissioner Haydee B. Yorac as Acting Chairman of the COMELEC in place of Chairman Davide.
- The petitioner concedes that respondent’s qualifications are not in issue — the qualifications of the respondent are expressly conceded and not contested in this case.
- The petitioner alleges that respondent is not the senior member of the COMELEC, being outranked by Associate Commissioner Alfredo E. Abueg, Jr.
- No statutory provision for temporary designation of an Acting Chairman of the COMELEC is identified in the source material; the Solicitor General notes analogous provisions for the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals but acknowledges none for COMELEC.
Core Legal Question(s)
- What is the power of the President of the Philippines to designate an Associate Commissioner of the Commission on Elections as Acting Chairman, in view of:
- the status of the Commission on Elections as an independent constitutional body, and
- the specific provision of Article IX-C, Section 1(2) of the Constitution that “(I)n no case shall any Member (of the Commission on Elections) be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.”?
- Subsidiary practical/legal question: Whether the President may act to fill any temporary vacancy or hiatus in COMELEC leadership for reasons of “administrative expediency” in the absence of a statutory rule.
Relevant Constitutional and Statutory Provisions and Precedent (as presented)
- Article IX-C, Section 1(2) of the Constitution: “(I)n no case shall any Member (of the Commission on Elections) be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.”
- Article IX-A, Section 1 of the Constitution: Describes all the Constitutional Commissions as “independent.”
- Article IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution: Provides that decisions, orders and rulings of the Constitutional Commissions are subject only to review on certiorari by the Supreme Court (as stated in the source material).
- Reference precedent: Nacionalista Party v. Bautista, 85 Phil. 101 — where President Elpidio Quirino designated the Solicitor General as acting member of the COMELEC and the Court revoked the designation as contrary to the Constitution (invoked by petitioner).
- Statutory analogies mentioned by Solicitor General: Section 12 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 (temporary succession for the Supreme Court) and Section 5 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (BP 129) for the Court of Appeals — both acknowledged as not having counterparts for the COMELEC in the present situation.
Arguments of the Petitioner
- The President’s designation of Haydee B. Yorac as Acting Chairman is challenged as unconstitutional because:
- Article IX-C, Section 1(2) of the Constitution expressly forbids appointment or designation of any COMELEC member in a temporary or acting capacity.
- The COMELEC is an independent constitutional body; the choice of