Brillantes vs. Yorac G.R.

93867, 18 December 1990

FAC!" In December 1989, a coup attempt occurred
prompting the president to create a fact fnding
commission which would be chaired by Hilario Davide.
onse!uently he has to vacate his chairmanship of the
"#$%$. &orac was temporarily placed as his substitute.
'rillantes then !uestioned such appointment urging that
under (rt 1)* of the onstitution +in no case shall any
member of the "#$%$ be appointed or designated in a
temporary or acting capacity,. 'rillantes claimed that the
choice of the acting chairman should not be appointed for
such is an internal matter that should be resolved by the
members themselves and that the intrusion of the
president violates the independence of the "#$%$ as a
constitutional commission.
#!!$%" -hether or not the designation made by the
president violates the constitutional independence of the
"#$%$.
&%'D" .he /upreme ourt ruled that although all
constitutional commissions are essentially e0ecutive in
nature, they are not under the control of the president in
the discharge of their functions. .he designation made by
the president has dubious 1ustifcation as it was merely
grounded on the !uote +administrative e0pediency2 to
present the functions of the "#$%$. (side from such
1ustifcation, it found no basis on e0isting rules on statutes.
Yoracs designation is null and unconstitutional.
Ca(etano vs. )onso* +01 !CRA +10 !e,tember
1991
FAC!, 3espondent hristian #onsod was nominated by
4resident ora5on . (!uino to the position of chairman of
the "#$%$. 4etitioner opposed the nomination because
allegedly #onsod does not posses re!uired !ualifcation of
having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years. .he 1986 constitution provides in /ection 1, (rticle
I7*, .here shall be a ommission on $lections composed
of a hairman and si0 ommissioners who shall be
natural*born citi5ens of the 4hilippines and, at the time of
their appointment, at least thirty*fve years of age, holders
of a college degree, and must not have been candidates
for any elective position in the immediately preceding
elections. However, a ma1ority thereof, including the
hairman, shall be members of the 4hilippine 'ar who
have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years.
#!!$%" -hether the respondent does not posses the
re!uired !ualifcation of having engaged in the practice of
law for at least ten years.
&%'D" In the case of 4hilippine %awyers (ssociation vs.
(grava, stated, .he practice of law is not limited to the
conduct of cases or litigation in court8 it embraces the
preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to
actions and special proceeding, the management of such
actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before 1udges
and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all
advice to clients, and all action ta9en for them in matters
connected with the law incorporation services, assessment
and condemnation services, contemplating an appearance
before 1udicial body, the foreclosure of mortgage,
enforcement of a creditor:s claim in ban9ruptcy and
insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in
attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship
have been held to constitute law practice. 4ractice of law
means any activity, in or out court, which re!uires the
application of law, legal procedure, 9nowledge, training
and e0perience.
.he contention that (tty. #onsod does not posses the
re!uired !ualifcation of having engaged in the practice of
law for at least ten years is incorrect since Atty.
Monsods past work experience as a lawyer-
economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-
entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of
contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and
the poor erily more than satisfy the
constitutional re!uirement for the position of
"#M$%$" chairman, .he respondent has been engaged
in the practice of law for at least ten years does In the
view of the foregoing, the petition is DI/#I//$D.
Brillantes vs C-)%'%C, G.R. .o. 163193, /0ne 11,
+002
FAC!" "n December ;;, 1996, ongress enacted
3epublic (ct <o. 8=>? authori5ing the "#$%$ to use an
automated election system @($/A for the process of voting,
counting of votes and canvassingBconsolidating the results
of the national and local elections. It also mandated the
"#$%$ to ac!uire automated counting machines
@(#sA, computer e!uipment, devices and materials8 and
to adopt new electoral forms and printing materials. "n
"ctober ;9, ;));, the "#$%$ adopted, in its 3esolution
<o. );*)16), a moderni5ation program for the ;))=
elections consisting of three @>A phases, to wit, 314 5&A!%
# C omputeri5ed system of registration and voters
validation or the so*called DbiometricsD system of
registration8 3+4 5&A!% ## C omputeri5ed voting and
counting of votes8 and 334 5&A!% ### C $lectronic
transmission of results. It resolved to conduct biddings for
the three phases. 4roblems were encountered as to the
enforcement of phase I and II, leaving 4hase III imposable.
.he "#$%$ issues 3esolution <o. ?61; regarding the
said phase which leads to this petition. Eose oncepcion,
Er., Eose De Fenecia, $dgardo E. (ngara, Dr. Eaime G. Halve5*
.an, Iran9lin #. Drilon, Irisco /an Euan, <orberto #.
Hon5ales, Honesto #. Isleta and Eose (. 'ernas, fled with
this ourt their #otion to (dmit (ttached 4etition*in*
Intervention. In their petition*in*intervention, movants*
petitioners urge the ourt to declare as null and void the
assailed resolution and permanently en1oin the respondent
"#$%$ from implementing the same.
#!!$%" 1. -hether the petitioner and the petitioners*
intervenors have standing to sue8
;. (ssuming that they have standing, whether the issues
they raise are political in nature over which the ourt has
no 1urisdiction8
>. (ssuming the issues are not political, whether
3esolution <o. ?61; is void,
@aA for preempting the sole and e0clusive authority of
ongress under (rt. FII, /ec. = of the 1986 onstitution to
canvass the votes for the election of 4resident and Fice*
4resident8
@bA for violating (rt. FI, /ec. ;9 @par. 1A of the 1986
onstitution that Dno money shall be paid out of the
treasury e0cept in pursuance of an appropriation made by
law8D
@cA for disregarding 3ep. (cts <os. 816>, 8=>? and 61??
which authori5e only the citi5ens: arm to use an election
return for an DunoJcialD count8
@dA for violation of /ec. K;@iA of the "mnibus $lection ode,
re!uiring not less than thirty @>)A days notice of the use of
new technological and electronic devices8 and,
@eA for lac9 of constitutional or statutory basis8 and,
=. -hether the implementation of 3esolution <o. ?61;
would cause trending, confusion and chaos.
&%'D" 1. .he 4etitioners (nd 4etitioners*In*Intervention
4ossess .he %ocus /tandi .o #aintain .he 4resent (ction
;. .he Issue 3aised 'y .he 4etition Is Eusticiable
>. .he 3espondent "#$%$ ommitted Hrave (buse "f
Discretion (mounting .o %ac9 "r $0cess "f Eurisdiction In
Issuing 3esolution <o. ?61;
.he assailed 3esolution <o. ?61; dated (pril ;8, ;))=
issued by the ommission on $lections @"#$%$A $n
'anc is hereby declared <L%% (<D F"ID.
&'(%%A)*$+ . "#M$%$"
FAC!"omelec issued resolutions adopting an
(utomated $lections /ystem including the assailed
resolution, 3esolution ?61;, which provides for the
electronic transmission of advanced result of +unoJcial2
count. 4etitioners claimed that the resolution would allow
the preemption and usurpation of the e0clusive power of
ongress to canvass the votes for 4resident and Fice*
4resident and would li9ewise encroach upon the authority
of <(#I3$%, as the citi5ens: accredited arm, to conduct
the DunoJcialD !uic9 count as provided under pertinent
election laws. omelec contended that the resolution was
promulgated in the e0ercise of its e0ecutive and
administrative power Dto ensure free, orderly, honest,
peaceful and credible elections2 omelec added that the
issue is beyond 1udicial determination.
#!!$%, -hether or not omelecMs promulgation of
3esolution ?61; was 1ustifed.
R0lin6" .he omelec committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lac9 or e0cess of 1urisdiction in issuing
3esolution ?61;. .he issue s!uarely fell within the ambit
of the e0panded 1urisdiction of the court.
Article ,((, +ection - of the "onstitution, further
bolstered by 3( 8=>?, vest upon ongress the sole and
e0clusive authority to oJcially canvass the votes for the
elections of 4resident and Fice*4resident. /ection ;6 of 3ep.
(ct <o. 61??, as amended by 3ep. (ct <o. 816>, and
reiterated in /ection 18 of 3ep. (ct <o. 8=>?, solely authori5e
<(#I3$%, the duly*accredited citi5en:s arm to conduct the
+unoJcial counting of votes for the national or local elections.
.he !uic9 count under the guise of an +unoJcial2 tabulation
would not only be preemptive of the authority of congress and
<(#I3$%, but would also be lac9ing constitutional andBor
statutory basis. #oreover, the assailed "#$%$ resolution
li9ewise contravened the constitutional provision that Dno
money shall be paid out of the treasury e0cept in pursuance
of an appropriation made by law.D It being +unoJcial2, any
disbursement of public fund would be contrary to the
provisions of the onstitution and 3ep. (ct <o. 9;)?, which is
the ;))> Heneral (ppropriations (ct.
.he "mnibus $lection ode in providing the powers and
functions of the ommission sub1ects the same to certain
conditions with respect to the adoption of the latest
technological and electronic devices, to wit, @1Aconsideration
of the area and available funds @;A notifcation to all political
parties and candidates. .he aforementioned conditions were
found to have not been substantially met. Resol0tion 671+
7as n0ll an* voi*.