[G.R. No. 93867 : December 18, 1990.

]
192 SCRA 358
SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., Petitioner, vs. HAYDEE B. YORAC, in her capacity as ACTING
CHAIRPERSON of the COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

Facts:
In December 1989, due to coup d' etat attempt President of the Philippines created a
fact finding-commission which would be chaired by Hilario Davide. Consequently, he has to
leave his chairmanship in the Commission on Elections. Haydee Yorac, an associate
commissioner in the COMELEC, was appointed by then President Corazon Aquino as an Acting
Commissioner of CCOMELEC. Sixto Brillantes, Jr., petitioner herein questioned such
appointment urging 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."
The petitioner further contends that the choice of the Acting Chairman of the
Commission on Elections is an internal matter that should be resolved by the members
themselves and that the intrusion of the President of the Philippines violates their
independence. He cites the practice in this Court, where the senior Associate Justice serves as
Acting Chief Justice in the absence of the Chief Justice. No designation from the President of the
Philippines is necessary.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the designation made by the President violates the constitutional
independence of the COMELEC.
HELD:
Yes, Yorac’s designation as acting chairman is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled
although essentially executive in nature, they are not under the control of the President of the
Philippines in the discharge of their respective functions. Each of these Commissions conducts
its own proceedings under the applicable laws and its own rules and in the exercise of its own
discretion. The designation made by the president has dubious justification as it was merely
grounded on the quote “administrative expediency” to present the functions of the COMELEC.
In the choice of the Acting Chairman, the members of the Commission on Elections would most
likely have been guided by the seniority rule as they themselves would have appreciated it. In
any event, that choice and the basis thereof were for them and not the President to make. To
emphasize the importance of the COMELEC’s constitutionally guaranteed independence, the
Court said that the choice of a temporary Chairman is an internal matter which comes under
their discretion of the Commission a body and that such discretion cannot be exercised for the
Commission by anybody else.
But even though the president’s appointment of Yorac as acting president is void, the
members of COMELEC can choose to reinstate Yorac as their acting Chairman. What is that the
members should elect their acting chairman pursuant to the principles that constitutional
commissions are guaranteed by the Constitution as an independent bodies.