Brillantes vs. Yorac G.R.

93867, 18 December 1990

FACTS: In December 1989, a coup attempt occurred
prompting the president to create a fact finding
commission which would be chaired by Hilario Davide.
Consequently he has to vacate his chairmanship of the
COMELEC. Yorac was temporarily placed as his substitute.
Brillantes then questioned such appointment urging that
under Art 10-C of the Constitution in no case shall any
member of the COMELEC be appointed or designated in a
temporary or acting capacity:. Brillantes 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 COMELEC as a
constitutional commission.
ISSUE: Whether or not the designation made by the
president violates the constitutional independence of the
COMELEC.
HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that although all
constitutional commissions are essentially executive in
nature, they are not under the control of the president in
the discharge of their functions. 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. Aside from such
justification, it found no basis on existing rules on statutes.
Yoracs designation is null and unconstitutional.
Cayetano vs. Monsod 201 SCRA 210 September
1991
FACTS: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by
President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of chairman of
the COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the nomination because
allegedly Monsod does not posses required qualification of
having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years. The 1987 constitution provides in Section 1, Article
IX-C: There shall be a Commission on Elections composed
of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be
natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of
their appointment, at least thirty-five 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 majority thereof, including the
Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who
have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent does not posses the
required qualification of having engaged in the practice of
law for at least ten years.
HELD: In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs.
Agrava, stated: The practice of law is not limited to the
conduct of cases or litigation in court; 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 judges
and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all
advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters
connected with the law incorporation services, assessment
and condemnation services, contemplating an appearance
before judicial body, the foreclosure of mortgage,
enforcement of a creditors claim in bankruptcy and
insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in
attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship
have been held to constitute law practice. Practice of law
means any activity, in or out court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training
and experience.
The contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses the
required qualification of having engaged in the practice of
law for at least ten years is incorrect since Atty.
Monsods past work experience as a lawyereconomist,
a
lawyer-manager,
a
lawyerentrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of
contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and
the poor verily more than satisfy the
constitutional requirement for the position of
COMELEC chairman, The respondent has been engaged
in the practice of law for at least ten years does In the
view of the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED.
Brillantes vs COMELEC, G.R. No. 163193, June 15,
2004

FACTS: On December 22, 1997, Congress enacted

Republic Act No. 8436 authorizing the COMELEC to use an
automated election system (AES) for the process of voting,
counting of votes and canvassing/consolidating the results
of the national and local elections. It also mandated the
COMELEC to acquire automated counting machines
(ACMs), computer equipment, devices and materials; and
to adopt new electoral forms and printing materials. On
October 29, 2002, the COMELEC adopted, in its Resolution
No. 02-0170, a modernization program for the 2004
elections consisting of three (3) phases, to wit: (1) PHASE
I Computerized system of registration and voters
validation or the so-called "biometrics" system of
registration; (2) PHASE II Computerized voting and
counting of votes; and (3) PHASE III Electronic
transmission of results. It resolved to conduct biddings for
the three phases. Problems were encountered as to the
enforcement of phase I and II, leaving Phase III imposable.
The COMELEC issues Resolution No. 6712 regarding the
said phase which leads to this petition. Jose Concepcion,
Jr., Jose De Venecia, Edgardo J. Angara, Dr. Jaime Z. GalvezTan, Franklin M. Drilon, Frisco San Juan, Norberto M.
Gonzales, Honesto M. Isleta and Jose A. Bernas, filed with
this Court their Motion to Admit Attached Petition-inIntervention. In their petition-in-intervention, movantspetitioners urge the Court to declare as null and void the
assailed resolution and permanently enjoin the respondent
COMELEC from implementing the same.
ISSUE: 1. Whether the petitioner and the petitionersintervenors have standing to sue;
2. Assuming that they have standing, whether the issues
they raise are political in nature over which the Court has
no jurisdiction;
3. Assuming the issues are not political, whether
Resolution No. 6712 is void:
(a) for preempting the sole and exclusive authority of
Congress under Art. VII, Sec. 4 of the 1987 Constitution to
canvass the votes for the election of President and VicePresident;
(b) for violating Art. VI, Sec. 29 (par. 1) of the 1987
Constitution that "no money shall be paid out of the
treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by
law;"
(c) for disregarding Rep. Acts Nos. 8173, 8436 and 7166
which authorize only the citizens arm to use an election
return for an "unofficial" count;
(d) for violation of Sec. 52(i) of the Omnibus Election Code,
requiring not less than thirty (30) days notice of the use of
new technological and electronic devices; and,
(e) for lack of constitutional or statutory basis; and,
4. Whether the implementation of Resolution No. 6712
would cause trending, confusion and chaos.
HELD: 1. The Petitioners And Petitioners-In-Intervention
Possess The Locus Standi To Maintain The Present Action
2. The Issue Raised By The Petition Is Justiciable
3. The Respondent COMELEC Committed Grave Abuse Of
Discretion Amounting To Lack Or Excess Of Jurisdiction In
Issuing Resolution No. 6712
The assailed Resolution No. 6712 dated April 28, 2004
issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En
Banc is hereby declared NULL AND VOID.
BRILLANTES v. COMELEC
FACTS:Comelec
issued
resolutions
adopting
an
Automated Elections System including the assailed
resolution, Resolution 6712, which provides for the
electronic transmission of advanced result of unofficial
count. Petitioners claimed that the resolution would allow
the preemption and usurpation of the exclusive power of
Congress to canvass the votes for President and VicePresident and would likewise encroach upon the authority
of NAMFREL, as the citizens accredited arm, to conduct
the "unofficial" quick count as provided under pertinent
election laws. Comelec contended that the resolution was
promulgated in the exercise of its executive and
administrative power "to ensure free, orderly, honest,
peaceful and credible elections Comelec added that the
issue is beyond judicial determination.
ISSUE: Whether or not Comelec's
Resolution 6712 was justified.

promulgation

of

Ruling: The Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing

Resolution 6712. The issue squarely fell within the ambit

of the expanded jurisdiction of the court.
Article VII, Section 4 of the Constitution, further
bolstered by RA 8436, vest upon Congress the sole and
exclusive authority to officially canvass the votes for the
elections of President and Vice-President. Section 27 of Rep.
Act No. 7166, as amended by Rep. Act No. 8173, and
reiterated in Section 18 of Rep. Act No. 8436, solely authorize
NAMFREL, the duly-accredited citizens arm to conduct the
unofficial counting of votes for the national or local elections.
The quick count under the guise of an unofficial tabulation
would not only be preemptive of the authority of congress and
NAMFREL, but would also be lacking constitutional and/or
statutory basis. Moreover, the assailed COMELEC resolution
likewise contravened the constitutional provision that "no
money shall be paid out of the treasury except in pursuance
of an appropriation made by law." It being unofficial, any
disbursement of public fund would be contrary to the
provisions of the Constitution and Rep. Act No. 9206, which is
the 2003 General Appropriations Act.
The Omnibus Election Code in providing the powers and
functions of the Commission subjects the same to certain
conditions with respect to the adoption of the latest
technological and electronic devices, to wit: (1)consideration
of the area and available funds (2) notification to all political
parties and candidates. The aforementioned conditions were
found to have not been substantially met. Resolution 6712
was null and void.