BRILLANTES vs. YORAC Case Digest BRILLANTES vs.

YORAC 192 SCRA 358, 1990

Facts: The President designated Associate Commissioner Yorac as Acting Chairman of the Commission on Elections, in place of Chairman Hilario B. Davide, who had been named chairman of the fact-finding commission to investigate the December 1989 coup d’ etat attempt. Brillantes challenged the act of the President as contrary to the constitutional provision that ensures the independence the Commission on Elections as an independent constitutional body and the specific provision that “(I)n no case shall any Member (of the Commission on Elections) be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.” Brillantes 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. The Solicitor General the designation made by the President of the Philippines should therefore be sustained for reasons of “administrative expediency,” to prevent disruption of the functions of the COMELEC.

Issue: Whether or not the President may designate the Acting Chairman of the COMELEC in the absence of the regular Chairman.

Held: NO. The Constitution expressly describes all the Constitutional Commissions as “independent.” 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. Its decisions, orders and rulings are subject only to review on certiorari by this Court as provided by the Constitution. The choice of a temporary chairman in the absence of the regular chairman comes under that discretion. That discretion cannot be exercised for it, even with its consent, by the President of the Philippines.

The lack of a statutory rule covering the situation at bar is no justification for the President of the Philippines to fill the void by extending the temporary designation in favor of the respondent. The situation could have been handled by the members of the Commission on Elections themselves without the participation of the President, however well-meaning. 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.

NACIONALISTA PARTY vs. BAUTISTA Case Digest NACIONALISTA PARTY vs. BAUTISTA 85 SCRA 101

but for the purpose of bringing an action in the courts of justice such organization and registration are not sufficient. the petition will be dismissed. unless he is legally appointed as regular member of the said Commission on Elections. 180). but this technical defect may be cured by allowing the substitution of the real parties in interest for the petitioner. or if the petitioner does not amend its petition or does not show that it is a juridical entity. Held: It may be organized and registered as a political party in or with the Commission on Elections for the purposes of the Revised Election Code (Republic Act No. brought this action praying that a writ of prohibition issue commanding the respondent Solicitor General to desist forever from acting as acting member of the Commission on Elections under the designation rendered to him by President Quirino. Issue: Whether or not petitioner.Facts: Petitioner Nacionalista Party alleges that it is organized and registered under the laws of the Philippines. . After the amendment or showing referred to shall have been made. The petitioner is granted five days within which to amend its petition so as to substitute the real parties in interest for it (the petitioner) or to show that it is a juridical person entitled to institute these proceedings. the writ prayed for will issue. Otherwise. a political party is entitled to bring an action in the courts of justice. It has to be incorporated under Act 1459 for only natural or juridical persons may be parties in a civil action.