Professional Documents
Culture Documents
210 Supreme Court Reports Annotated: Cayetano vs. Monsod
210 Supreme Court Reports Annotated: Cayetano vs. Monsod
*
G.R. No. 100113. September 3, 1991.
* EN BANC.
211
PARAS, J.:
We are faced here with a controversy of far-reaching
proportions. While ostensibly only legal issues are involved,
the Court’s
212
213
214
215
216
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
227
228
“We must interpret not by the letter that killeth, but by the spirit
that giveth life/'
CONCURRENCE
NERVASA, J.:
DISSENTING OPINION
PADILLA, J.:
The records of this case will show that when the Court first
deliberated on the Petition at bar, I voted not only to
require the respondents to comment on the Petition, but I
was the sole vote for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order to enjoin respondent Monsod from
assuming the position of COMELEC Chairman, while the
Court deliberated on his constitutional qualification for the
office. My purpose in voting for a TRO was to prevent the
inconvenience and even embarrassment to all parties
concerned were the Court to finally decide for respondent
Monsod’s disqualification. Moreover. a reading of the
Petition then in relation to established jurisprudence
already showed prima facie that respondent Monsod did
not possess the needed qualification, that is, he had not
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten (10) years
prior to his appointment as COMELEC Chairman.
After considering carefully respondent Monsod’s
comment, I am even more convinced that the constitutional
requirement of “practice of law for at least ten (10) years”
has not been met.
The procedural barriers interposed by respondents
deserve scant consideration because, ultimately, the core
issue to be resolved in this petition is the proper construal
of the constitutional provision requiring a majority of the
membership of COMELEC, including the Chairman thereof
to “have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
(10) years.” (Art. IX(C), Section 1(1), 1987 Constitution).
Questions involving the construction of constitutional
provisions are best left to judicial resolution. As declared in
Angara v, Electoral Commission, (63 Phil. 139) “upon the
judicial department is thrown the solemn and inescapable
obligation of interpreting the Constitution and defining
constitutional boundaries.”
231
________________
232
________________
233
________________
4 14 SCRA 109.
234
DISSENTING OPINION
238
239
240
241
242
——o0o——
244
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.