Case Digest by MDGA

Cayetano vs. Monsod

201 SCRA 210

FACTS:
The case at bar delves into the practice of law as a legal qualification to an appointive
office. This stems from an opposition made by herein petitioner Renato Cayetano
against respondent Christian Monsod’s nomination to the position of COMELEC
Chairman, holding that Monsod is not qualified to the position.

Petitioner argues that as provided under Section 1 (1), Article IX-C of the 1987
Constitution, "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."
He maintains that Monsod is unqualified for he does not possess the required of the last
requirement stipulated under the law. He maintains that Monsod is unqualified as he
does not possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of
law for at least ten years.

However, on June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed respondent’s

nomination and on June 18, 1991, Monsod took his oath and assumed office as
COMELEC Chairman the next day. Cayetano filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition praying that the confirmation and consequent appointment of Monsod as
Chairman of the COMELEC be declared null and void on the ground abovementioned.

ISSUE:
(a) Whether or not the appointment of Monsod as COMELEC Chairman violates
Section 1 (1), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, thereby rendering his
appointment null and void.

RULING:
The appointment of Christian Monsod as COMELEC Chairman is not in violation of the
law and is therefore valid. To substantiate the validity of his appointment, the underlying
issue on what constitutes “practice of law” must be addressed. In the case of Philippine
Lawyers Association v. Agrava, (105 Phil. 173, 176-177), the Supreme Court said: "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 proceedings,
Case Digest by MDGA

the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges
and courts, and in addition, conveying….”

Given the same, respondent Monsod possessed all the qualifications set by law in order
to be qualified to the position of COMELEC Chairman. His appointment to office
appears to be valid and not violative of the law. Hence, the Commission on the basis of
evidence submitted, determined that he possessed the necessary qualifications as
required by law. Thus, judgment rendered by the Commission need not be challenged.
Cayetano’s petition is dismissed.