Brillantes vs.

Yorac

Nacionalista Party v. De Vera

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.

Facts:

ISSUE:
Whether or not the designation made by the president violates the constitutional independence of the
COMELEC.

(1 )WON the Rules of Court applies to the Comelec No. The Rules of Court, promulgated by the
Supreme Court, applies only to judicial bodies under its general power of supervision. The Comelec is
an independent, administrative body over which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction only to the extent
that it may review the Comelecs decisions, ordinances or rulings on certiorari. Assuming the Comelec
adopted the ROC suppletorily, it does not have the power to adopt rules on the disqualification of its
members because the Constitution provides that its members may only be removed through
impeachment. The older De Vera should be able to inhibit himself solely on the basis of ethics.

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.
Nacionalista Party v. Angelo Bautista, 85 PHIL 103
Facts:
President Quirino designated the SolicitorGeneral as Acting member of the Comelec in November,
1949. The Nacionalista Party filed this prohibition on the following grounds: (1) the SG did not resign
from the office of the SolicitorGeneral; (2) there is no vacancy in the Comelec because the retirement of
the Comelec member causing the vacancy, was accepted by the President in bad faith; and (3) the
functions of a SolicitorGeneral are incompatible with those of a Comelec member.
ISSUE: W/N THE DESIGNATION WAS VALID?
HELD: NO, it was not. By the nature of the Comelec's functions, the Comelec must be independent.
Members are not allowed to perform other functions, powers and duties to preserve its impartiality. The
SolicitorGeneral's duties also require an undivided time and attention for efficiency. Furthermore, when
there is a vacancy, appointment is preferred to designation.
ISSUE: W/N PROHIBITION WOULD LIE?
HELD: NO. The case is by nature a quo warranto proceeding because it questions the legality of the
respondent's designation or his right to office. The proceeding is instituted by the other party claiming
the position occupied and/or the SolicitorGeneral. Prohibition however, has a different purpose, which
is to prevent the usurpation of jurisdiction by a subordinate court. Although there is no other party who
claims a right over the position occupied nor will the SG file a case against himself, the court must grant
the
remedy
of
a
quo
warranto
proceeding
because
the
SG's
continued
occupancy as member of the Comelec is illegal. Adapted.

The petitioners, members of the Nacionalista Party, sought to disqualify Comelec chairman Vicente de
Vera from taking part in the Comelec deliberations concerning the Nov. 1949 elections on two grounds:
1 De Veras son, Teodoro de Vera, was a Liberal Party senatorial candidate during said elections.
Following Rules of Court, the older de Vera should bedisqualified.
2. De Veras appointment as Chairman is void ab initio, because he had already served as member of
Comelec prior to his term as Chairman. Under the Constitution, he was not entitled to any
reappointment.
Issues / Held / Ratio:

(2)WON a person who has not served for the full term of nine years in the Comelec may be
reappointed: Yes. The phrase may not be reappointed is a continuation of the phrase who shall serve
office for a term of nine years. This does not warrant the interpretation that members may not be
reappointed when they have not served the full term. In such cases, they may be reappointed provided
that (1) the appointment does not preclude the appointment of a new member and (2) a term does not
exceed nine years in all.** Petition dismissed.
Note: De Vera inhibited himself from the deliberations.
Republic v. Imperial
Facts:
In 1941, Lopez Vito was first appointed to the Comelec. In 1945, the first set of Comelec commissioners
were appointed. These were:
1. Lopez Vito, chairman, who shall serve for nine years until 1954
2. Francisco Enage, member, who shall serve for six years until 1951
3. Vicente Vera, member, who shall serve for three years until 1948
In 1947, Lopez Vito died. He was succeeded by Member Vera as Comelec chairman. In 1949,
Respondent Perez was appointed to fill in Veras position, which was vacated by his promotion to
Chairmanship upon Vitos death. Member Enage retired. In 1951, Vera died. He was succeeded by
respondent Imperial as Comelec Chairman. By this time, only two of the three Comelec seats at that
time were occupied.
Issue: WON Imperial and Perez are legally continuing office as Chairman and Member of Comelec
respectively

Held: Yes

** Imperials term ends in 1959, Perez in 1956. Quo warranto dismissed.

Ratio: The Court counted the respondents terms of office from 1941, when CA 567 was implemented,
completing the organization of the Comelec. The rules laid down are:
1. All initial appointments should start at the same date and;
2. Vacancies because of death, disability or resignation shall be filled only for the unexpired term of the
successor.

Note: Republic v. Imperial held that any person, once appointed, may not be reappointed to the
Commission regardless of tenure.

The Court ruled that to do otherwise would be to violate the rotational cycle devised by the framers of
the Constitution to ensure the continuity of the policies of the Comelec. Also, with vacancies occurring
only once every three years, a four-year administration may not appoint more than one member of the
Comelec at a time, safeguarding against undue influence by the executive on the independent body.

National Housing Corp. v. Juco, 134 SCRA 172 (1985)

According to the SC, the following occupied the seats during these times:

Chairma
n

Member

1941

1945

1947

1950

Vito

Vito

Vera

Imperial

Term ends
1950

Term ends
1950

Term ends
1950

Term ends
1959

Enage

Enage

Perez

Perez

Term ends
1947

Term ends
1947

Term ends
1956

Term ends
1956

Rovira

vacant

Term ends
1953

Term ends
1962

Vera
vacant
Member

Term ends
1944

Term ends
1953

** In 1947, the first vacancy occurred when Chairman Vito died. The second vacancy occurred when
Enage retired.

Ordinarily, resignation or death creates a vacancy in the office. But the Court said that Constitutional
Commissions like the Comelec are exceptions to the rule, saying that anyone who succeeds as a
member has to deal with a shortened tenure.

Compare this with an earlier case, Nacionalista Party v. De Vera, which held that reappointment is valid
so long as the person to be reappointed has not yet served the full term of nine years.

F: Juco was an employee of the NHA. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal w/ MOLE but his case
was dismissed by the labor arbiter on the ground that the NHA is a govt owned corp. and jurisdiction
over its employees is vested in the CSC. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision and remanded
the case to the labor arbiter for further proceedings. NHA in turn appealed to the SC. VV.
ISSUE: Are employees of the National Housing Corporation, a GOCC without original charter, covered
by the Labor Code or by laws and regulations governing the civil service?
HELD: Sec. 11, Art XIIB of the Constitution specifically provides: "The Civil Service embraces every
branch, agency, subdivision and instrumentality of the Government, including every government owned
and controlled corporation. The inclusion of GOCC within the embrace of the civil service shows a
deliberate effort at the framers to plug an earlier loophole which allowed GOCC to avoid the full
consequences of the civil service system. All offices and firms of the government are covered. This
consti provision has been implemented by statute PD 807 is unequivocal that personnel of GOCC
belong to the civil service and subject to civil service requirements. "Every" means each one of a group,
without exception. This case refers to a GOCC. It does not cover cases involving private firms taken
over by the government in foreclosure or similar proceedings. Adapted.
xxx For purposes of coverage in the Civil Service, employees of govtowned or controlled corps.
whether created by special law or formed as subsidiaries are covered by the Civil Service Law, not the
Labor Code, and the fact that pvt. corps. owned or controlled by the govt may be created by special
charter does not mean that such corps. not created by special law are not covered by the Civil Service.
xxx The infirmity of the resp's position lies in its permitting the circumvention or emasculation of Sec. 1,
Art. XIIB [now Art IX, B, Sec. 2 (1)] of the Consti. It would be possible for a regular ministry of govt to
create a host of subsidiary corps. under the Corp. Code funded by a willing legislature. A govtowned
corp. could create several subsidiary corps. These subsidiary corps. would enjoy the best of two worlds.
Their officials and employees would be privileged individuals, free from the strict accountability required
by the Civil Service Dec. and the regulations of the COA. Their incomes would not be subject to the
competitive restraint in the open market nor to the terms and conditions of civil service employment.
Conceivably, all govtowned or controlled corps. could be created, no longer by special charters, but
through incorp. under the general law. The Constitutional amendment including such corps. in the
embrace of the civil service would cease to have application. Certainly, such a situation cannot be
allowed. VV.