Chapter IX: Commission on Elections

1.

Creation, Organization and Membership

2.

Nature and Character of the Commission

SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., PETITIONER, VS. HAYDEE B. YORAC, IN HER

CAPACITY AS ACTING CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
RESPONDENT.

Facts: The petitioner questions the act of the President in designating Yorac as Acting Chairman
in view of the status of the COMELEC as an independent constitutional body. The petitioner
contends that the designation of the Acting Chairman of the COMELEC 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 as provided for in Article IX of the Constitution.
Issue: Whether the designation of Yorac as COMELECs Acting Chairman is valid.
Held: No. Article IX-A, Section 1, of the Constitution expressly describes all the Constitutional
Commissions such as the COMELEC as independent. Although essentially executive in
nature, they are not under the control of the President of the Philippines in the discharge of their
respective functions. The choice of a temporary chairman in the absence of the regular chairman
is within the discretion of the COMELEC members that cannot be exercised for it, even with its
consent, by the President of the Philippines.

AN SUMULONG, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE PAGKAKAISA NG

BAYAN, PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.
Facts: By virtue of section 5 of C.A. No. 657 entitled, An Act to recognize the Commission on
Elections, The COMELEC adopted a resolution providing for the appointment of election
inspectors to be proposed by the political parties and persons named therein. One of those
parties, Pagkakaisa Ng Bayan seeks to nullify that resolution on the ground that section 5 of C.A.
No. 657 is unconstitutional in so far as it requires that a political party must have polled at least
10 per centum of the total number of votes cast in the preceding election to have the right to
propose the appointment of one inspector. Petitioner contends that this requirement is a subject
not expressed in the title of the Act in contravention to the Constitution which requires that no
bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be
expressed in the title of the bill. Constitution Article VI, section 21 (1)
Issue: whether Section 5 of CA 657 is unconstitutional.
Held: No. The constitutional requirement that the subject of an act shall be expressed in its title
should be reasonably construed so as not to interfere unduly with the enactment of necessary
legislation. It seems evident that the requirement that a political party must have polled at least
ten per centum of the total number of votes cast in the preceding election to be entitled to
propose the appointment of one inspector and his substitute is germane to the general subject of
the reorganization of the COMELEC.
The Commission on Elections is a constitutional body. It is Intended to play a distinct and
important part in our scheme of government. In the discharge of its functions, it should not be
hampered with restrictions that would be fully warranted in the case of a less responsible
organization. It should be allowed considerable latitude in devising means and methods that will
insure the accomplishment of the great objective for which it was created free, orderly and
honest elections.

3. Qualifications
RENATO CAYETANO, PETITIONER, VS. CHRISTIAN MONSOD, HON. JOVITO R.
SALONGA, COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENT, AND HON. GUILLERMO CARAGUE,
IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT,
RESPONDENTS.
Facts: Respondent Monsod was nominated to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC which
was confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. On June 18, 1991, he took his oath and
assumed office as Chairman of the COMELEC.
Petitioner challenged the validity of the appointment of Monsod alleging that he does not possess
the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years as
provided for in Section 1(1), Article IX-C of the Constitution.
Issue: Whether Monsod possesses the required qualification to be appointed as Chairman of
COMELEC.
Held: Yes. Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application
of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. Practice of law under modem
conditions consists in no small part of work performed outside of any court and having no
immediate relation to proceedings in court.
Atty. Monsods past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyerentrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich
and the poor satisfy the constitutional requirement that he has been engaged in the practice of
law for at least ten years.

4. Term of Office

THELMA P. GAMINDE, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND/OR HON.

CELSO D. GANGAN, HON. RAUL C. FLORES AND EMMANUEL M. DALMAN,
RESPONDENTS.
Facts: The case is a special civil action of certiorari seeking to annul and set aside two
decisions of the Commission on Audit ruling that petitioners term of office as Commissioner,
Civil Service Commission, to which she was appointed on June 11, 1993, expired on February
02, 1999, as set forth in her appointment paper.
The Facts
On June 11, 1993, the President of the Philippines appointed petitioner Gaminde, ad interim, as
Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission. She assumed office on June 22, 1993, after
taking an oath of office. On September 07, 1993, the Commission on Appointment, Congress of
the Philippines confirmed the appointment.
Petitioner sought clarification from the Office of the President as to the expiry date of her term of
office. In reply to her request, it was opined that petitioners term of office would expire on
February 02, 2000, not on February 02, 1999.
Relying on said advisory opinion, petitioner remained in office after February 02, 1999. On
February 04, 1999, Chairman de Leon, wrote the Commission on Audit requesting opinion on
whether or not Commissioner Gaminde and her co-terminous staff may be paid their salaries
notwithstanding the expiration of their appointments on February 02, 1999. The Commission on
Audit, issued an opinion that the term of Comm. Gaminde has expired on February 02, 1999.
Consequently, a notice of disallowance was issued disallowing in audit the salaries and
emoluments pertaining to petitioner and her co-terminous staff, effective February 02, 1999.
Issue: Whether the term of office of Atty. Gaminde expired on February 02, 1999, as stated in the
appointment paper, or on February 02, 2000, as claimed by her.
Held: The term of office of Gaminde expired on February 02, 1999. The 1987 Constitution
provides that the Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed for a term of seven years
without reappointment. Of those first appointed, the Chairman shall hold office for seven years, a
Commissioner for five years, and another Commissioner for three years, without reappointment.

Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case
shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.

However, she served as de facto officer in good faith until February 02, 2000, and thus entitled to
receive her salary and other emoluments for actual service rendered. Consequently, the
Commission on Audit erred in disallowing in audit such salary and other emoluments, including
that of her co-terminous staff.

In concluding that February 02, 1987 is the proper starting point of the terms of office of the first
appointees to the Constitutional Commissions of a staggered 7-5-3 year terms, we considered the
plain language of pertinent sections of the 1987 Constitution that uniformly prescribed a sevenyear term of office for Members of the Constitutional Commissions, without re-appointment, and
for the first appointees terms of seven, five and three years, without re-appointment. In no case
shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity. There is no need
to expressly state the beginning of the term of office as this is understood to coincide with the
effectivity of the Constitution upon its ratification (on February 02, 1987).