Brillantes vs. Yorac

SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR.VS.

HAYDEE B. YORAC, IN HER CAPACITY AS ACTING CHAIR¬PERSON OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

G.R. No. 93867, December 18, 1990

FACTS:

The President of the Philippines designated Associate Commissioner Haydee B. 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’état attempt. For this reason, petitioner questions such designation contending 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.  He cites the practice in this Court, where the senior Associate Justice serves as Acting Chief Justice in the absence of the Chief Justice.  No designation from the President of the Philippines is necessary.

ISSUE:

Whether the designation by the President of the Philippines of respondent Haydee B. Yorac as Acting Chairman of the Commissions on Elections is unconstitutional.

RULING:

Yes. 

Article IX-A, Section 1, of the Constitution expressly describes all the Constitutional Commissions 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.  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 in Article IX-A, Section 7.

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.

The Court has not the slightest doubt that the President of the Philippines was moved only by the best of motives when she issued the challenged designation.  But while conceding her goodwill, we cannot sustain her act because it conflicts with the Constitution.  Hence, even as this Court revoked the designation in the Bautista case, so too must it annul the designation in the case at bar.

The Constitution provides for many safeguards to the independence of the Commission on Elections, foremost among which, is the security of tenure of its members.  That guaranty is not available to the respondent as Acting Chairman of the Commissions on Elections by designation of the President of the Philippines.