CAYETANO V.

MONSOD (1991)
Paras, J.
FACTS: Respondent Christian Monsod was
nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to
the position of Chairman of the COMELEC.
Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the
Philippine Bar, having passed the 1960 bar
examinations with a grade of 86.55%. He has
been a dues paying member of the IBP and had
also been paying his professional license fees as
lawyer for more than ten years.
Petitioner opposed the nomination because
allegedly Monsod does not possess the required
qualification of having been engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years (as
required under Section 1 (1) of Article IX-C).
He cites that Atty. Monsod was not involved in
litigation in court, but held the ff. positions: (1)
operations officer for the World Bank Group in
Costa Rica and Panama; (2) CEO for the
Meralco Group; (3) National Chairman of
NAMFREL; and, (4) Co-Chairman of the
Bishops Businessmen's Conference for Human
Development.
Subsequently, the Commission on Appointments
confirmed the nomination of Monsod as
Chairman of the COMELEC. On June 18, 1991,
he took his oath of office and assumed office the
same day.
ISSUE: Does Atty. Monsod meet the 10 year
practice of law" requirement?
HELD: YES. The practice of law means any
activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience. "To
engage in the practice of law is to perform those
acts which are characteristics of the profession.
Generally, to practice law is to give notice or
render any kind of service, which device or
service requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill."
The appearance of a lawyer in litigation in
behalf of a client is at once the most publicly
familiar role for lawyers as well as an

uncommon role for the average lawyer. Most

lawyers spend little time in courtrooms, and a
large percentage spend their entire practice
without litigating a case. In this regard thus, the
dominance of litigation in the public mind
reflects history, not reality.
Traditional vs. Modern Concept
1. Traditional- The practice of law is defined as
the performance of any in or out of court. The
appearance of a lawyer in litigation in behalf of
a client is at once the most publicly familiar role
for lawyers as well as an uncommon role for the
average lawyer. Many lawyers do continue to
litigate and the litigating lawyer's role colors
much of both the public image and the self
perception of the legal profession.
2. Modern The practicing lawyer of today is
familiar as well with governmental policies
toward the promotion and management of
technology. New collaborative arrangements for
promoting
specific
technologies
or
competitiveness
more
generally
require
approaches from industry that differ from older,
more adversarial relationships and traditional
forms of seeking to influence governmental
policies.
Interpreted in the light of the various definitions
of the term Practice of law," particularly the
modern concept of law practice, and taking into
consideration the liberal construction intended
by the framers of the Constitution, Atty.
Monsod's past work experiences as a lawyereconomist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyerentrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of
contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the
rich and the poor verily more than satisfy the
constitutional requirement that he has been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years.
Moreover, the Commission on Appointments
already gave its consent to the qualification of
Atty. Monsod to the post. Without grave abuse
of discretion, the Court cannot reject what the
Commission has confirmed.

Group E ESPIRITU | GALENZA | REYES | RILLERA | VELASQUEZ

BRILLANTES V. YORAC (1990)

Cruz, J.
FACTS: President Corazon Aquino appointed
COMELEC Associate Commissioner Haydee B.
Yorac as COMELECs Acting Chairman (in
place of Chairman Hilario B. Davide, who had
been named chairman of the fact-finding
commission to investigate the December 1989
coup d' etat attempt.)

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.
The choice of a temporary chairman in the
absence of the regular chairman comes under
that discretion. That discretion cannot be
exercised for it, even with its consent, by the
President of the Philippines.

(Qualification is not an issue in this case)

The petitioner, Sixto Brillantes, Jr., is
challenging the designation. He invokes the case
of Nacionalista Party v. Bautista, where
President Elpidio Quirino designated the
Solicitor General as acting member of the
Commission on Elections and the Court revoked
the designation as contrary to the 1935
Constitution.
The petitioner also contends 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: Can the President appoint
respondent as Acting Chairman of
COMELEC?

A designation as Acting Chairman is by its very

terms essentially temporary and therefore
revocable at will. No cause need be established
to justify its revocation. Assuming its validity,
the designation of the respondent as Acting
Chairman of the Commission on Elections may
be withdrawn by the President of the Philippines
at any time and for whatever reason she sees fit.
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
the

HELD: NO. Atty. Yoracs appointment by the

President is unconstitutional.
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
Group E ESPIRITU | GALENZA | REYES | RILLERA | VELASQUEZ

BEDOL V. COMELEC (2009)

Leonardo-De Castro, J.
FACTS: On May 14, 2007, the National and
Local elections were held. As Chair of the
Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC) for the
province of Maguindanao, Lintang Bedol
discharged his official functions and was able to
ensure the PBOCs performance of its
ministerial duty to canvass the Certificates of
Canvass coming from the twenty two (22) city
and municipalities in the province. However,
Bedol failed to attend the scheduled canvassing
and the canvassing documents were not
transmitted.
Subsequently, the COMELEC, in its exercise of
its investigatory powers, created the Task Force
Maguindanao (tasked to conduct a fact-finding
investigation on the conduct of elections and
certificates of canvass from the city and
municipalities in Maguindanao). It was during a
hearing that Bedol explained that the election
paraphernalia were stolen.
The Task Force then issued a Contempt Charge
and Show Cause Order for failing to attend the
scheduled canvassing, and failure to explain the
loss of documents. Petitioner was then arrested
by the PNP. Bedol objected to the jurisdiction of
the COMELEC over the contempt charges due
to the absence of a complaint lodged with the
COMELEC by any private party. However, the
COMELEC En Banc still found him guilty of
contempt.
ISSUE: Whether or not COMELEC has
jurisdiction to initiate or prosecute contempt
proceedings?
HELD: YES. The COMELEC possesses the
power to conduct investigations as an adjunct to
its constitutional duty to enforce and administer
all election laws, by virtue of the explicit
provisions of paragraph 6, Section 2, Article IX
of the 1987 Constitution.

Section 2(1) of Article IX(C) of the Constitution

gives the COMELEC the broad power "to
enforce and administer all laws and regulations
relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite,
initiative, referendum and recall." Undoubtedly,
the text and intent of this provision is to give
COMELEC all the necessary and incidental
powers for it to achieve the objective of holding
free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible
elections.
The powers and functions of the COMELEC,
conferred upon it by the 1987 Constitution and
the Omnibus Election Code, may be classified
into administrative, quasi-legislative, and quasijudicial. The quasi-judicial power of the
COMELEC embraces the power to resolve
controversies arising from the enforcement of
election laws, and to be the sole judge of all preproclamation controversies; and of all contests
relating to the elections, returns, and
qualifications. Its quasi-legislative power refers
to the issuance of rules and regulations to
implement the election laws and to exercise such
legislative functions as may expressly be
delegated to it by Congress. Its administrative
function refers to the enforcement and
administration of election laws.
Task
Force
Maguindanaos
fact-finding
investigation could by no means be classified as
a purely ministerial or administrative function.
The COMELEC, through the Task Force
Maguindanao, was exercising its quasi-judicial
power in pursuit of the truth behind the
allegations of massive fraud during the elections
in Maguindanao. Section 52 (e), Article VII of
the Omnibus Code confers the power of the
COMELEC to punish contempts provided for in
the Rules of Court. In this regard, COMELEC
complied with Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of
Court and with the requirements set by Rule 29
of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, when it
issued the Contempt Charge and Show Cause
Order against petitioner directing him to appear
before it and explain why he should not be held
in contempt.

Group E ESPIRITU | GALENZA | REYES | RILLERA | VELASQUEZ

MIKE ARROYO VS. DOJ (2012)

Peralta, J.
FACTS: Acting on the discovery of alleged new
evidence and the surfacing of new witnesses, the
COMELEC issued a Resolution approving the
creation of a committee jointly with the
Department of Justice (DOJ), which shall
conduct preliminary investigation on the alleged
election offenses and anomalies committed
during the 2004 and 2007 elections.
Subsequently, the COMELEC and the DOJ
issued a Joint Order creating and constituting a
Joint Committee (JC) and Fact-Finding Team
(FFT). The JC to conduct the necessary
preliminary investigation, while the FFT to
gather real, documentary, and testimonial
evidence which can be utilized in the
preliminary investigation.
The FFT then recommended that petitioners
(Benjamin Abalos, PGMA, et al.) be subjected
to preliminary investigation for electoral
sabotage while Mike Arroyo was recommended
to be charged administratively. Subsequently, the
COMELECs law department filed an
information with the RTC.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether the creation of a JC and FFT is
constitutional in light of the independence of the
COMELEC as a constitutional body (YES)
(2) Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction
under the law to conduct preliminary
investigation jointly with the DOJ (YES)
HELD:
(1) YES. The COMELEC recognizes the need to
delegate to the prosecutors the power to conduct
preliminary investigation. Otherwise, the prompt
resolution of alleged election offenses will not

be attained. This delegation of power, otherwise

known as deputation, has long been recognized
and, in fact, been utilized as an effective means
of disposing of various election offense cases.
While the composition of the JC and FFT is
dominated by DOJ officials, it does not
necessarily follow that the COMELEC is
inferior because offenses shall still be approved
by the COMELEC in accordance with its Rules
of Procedure.
(2) YES. Section 2, Article IX-C of the 1987
Constitution enumerates the powers and
functions of COMELEC. Paragraph (6) vests in
the COMELEC the power to file petitions in
court. This was an important innovation
introduced by the 1987 Constitution, because the
above-quoted provision was not in the 1935 and
1973 Constitutions. The grant to the Comelec of
the power to investigate and prosecute election
offenses is to effectively insure the free, orderly,
and honest conduct of elections.
The constitutional grant of prosecutorial power
in the Comelec was reflected in Section 265 of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise known as
the Omnibus Election Code.
Under that provision of law, the power to
conduct preliminary investigation is vested
exclusively with the COMELEC. It may avail
itself of the assistance of other prosecuting arms
of the government. Thus, under Section 2, Rule
34 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure,
provincial and city prosecutors and their
assistants are given continuing authority as
deputies to conduct preliminary investigation of
complaints involving election offenses under
election laws and to prosecute the same.

Group E ESPIRITU | GALENZA | REYES | RILLERA | VELASQUEZ