Separate Opinions NARVASS, 3, concurring "concur with the decision of the mejority writen by Mr. Justice Parcs, albeit only in the result it does not appecr to me that there has been an adequate showing that the cholenged determination by the Commission an ‘Appointments-that the appointment oF respondent Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections shoud, on the basis of his stated! qualifications and after dus assessment thereof, be confirmed-was attended by error 50 gross of to amount te grave abuce of diccretion end concequently mente nullication by thie Court in accordance withthe eecand poragraph of Section 1, tile VI of the Conetituion. | therefore vate to DENY the petition. PADILLA 3, dissenting ‘The records ofthis case will show that wien the Court first deliberated on the Petition at bar, I voted not only to require the respondents to comment on the Petition, Sut | was the sole vote for the issuance of © temoerary restraining order to enjoin respondent Monod From oscuming the position of COMELEC chairman, while the Court delerated on his constitutional qualification for the office. My purpose in voting Far a TRO was ta prevent the inconvenience and ever emborrassrent to all parties eancerned were the Court to Finlly decide for respondent Monsods disqualification. Moreover, @ reading of the Petition then in reltion to established jurisprudence already showed prima Facie that respondent Monsod did not possess the needed qualifeation that is, he had not engage! inthe practice of law for atleast ten (10) years prior to his cppointment as COMELEC Chairman. After considering carefully respondent Monzod's comment, | am aven more convinced that the constitutional requirement of “proctice of law Fora least ten (Io) years" has nat heen met. ‘The procedural borrers interposed by respondents deserve scant consideration hecause, ukimately, the care isle to be resolved in this petition is the proper constricl of the constitutionel provision requiring «@ majority of the ‘membership of COMELEC, including the Chairman thereof to “have heen engaged in the practes of law For at least ten (10) years” (Art. 1X(¢), Section 1), 1987 Constitution). Questions involving the construction oF constitutional Provisions are best lft to judicial resolution. ns declared in Angora v. electoral Comission, (05 Phil 138) “upon the judicial deportiment is thrown the solemn ond inescapable obligation of interpreting the Canstitution and defining ‘constitutional boundaries The Constitution has imposed clear ond specie standards for @ COMELEC Chairmen, Among these are that he must hove been “engaged in the practice of law For at least ten (10) years It is the bounden duty of this Court to cenaure thot such stondard is met and complied wrth, Whot cansttutes proctice of low? Ae cemmenly understood, “practice” refere £9 the octuol performance or application of knowledge os distinguished fram mere possession of knowledge; it connates on active, habitual repeoted or customary ection To "prostce” law, or ony profession for that motter, means, to exercise or pursue ton employment or profession actively, habitually. repeatedly or customarily, Therefore, a doctor of medicine wha is employed ond is habituolly performing the tasks oF @ nursing aide, cannot be ssid to bo in the ‘proctice of medicine." A certified pubic accountant who works as © dlerk, cannot be said to Practice his profession os an accountant. In the same way, @ lawyer wiho is employed as c business executive or corporate manager, other thon as head or atcamey of a Legal Department of a corporation or a governmental agency, cannot be said to be in the practice of law. As optly held by this Court in the case of People vs. Vilanteva?Proxtice is more than on isolated! appearance Fri consist in Frequent or astomary actions, o suceason of ats of the some kind. nother words is frequent hobituel exercise (Stoke vo Cotner 17. p87 Kan 864,42 LNA, M 5. 163). Practice of law to fll within the prohibition of statute hos been interpreted as customer or habitually holding one's salt out to the public as layer and demanding payment for such serve (State ve, Bryon, 4 SE $32, 98 Nc o1goaz) . (emphis supped). Ie ie worth mentioning that the respondant Commission on Appointments ino Memorancim & prepared enumeroted several factors determinative of whether a porticulor catty constitutes ‘practice of law" states: 1. Habituaty. the term “practice of lan” implies customary or habitually halting one's self ot tothe public ox 6 lawyer (People vs, Vilanueve, 14 SCRA 109 cing Sate ¥. Boyen, 4 SE. 52, 98 NC. G44) such as wihen ane sends a circlor announcing th exteblshment of o low office for the ganeral proce of law (US. v. Ney Borque, & Pi {ie oF when one tokes the ooth of office oe a lawyer before a notary publ, and flee & manifestation with the Supreme Court inforring i of his intention to practice law inal court in the country (Pople v. De Luna, 102 Phi 69) Proctic is more than an isolated appearance fori consists in Frequent or customary action, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it i © hbitual exercise (People v.Vilanueve, 14 SCRA 109 cing Stte ¥ CoBner 12, 9.1, 87 Kan, 864) 2. Compensition. Practice of low implies thot one must hove presented himself to be in the active ond continued proctice of the legl profession and that his professional senvices oe available to the pubic for compensation, as service of his vcihoed or in consideration of his sold services. (People ¥ villanacva, supra) Hence, chorging for services such as preparation of documents involving the ane of legal knowledge on sls within the term “prosic of law (Ears Pao, Bar Reviewer in Legal eed uci Ethics, 1968 ed. p. 6 cking People ‘People's Stocyords State Bank, 176 NE 91) and, one whe Fenders en opinion as Eo the proper interpretation of statute, and recewes pay for it, 1 to thot exten, practicing law (Martin, supra, p. 809 cing Mendelaun ¥. Clert and farket Mfg. co, 290 N.S. 402) commpenceton is expacted, al advie to chants and al ction token for ther in maters connected with the law: are practicing law (Elwood Ficheteet el, v. Arthur €. Tyler, SAAR 356359) 2. Application oF low lego! princinle practice or procedure which calls For legol knowledge, training ond experienc is within the term practice of law’ (Martin supra} 4. attorny.clent relationship. Engaging in the practice of law presupaotes the existance of Inuyer-ckent relationship. Hance, where a lawyer undertakes an activity which requires knowledge of law but invlves na ottorrey ent relationship, such as teaching w or writing law books or etic, he conrot be sil to be engoged in the practice of his profession ora lawyer Agpals, Legal Ethis, 1969 ed, p30) The above enumerated Factors would, | Bale, be ushul ois in determining whether or nat respondent Monsod meets the constitutional quaiieaton ef practice of lar Foret fast ten (1c) years ot the time of his eppointment + COMELEC Chermon ‘he falowing relevant questions may be asked 1 bid respondent Monsod perform any ofthe tasks which ate peculiar tothe proctce af low? 2. id respondent perform sich tasks customary or habitus? 2. Acsuming thot he performed ary of such tasks habituoly, did he do so HASITUALLY FOR AT LEAST TEN (10) YEAS prior to his oppointment ob COMELEC Chern? iven the ernployment or job history of respondent Mnsod of oppeots from the records, 1am pareuaded that i ver he cid perform any of the tase which constitute the practice ofl, he cid nat do so HARITURLLY for ot leost ten [0] years prior to his appointment as COMELEC Chairman While i moy be granted thot he performed tasks and activities which couk! be laitudinarianly consseredcctvities peculiar to the practice of law, fike the drafting of legal documents and the rendering of lego! opinion or lodvice, such were isolated transactions or activities which do net qualify his past endeavors as “practice of lawn” To become engaged in the practice of law, there must be a continuity, oF a succession of acts. As ebscrved by the Solicitor Genaral in People ve. Villanueva:t Ezsantioly, the word private practice of law imple thar one must have presentad himeslf to Be in the active ancl continued practice of the legol profession ond that his professional services ore available to the public For @ compensation, os a source of hie lvethood or in consideration af his said services ACCORDINGLY. my vote isto GRANT the petition ond to declare respondent Monsod as not qualified For the position of COMELEC Chairmen For net hoving engaged in the proctce of lew for et least ten (10) years prior to his coppointment to etch postion. CRUZ, 2, desenting | om sincerely impressed by the ponencia af my brother Paras but find t must dissent just the some. There are certain points on which t must differ with him while of course respecting hisviewpoint To begin with, | do not think we ars inhibited from excmining the qualifications of the respondent simply becouse bis nomination hes heen confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, in my view, this ic nat @ pektical question thot we are barred from resolving. Determination of the oppcintee's credentials is made on the basis of the established Feets, not the dseretion of thar body. Even if it were, the exercise of thet discretion would still be subject to our review In Luego. mich is cited in the ponencia, what was involved was the discretion of the appointing authority to choose between two claimants to the same office who both possessed the requited qualifications. It was that kine of discretion that we said could nat be reviewed. IF a person clected by ne less than the sovereign people may be ousted by this Court For lock oF the required quolfications, 1 see no reason why we cannot dequcified an appoincse simply because he has possed the Commission on appointments. Even the President of the Philippines may be declared indigible by this Court in an appropriate proceeding notwithstanding that he hos been found occeptable by no less than the enfronchised citizenry, The reason is that What we would be exarnining isnot the wisdom of his clection but whether or not he wos qualified toe elected in the fist pce. ‘coming now to the qualicatione of the private respondent, | fect thot the ponencla may have been too sweeping in ts definition of the phrase “practice of law" as to render the qualification practically toothless. From the rrurerous activities accepted os embraced in the term, | hove the uncomfortable Feling that one does nat even have to be © lonyer to be engaged in the practice of law as long as his activites involve the apalcation of some law, however perigherally. The stock broker and the insurance adjuster ond the realtor could come under the Getiition as they deal with or give eves on mattors that are likly “te become invelved in tigation ‘he lauyer is considered engaged in the proctice of low even if his main eccupation is another business and he interprets and opplies same law only as on incident of such business, That covers every campany organized under the Corporation Code anid regulated by the SEC under PD. 902-A. Considering the raifieations of the modern society, there is hardly any activity thot is not affected by some law oF government regulation the businessman ‘must know about and observe. In feet, again going by the defintion,« lawyer dees not even have to be part of business concern to he considered @ practitioner. He ean be so deemed when, on his own, he rents @ house or buys © cor oF concults @ doctor o& these acts invoive his knowledge and opplication of the lawe regulating such tronsactions he eperaces a puble utility vehicle as his mein cource of fiveihood, he would still be deemect engaged in the practice of law because he must obey the Public Service Act and the rules and regulations of the Energy Regulatory BoordThe ponencia quotes on American decision defining the practice of law os the ‘performance of any acts . in or out of court, commonly understood to be the practice of aw which tells us absolutely nothing. the decision goes on te say thot "because lawyers perform almost every function known in the commercial and governmental reaim. such @ definition would obviously be too global te be workable” ‘he effect of the definition givan in the ponencia iste consider virtually every lawyer to be engaged in the practice of low even if he does not eorn his living, oF ot least part of @, cs a lawyer. It & enough thot his activities are incidentally (even if only remotely) connected with some law, ordinance, or regulation. The possible exception is the lamer whose income is derived from teaching ballom dancing or escorting wrinkled ladies with pubescent pretensions. ‘he respondent's credantiole are impressive, to be cure, but they do nat persuade me that he has been engeged in the practice of low for ten yaors oe required by the Constitution. It is conceded thar he haz heen engaged in business and finance, in which areas he has distinguished himeelf, ht os an executive and economist ond not os © procticing lawyer. The plain fat is that he has occupied the various positions sted in his resume by virtue of his experience ond prestige es a businessman and not ae an attorney-at law whose principal attention is Focused fon the law. Even if it be argued thot he was acting as a lanyer when he lobbied in Congress for agyerian ancl Urbon reform, served in the NAMEREL ond the Constitutioncl Commission (together with nonowyers like Farmers tnd priests) end wos @ member of the Davide Commission, he hoe not proved that his cette: in these capocties extended over the prescribed toxyeor periad of actual practice of the law. He is daubtless eminently qualified far ‘many other postions worthy of his abundant tolents but not as Chairman ofthe Commission on Elections | hove much edmitation for respondent Mons, no less thon for Me. Justice Paras, but I must regretfully vote to grant the petition GUTIERREZ, 38,2, dissenting when this petition was filed, there was hope thet engaging in the practice of law as © qualification for public fice would be settled one way ar another i Foy definitive terms Unfortunately, this wos not the result. OF the fourteen (1a) member Court, § ore of the view that Mr. christian Monsod engaged in the practice of law (ith one of these 5 oving his vote behind while on offcil leave but not expressing his clear stond on the ‘matter: 4 categorically stating that he did net practice law 2 voting in the result because there wes ne error 50 gross 0s to amount to grave cbuce of ciserction; one of official leave with no instructions left behind on how he viewed the ie! and 2 not tang part in the deliberations and the decison, There ore two key Factors that make our tosk dificult. First is aur reviewing the work of @ canstitutional Commission on Appointments whose duty is precisely to look into the qualifications of persons eppointed to high office. Even if the Comission errs, we have no power to set eside error. We can lek only inte grave abuse of discretion or whimsically ond orbitrariness. Second is our belie that Mr. Monsod possesses superior qualifications in terms of executive cbilty, proficiency in management, educetioncl background, experience in intzrnational banking anc! finanes, and intant recognition by the publi. Hi intagrity and competence ore not questioned by the petitioner. what is before us is compliance with a specific raquiremant written inte the Constitution. Inspite oF my high regord for Mr. Wonsod, | cannot shirk my constitutional duty. He hos never engaged in the practice of law for even one yeor. He is o member of the bor but to scy that he hos practice law is stretching the term beyone rational lit ‘A perzon may have possed the bar examinations, But he has not dedicated his life to the low, if he hae not engaged in an activity where membership in the bar is @ requirement I fll to see how he can claim to have been engaged inthe practice of law. Engaging in the practice of law is a qualification not only for COMELEC chairran but also far appointment to the Supreme Court and oll lower courts, Whot kind of Judges or Justices will we have if there main occupation isselling rel estate, mencging @ business corportion, serving in fact-finding committe, working in media, or peroting a frm with no active involvement inthe law, whether in Government or private protice. excep thot in ne joyful mement in the distant past. they happened to poss the bar exominations? The Concttion uses the phrase “engaged in the proce of low fora leat ten years. The deliberate choee of words shows that the protice envisioned is active and regular, not islated, cccsiond, cccdantal, interment, incidental, seasonal, oF sxtemporaneaus. To be “angogec” in an activity For ten years requires committed participation in something which ic the resut of one's decisive choice. means that ane is occupied ond involved inthe enterprise; one is obliged or pledged to carry it outwith intent are attention during the ter-yeor period | agree with the petitioner that based on the biedats submitted by respondent Monzed to the Commission on Aopomtmants, the latter hor not been engoged in the practice of law For at leat ten years n Fact, f appears thot Mr. Monod hos never practiced low except for an alaged one yeor period after passing the bor examinations when he worked in his fathers low frm Even then his law practice must have been extremely limited because he wos oso working for MA. and Ph.D. degrees in Economics atthe University of Pennsylvania ducing that period. How could he proce low in the Urited States while not @ member of the Gar there? The professional fe ofthe respondent falws: LISI. fespandent Morsods activities since his pasting the Bar examinations in 1061 corsict of he folowing 1 orbs: MA. in Eonomies (Ph.D. candidate), University of Pennsyania 2. 9oB870: World Bank Group — Economist, Industry Department: Operations, Latin American Dspartment Division Chie, South Asi and Middle Fast. International Finance Corporation 3. 19704973: Meralco Group — Eacutve of verius companies ie. Meralco Secrtes Corporation. Philipine Petroleum Corporation Philippine Eetic Corporation 4. 197:197e: ¥uweo Group — Present Fi-Capiel Development Corporation and ofhilted companies 5. 19704978: Finaciera Manila — chief Executive Officer ©. 197e-it6e Guevent Group oF Campanies — chief Executive Oficer 7. 1986-4987: Phiippine Constitutional Commission — Member 8, 19984991: The Foet+Finding Commission on the December 1909 Coup Attempt — Member 9. Presently: Chairman ofthe Boord and Chief Executive Officer of the following companies: 2. ACE Container Philpaines Ine. b. Dataprep, Pispines © Philippine sunsystems Products, ne 4. Scmirora Cool Corporation ©. COL Timber Corporation Member of the Board ofthe Followin: ©. Enginsering Construction Corporation ofthe Prilppine= b. Fire Philippine Energy Corporation 6 First Philippine Holdings Corporation 4. First Philippine Industrial Corporation © GrophicAteter F.— Manila Electric Company 9. Philippine Commercial Cepital, in h. philippine Electric Corporation i. Torlae Reforestation ond Environment Enterprises j. Talong aquaculture Corporation k.—Wisoyan Aquaculture Corporation1 Guimaras Aquaculture Corporation (Rolla, pp. 2-22) There is nothing in the above biodata which even remotely indicates that respondent Monsod has given the law cnough attention or o certein degree of commitment and partipation as would support in all sincenty onel ‘candor the cloim of hoving engaged in ite practice for at least ten years. instead of working oe @ lawyer, he hae lauyers working for him. instecd oF giving reesiving thar legel advice of legal services, he wos che eneedvice ancl those services as on executive but nat es a lawyer ‘The delierations before the Cammission en Appointments show an effort ta equate “engaged in the practice of law" with the use of legal knowlege in various fies of endeavor such os commerce, industry, civic work, blue ribbon investigations, agrarian reform, ete. where such knowledge would be helpful | ragret thot | cannot join playing fast and loose with o term, which even an erdinary layman eecepts a heving © fomilior ond customary well-defined meaning. Every retident of this ccuntry who has reached the age of discernment has ta know, fllow, or apply the law ot various times in his Hfe. Legal knoudedge is useful if not necessary for the business executive legislator, mayor, barangay captain, teacher, policeman, Former, fisherman, market vendor, and student to name only a few. And yet. can these people honestly assert that as such, they are engaged in the practice of low? ‘he Constitution requires having been “engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years." K is not satisfied \with having been “o member of the Philippine har for at leoct ten yeors.~ Same american courts have defined the practice of law, as Fallows: The practice of law involves net only oppearance in court in connection with tigation but ols services rendered fut oF court ond it includes the giving of ache or the rendering of ny services requiring the use of lego sll or knowledge, such as prepering a will contract or cther instrument, the legal eect of which, under the facts ane! conditions involved, must be coreFully determined. People ex rel, Chicago Bar Assn v. Tinkof, 399 I, 282.17 NEZd 095 People ex rel. ilinsls State Bar Assn v, People's Steck Yards State Bonk, $14 lL 402,70 NE. 901, ond cases cee 1 would be dfficuk, if not impossible to lay dawn a formula ar definition of whct constitutes the practice of law. “Practicing law’ has been defined os “Practicing as an attorney or counselor ot law according to the laves one! customs of our courts isthe giving of advice of rendition of any sort of service by ony person, Frm or corporation when the civing of such advice or randition of such service requires the use of any deree of lagel knowledge or ci” withoue edopting thar definition, we referred to fe o# being substantially correct in People ex rel. Ilinoie State Bar Asn v. People's Stack Yards State Bank, 244 Il. 462,70 NE. 901. [People v. Schafer, AT NE. 24 773,776) For ones actions to come within the purview of practice of law they should ret only be activities peeulicr to the work of a lawyer, they should also be performed, habitually, Frequently o customarily, to wit Respondent's answers to questions propounded to him ware rather evasive. He was asked winethar or not he ever prepared controct for the parties in real-estate trensactions where he was not the procuring agent. He enswered “Very seldom” In answer ta the question as to haw many times he hod prepared contracts far the parties ring the twenty-one years of his business, he ssc“! have no Idea.” When asked i it would be more than half a dozen times his answer was I suppose. Asked if he did not recall making the staternent to several parties that he hoc! prepared contracts in e large number of instances, he answered: "I dont recall exactly what wos scie" When cosked if he cic not remember saying thet he hati made a practice of preparing deeds, mortgages and contracts tone chorging a Fee to the parties therefor in instances where he was not the broker in the deal, he answered “well, t don’ Believe £0, chat is not a practice” Pressed further for an answer as to his practice in preparing contracts and deeds For parties where he wos not the broker, he Finally answered: “| have done about everything that is on the books as Far as realestate is concerned”Resporsient tokes the position that because he is @ reakestate broker he has © lawful right todo ary legal woke in connection with reabestate transactions, especially in drawing of real-estate contracts, deeds, mortgages, notes tnd the lice Thers i ne doubt but that he has engaged in these practicas ever the yecrs and has charged For his senvces in thot connection .. (people v. Schafer, 87 NE 24 73) [An ottorney, inthe mast general sense, is a person designated or employed by anather to actin his stead: an ‘agent: more especially, one of « class of persons cuithorized to oppear and oct for suitors oF defendants in legal proceedings. Strictly, these professional persons ore attorneys at law, and nomprofessional agents are properly styled “ottomeys in fact” but the eingle word ie mich used az meshing an attorney ot law. A parson may be an ottomey in Facto for ensther, without being on otternay at lau Abb. Law Dice. “ABtomay.” A pubte attorney, ot attorney ot low, says Webster, is an officer of a court of aw, legally qualified to prosecute and defend actions in stich court on the retainer of cients. “The principal duties of an ottorney are (1) to be true to the court and to his client: (2) to manage the business of his client with core, skill, and integrity: (3) to keep his cient informed as to the state of his business (8) to keep his secrets confided to him as such. . His vights are to be justly compensated! For his services” Bouy. Law Dit. tit. "Attorney." The tronatve var "practice oe defined by Webster, means te do or perform frequently, custemarly, or habitually: to perform by a succession of acts, as, to practice garring, . 6 carry on in practice, or repeated action: to apply, as a theory, to real Me: to exercise, as @ profession trade, art tess, to practice law or medicine” ete." (Stote v. Bryan, S522, 52% Emphasis supplied) In this jurisdiction, we hove ruled that the practice of law denotes Frequency or a succession of acts, Thus, we stated in the case of People v. Villanueva (14 ScRA 103 [i965]: Practice ie more than an izslated appscrance, for ie consiets in Frequant ar custemery actions, @ succession of fees of the same kind. in other words, itis Frequent habitucl exercise (State v. Cotner, 121, p.1, 87 Kan. 809, a2 na, MS. 708). Practice of law to fll within the prohibition of statute has been interpreted os customarily or habituaily holding one's self cut to the publi, os « lawyer ard demanding poyment for such services... (at p. 2) leis te be noted that the Commission on Appointment itself recognizes habituaity aso required component of the ‘meaning of practice of law in a Memorandum prepared and issued by i, to wit: |. -Habituatty. the term practice of law’ imple customariyer hobituslly helzing ane’ self cut to the public a2 1 lawyer (People v. Vilarweva, 14 SCRA 109 citing State v. Bryon, 4 SE 522, 98 N-. O44) such as when ane sends a ‘irculor announcing the establishrent of o low office for the general practice of law (US. x. Noy Bosque, & Phil 146), or when one tokes the oath of office os a lawyer before a notary publi, and files « marifestation with the Supreme Court informing it of his intention to practice law in all courts in the country (People v. De Luna, 102 Phil 968). Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in Frequent or customary action, a suezession of acts of the same kind. nother wards, it i « habitual exercise (People v. Vilanuava, 14 SCRA 1 09 citing State v. Catrer, 127, p-1.87 Kan, 868) (Rolls, p15) While the career as @ businessman of respondent Mensod may have profited from his legal knowledge, the use of such logal knowledge is inedental and consists of isolated activtics which co net fell under the denomination of Practice of low. admission to the practice of law waz not required for membership in the Constitutional Commission or in the Fact-Finding Commission on the 1889 Caup Attempe. Any specific legolcetiveies which may have been assigned to Mr. Monsad while a member may be likened ta isolated transactions of foreign corporations inthe Philippines which do net categorize the foreign corporations os doing business in the Philipines. Asin thepractice of law, doing business also should be octive and continuous, Isolated business transactions or occasional incidental ond cosuol transactions are net within the context of doing business, This was our ruling in the case of ‘Antam Consolidated, inc. v. Court of appeals, 143 SCRA 288 [1986)). Respondent Monsed, corporate executive, civie leader, and member of the Constitutional Commission may possess the background, competence, intagrity, ond dedication, to qualify for such high offices ce President, Vice-President, ‘Senator, Congressman or Governor but the Constitution in prescribing the specific qualification of having engage inthe practice of law for of least ten (1) years for the position of COMELEC Chairman hes ordered that he may rot be confirmed for thot office. The Constitution charges the public respondents eo ess thom this Court to obey its mandate, | therefore, believe that the Commission on Appcintmerts committed grave abuse of dieretion in confirming the homination of respondent Monsod ae Chaitman of the COMELEC | vote to GRANT the petition. Bidin, 9, dissent Separate opinions NARVASS, 3, concurring: | concur with the decision of the majority written by Mr. Justice Paras, albeit only in the result it does not appear to me that there has been an adequate showing that the chellenged determination by the Commission on ‘Appointments that the appointment of respondent Monsed as Chairman of the Commission on Elections shuld, on the basis of hie etated qualifications and after due azzsssment thereof, be confimed-wae attended by ertor £0 gress os to amount to grave abuse of discretion and consequently merits nulcation by ehis Court in accordance with the secand paragraph of Section 1, Article VI of the Constitution. | therefore vate to DENY the petition. Melencio-Herrera 3. conc PADILLA 2, dissenting: ‘ha record of thi care wil show that when the Caurt rst deliberated on the Pation ot bar, | vated nat only ta require the respondents to comment on the Petition, but | was the sole vote for the icsuance of o temporary restraining order to enjoin respondent Morsod from assuming the postion of COMELEC Chitman, wile the Court deliberated on his eansttutionel qualification for the office. My purpose in vating For @ TRO was to prevent the inconvenience and even emberrassment to all parties concerned were the Court to finaly decide fr respondent Moneods dequatication Moreover, a reeding of the Petition then in relation to estabizhed juncprudencsclreedy showed prima face that respondent Monsod did not possess the needed qualfeation, tha he had not angeged in the proctice of law for of least ten (10) years prior to his oppointment ox COMELEC chairman After coidering carefully respondent Monsods coment, | om even more convinesd that the constitutional requirement of “proetce of lowe For a leoat ten (6) years” has nat been met ‘he procedural borviers interposed by respondents dessrve scant considertion becouse, ultimatly, the core iste to be ressived in this petition is the proper construc ofthe constitusonel provision requiring a rojorty of the rmemberhip of COMELEG including the Cheirman thereof to “have been engaged inthe pracice of law for ot last ten (10) years” (are x), Seetion 1), 967 Constitution). Questions invaling the construction of censsitutinal provisions are best lf julia reslution. declared in Angorov.lectoral Caraission, (08 Phi. 9) “upon the jueil department is thrown the solemn ond inescapable obligtion of interpreting the Constitution ane definingconstitutional boundories~ The Constitution has imposed clear and specific stondords For a COMELEC Chairmen. Among these are that he srust have been “engaged in the prostice of lw For at last ten (10) years” Iti the bounden duty ofthis Court to ensure thet such stondardis met and complied vith hot constitutes proctice of low? As commenly understood, “practice” refers co the octuol performance er epplicaron of knowledge ox distinguished from mere possession of knowledge: it connotes on active, habitual repeoted or customary oction1 To “proctize” law, or any profession For that matter, means, to exercise oF pursue tom employment or profession atively, habitually, repeatedly or customary Therefore, a doctor of medicine who is employed and is habitually performing the tasks oF « nursing aie, cannot be soid to be in the ‘proctice of mecizine.” A certifies pubic azcountant who works as © det, cannot be said &> Practice his profession es an eecauntent. In the same way, a lomyer who is employed as © business executive or @ corporate manager, ther thon os head or o&tomney of « Legal Department of a corporation oF @ governmental fgency, cannot be sai to be inthe practice of law ‘As aptly held by this Court inthe case of People vs, Vilarueva:2 Practice is more thon on isolated appearance For it consists in Frequent or customary actions, « suezeation of acts ofthe some kind. other words, is Frequent habitual exercise (State ve-Cotner, 27.1, 87 Kan. 854, 2 LRA, M 5.108). Proctice of lew to fall within the prohibition of stoeute has been interpreted az customarily oF habitually holding one’s sf out tothe public as a lawyer and demanding payment for such services (State vs. Bryan, 4 SE 522,88 NC. 684,947). (emphosis supped). Ie is worth mentioning that the respondent Commission on Appointments in Memorandum i prepared cnumerated several foctors determinative of whether © particule cetivity constitutes "practice of law states: 1. Habitucty. The term “practice oF la implies customarily or habitually holding one’s self out to the public as « lawyer (People vs. Vilanueve, 1a SCRA 109 iting Stee V. Eoyen, 4 SE 522, 6 ALC 04a) such as when one sends @ circuler announcing the establishment of « law office for the general practice of law (US v. Ney Bosque, 8 Pil 120), oF when one tokes the oath of office as a lawyer before @ notary public, and files a marifestation with the Supreme Cour inforring it of his intention to practice lave in all courts in the country (People v. De Luna. 102 Pil 969). Practice is more than an isolated appearance for it consists in Frequent or customary action, a sueceston of acts of the some kind. n other words, itt © hobitual exercise (People v.Villanueve, 18 SCRA 109 citing State v. Cotner, 127, p.1, 7 Kan, 864) 2. Compensation. Practice of law implies thot one must have presented himself tobe in the oxtive ond continued practice of the legal profession ond that his professionel services ore oveileble to the public for compensation, a a service of his livelihood or in consideration of his said services. (People v. Vilanueva, supra). Henee,cherging for services such as preparation of documents involving the use of legal knowledge andl sl is Wichin che term -proctce of law” (Erneni Pao, Bar Reviewer in Legal ond audiciel Ethie, 1968 ed, p. 8 cting People \ Peoples Stockyards State Bank, 170 NB. 901) and, one who renders ah opinion as to the proper interpretation of «© stotute, and receives pay for it, isto thot extent, procticing law (Martin, spr, p. 806 citing Mendelaun ¥ Gilbert ard Borket My. Co. 250 NYS. 462) F compensation is expected. all advice to cFents ard all ction taker for them in matters connected with the law: are practicing law. (Elwood Fitchette et ol. v. Arthur Toslor. ALA 350-359) 3 Application of law legal principle proctice or procedure which cals for legal knowledge, training and experience is within the term practice of low" (Martin supra) 4 attorney-cent relationship. Engaging in the practice of aw presupposes the existence of lauyer-kent relotionship. Hence, where o lawyer undertakes an activity which requires knowledge of law but involves nottorey-cient reletionship, such as teaching low or writing law books or orticles, he connot be seid to be engage! inthe prostice of his profession ora lomyer(Agpol, Legal Ethics, 1909 ed, p. 30)3 The above-enumerated Factors would, | believe, be useful cide in determining wether or nat respondent Monsodl ‘meets the constitutional qualification f practice of law For ot least ton (10) years at the time of his appointment co COMELEC cheitrnen, ‘he Following relevant questions may be asked! |. id respondent Monsad perform any ofthe tosks which are peculiar to the practice of law? 2. id respondent perform such tosks customarily or habitily? 2. Assuming thot he performed any of such tasks habitually, did he do so HABITUALLY FOR AT LEAST TEN (10) YEARS prior es his eppointment es COMELEC Chalrrnen? iver the employment or job hictory of respondent Moneod ee oppsors from the records, lam persuaded thot if ever he oid perform any of the tasks which constitute the practice of law, he did not do so HABITUALLY for ot least ten {f0) years prior to his appointment as COMELEC chairman. While it may be granted thot he performed tasks and cetivities which could be latitudinarianly considered cectnities peculiar to the practice of law, like the drafting of legal documents and the rendering of legol opinion or Cedvce, such were iseloted transactions oF cetivties which do not qualify hs past endeavors as “practice of law.” ‘To become engaged in the practice of low, there must be a continuity, or a succescion of acts. Ae observed hy the Solicitor Gensral in People vs. Vilanuevart Essentiolly, the word private practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to be in the active onl continued practice of the legol profession ore that his professional services ore available to the public for « compensation, a5 a source of his livelhcod or in consideration of his said services [ACCORDINGLY, my vote fe &2 GRANT the petition ond to declare respondent Mensod © not qualified For the position of COMELEC Chairman For net having engaged in the proctice of lew for ot least ten (1d) yeore prior to his ‘ppaintment to such position. RUZ, 2, dissenting hom sincerely impressed by the ponencia of my brother Poras but Fine! must cissent just the some. There ore certain points on which I must differ with him while oF course respecting hisviewrzoint To begin with, | do not think we ara inhibited from exemining the qualifications of the respondent simply because hie nomination hee been confirmed by the Carmission on Appointment, in my view, thie ie nat a peltical question thot we are barred from resolving. Dsterination of the appaintee's credentials is made on the basis of the established Forts, not the discretion of that body. Even iF it were. the exercise of that discretion would stil be subject to our review. In Lugo, hich is cited in the ponencia, what was involved was the discretion of the appointing authority to chocse between two claimants te the same effice wine both poscessed the raquited qualifications. It was that kine of diccretion that we eaid could not be reviewed. IF a person alected by no les than the sovereign people may he ousted by this Court Far lack of the required questions, 1 see no reason why we cannot disqualified! an appoinéce simply because he has possed the Commission on Appointments Even the President of the Philipines may be declared ineligible by this Court in an appropriate proceeding rtunthstanding that he hos been found acceptable by no less than the enfronchized citizenry. The reason is that Whar we wauld be examining fe not the wiedom of hie election but whether or not he wos qualified to be electec in the fire place Coming naw ta the qualications of the private respondent, | feor thot the panencia may have been too sweeping in its definition of the phrase “practice of law" as to render the qualification practically toothless, From therurerous ectves accepted os embraced in the term, I hove the uncomfortable Fecking thot one does nat even have to be lawyer to be engage in the proctce of aw as long as his oxtivtesinvole the aplication af some low, however periheraly. The stock breker and the insuronce acjuster ond the realtor could come under the defntion as they del wth o° give avis on mattore that ae likly "Yo Become volved in Reigaton ‘The ler ie conscered engaged inthe protize of ow even if his main eecupaton ie another business and he interpret ond opples some low only a on incident af such business. That covers every company organized under the corporation Cade and regulated by the SEC under PD. 902-A. Considering the ramifications of the modern society there is hardly ony octivy tht is not affected by some law or governrent reyultin the businessman rust know about and observe tn foc, again going by the defntin,« lawyer does not even have to be pat of @ business concern to he considered practitioner. He can be o deemed when, on hs ow, he rents « house oF buys © cor oF coneuite © doctor of these acts involve his Knowledge and cpalcation of the lowe regulating such tranactions. I he operates o pub utility vehicle as his main source of fvethood, he would stl be deemed engaged inthe practice of lave because he must obey the Pubke Service Aet and the rules and regulations ofthe Energy Regulatory Board The porencia quotes an American decison dening the practice of low as the "performance of any acts. in or cue of court, commonly understood tobe the practice of av” which tellus absoutely nothing. The decon goce cn to say that “because lowers perform almost every Function knaum in the commercial ens governmental rea, such a definition would abviausly be too glabal to be workable The effect of the defrition given in the poncnca isto conser virtually every lawyer to be engaged in the practice of low even if he does not corn his living, or ot oat port of ios lawyer Its enough thot his activities ore incdentay (ven if only remotsy) connected with some law, ordinares, or regulation. The possible exception is the lawyer whose income is derived From teaching balkcem doncing or eecorting wrinllee ladies wth pubeecent pretensions ‘he respondent's credentils ane impressive to be eure, but they do not persuade me that he has been ngage in the practice of lw for tan yeors os required by the Constitution. itis canceded that he has been engaged in business and Finance. in which arcas he has distinguished ise? but os an exzcutve and economist and not os « procticng lowyer. The plain Fact is that he has ocaupied the various postions listed in his eaume by virtue of hie exaerince ond prestige os @ businezeman and not ce an attorney: alae whose principal ottntion is Focused cn the la, Even if be argued thot he wor acting a: « lowyar when he lobbied in Congress For agrrion ond Urban reform, served inthe NAMFREL ond the Constitutional Commission (fagether with norouyers bike farmers or priests or wos a merber of the Deve Commision, he hos no proved that his etnies in these eapoctes extended over the prescribed 10-ycor period of actul practice ofthe law He is doubtless eminently qualified For many other postions worthy of his abundane tlents but not as Chairman ofthe Commission on Eleetions | hove much admiration For respondent Monsod, ro lees than for Mr. Jusie Para, But I MUSE reretly vote to ron the patton GUTIERREZ, 7,3, dsseting When this petition was filed. there was hope thet ergaging in the practice of aw as © qualification for public office woul be settle one way or another in Fil defritve terms Unfortunately. this wos not the result Of the fourtzen (14) member Court. 5 ore of the view that Mr. Christian Monsed engoged in the practice of law (onth one of these Sleoving he vote Behind whe on offic leave but not exareeting hie clear tond on the rater) 4 categorcaly stating that he didnot practice lr 2 voting in the result becruse there wes no error so {F056 0 to omaunt to grave chute of czcretin: one of afc leave with no inctucton® left behind on how he \ewed the isu: ond? nat tang part inthe deliberations ond the decision There ore two key factors that make our tosk difficult, First is our reviewing the stork of © constitutionalCommission on Appointments whose duty is precisely to look into the qualifications of persons eppointed to high olfce. Even if the Commission errs, we have no power to set aside errr. We can look only into grave abuse of discretion or whimsically ond orbitroriness. Second is our belie that Mr. Monsod possesses superior qualifications in terms of executive obilty, proficiency in management, educetioncl background, experience in intzmational banking anc! finanes, and instant recognition by the public. Hie integrity and competence ore not questioned by the petitioner. what is before us is complionce with a specific raquiremant written inte the Constitution. Inspite of my high regard far Mr. Monsad, | cannot shirk my consticutional duty. He has never engaged in the proctice of law for even one yeor. He is o member of the bor but to sey that he hos practice low is stretching the term beyone! rational limits 1k person may have possed the bar examinations. Gut if he has not dedicated his life to the law, if he has nat engaged in an octivity where membership inthe bar is @ requirement fil to ses how he con claim to have been engaged inthe practice of law. Engaging in the practice of law is a qualification not only for COMELEE chsirmon but also For appointment to the Supreme Court and all lower courts. Whet kind of Judges or Justices will we have if there main occupation is selling real estate, monoging @ business corporation, serving in Factfnding committee, working in meda, or ‘operating a Farr with no active involvement in the law, whether in Government or private practice, except that in lone joyful mement in the distant past, they happened to poss the bar exeminations? ‘he Consticution uses the phrase “engaged in the practice of law for ot least ten years The deliberate choice of words shows that the practice envisioned is active and regular. not isolated, eccesional, occidental, intermittent incidentol, seasonal, or extemporaneous. To be "engage" in an cetivity for ten years requires committed participation in something which is the result of one's decisive choice, & means that one is occupied ond involved inthe enterprise; one is obliga cr pledged to cory it out with intent and attention during the ten-yeor period. | ogres with the petitioner that based on the biodata submitted by respondent Monced to the Commission on Appointments, the later hat not heen engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. n Fact. appears that Mr. Monsod has never practiced law except for an alleged one year period after passing the bor cxominations wher he worked in his Father's low firm, Even then his law practice must have been extremely limited because he was also working for MA. and Ph. D. degrees in Economics at the University of Pennsylvania uring that peried. How could he practice law inthe United States while not a member of the Bar there? ‘he professional fe of the respondent Follows: 181. Respondent Morsad' activities since his pasting the Bar examinations in 1961 carsst of the fllowing 119041963: MA in Economics (Ph.D. condidate, University of Pennsylvania 2. 19681970: World Bark Group — Economist, Industry Department: Operations, Latin American Department Division Chief, South Asia ond Middle East, International Finance Corporation 2. 197041973: Mercieo Group — Exccutive of verious comearics, Le, Merclco Securities Corporation, Philippine Petroleum corporation, Philippine Electric Corporation 4. 197241970: Vujuice Group — President, FI-Capital Development Corporation and affifoted campanies 19764970: Finaciera Manila — Chief Executive Officer 1976-1986. Guevent Group oF Companies — chief Executive OFFcer 1996-1567: Philippine Constitutionel Commission — Member 1980-10: The Feet Finding Commission on the December 1939 Coup Atternpt — Member 9. Presently: Chairman ofthe Bocrd and Chief Executive Officer of the following companice 2. ACE Container Philppines, ie. b. Dataprep,Phippines © Philippine SUNsystems Products, ne4. Scmirora Cool Corporation © CBL Timber Corporation Membr of the Boord ofthe Following: 2. Enginsoring Construction Corperation ofthe Prilppine= b. Fire Philippine Energy Corporation pine Holdings Corporation pine industrial Corporation © GrophicAteter Morita Cectric Company Phiippine Commercial Cepital, ne Philippine Electric Corporation Tarlac Reforestation and Enviranment Enterprises jj. Telong Aquaculture Corporation kViseyan Aquaculture Corporation Guimaras Aquaculture Corzoration (Rell, pp. 2-22) ‘There is nothing in the above bio-data which even remotely indicates that respondent Moncod has given the lew enough attention or @ certcin degree of commitment and participation ae weuld support in all sincerity onet candor the claim af hoving engaged in te practice for of least ten years. stead of working as a lawyer, he has lawyers working for him instecd oF giving receiving that legol advice of legal services, he wos the onadvice one! those services as om executive but not os a lomyer The delterations before the Commission on Aspeintments show an effort to equate “engaged in the practice of law with the use oF legal knowledge in various Fields of endeavor such os commerce, industry, ewie work, blue ribbon investigations, agrarian reform, ete. where such knowledge would be helpful | ragret thot | cannot join in playing fast and loose with o term, which even an ordinary layman cecepts as having 2 forrilior ond customary welldefined meaning. Every resident of this country who has reached the age of Aiscerrmment has to know, follow, or opply the lav ot various times in his life. Legol knowledge is useful iF not rrecessary for the business executive legislter, mayer. barangay captain, teacher, paleman, farmer fisherman, ‘market vendor, and student to name only a few. And yet, can these people honestly assert that as cuch, they are engaged in the practice of low? ‘The Constitution requires having been “engaged in the practice of law for a least ten years” & fs not satisfied with having been 70 member ofthe Philippine bar for atleast tem yeors~ Some American courts have defined the practice of law. as Follows: The practice of law involves net only epeearance in court in connection with litigation but also services renderee cout oF court, ond it cludes the ving of atic or the rendering of cny services requiring the Use of lego sal or knowledge, euch ae prepering o will cantrac: of ether instrumant, the lego effact of which, undar the facts ancl conditions iewolved, rust be coreully determined. People & rel, Chicago Bar ASS v. TinkofT, 399 282, 17 NEZd 69% People ex rel. linsis State Bar Assin v. People's Stock Yards State Bonk. 344 Hl 462,76 N.E. 901, and cases sited Ie woul be dificul if not impezsble to lay down a Formula or definition of what constitutes the practice of law “Practicing law’ has been defined os “Practicing az an attorney or counselor ot law according to the laws anet cuscoms of eur courts, isthe giving of cvice or reneition of any sartof service by any person, firm or corporation when the giving of such advice or rendition of such service requires the use of any dagree of legel knowlege or sail" without adopting that definition, we referred to i os being substantially correct in People ex rel. tlinais State Bar Assn v, People’s Stock Yards State Bank, 44 Il, 462,176 NE, 901, [People v. Schafer, 67 NE. 2d 773, 776)For one's actions to come within the purview of practice of law they should not only be axtivtes peclor to the work of a lamyer, they shoul also be performed habitual, Frequently o customer, to wit: fespondent’s anewers to questions propounded to him were rather evasive. He wos asked whether oF not he ever prepared controcts for the paris in reakestae trensactions where he was nat the procuring agent He onswered “very seldom” In ener tothe question as to how many times he ad prapared cantacts forthe parties curing the twenty-one years of his business, he sold" have no ea” When asked ft would be more than half «dozen times his arswer was | suppose, Asked if he dd not recall raking the stoternent to several parties thot he hes prepared contracts in large number oF instoncrs, he answered: I dort recall exactly what wos sci” When sted if he ci not remember saying thet he had made a practice of preparing deeds, mortgages and contracts cond charging fee to the parcies therefor in instances where he wae not the broker in the deal, he onswered “Well | dont beteve 0, that is nat a prctze* Pressed further Tor an answer as to his practice in preparing controcts ard deeds For partes where he wos not the broker: he Finally answered have done cbout everthing thats onthe books ae Foros realestate is concemed” Respondent tokes the postion thot becouse he i @ real-estate Braker he hae lowtul right todo ary legal work in connection with rakestate transaction, e=pecily in crawing of real-estate contracts, deeds, mortgages, notes and the ke. There is no doubt but that he has engaged in these practices over the yeors and eas charged Fr his services in thot connection . (People v Schafer. 67 NE 24773) ‘Am attorney in the most general sense is © person designated or employed by another to actin his stead: an gant; more expecialy, one of o cats of persone authorised to opacar and act For sutors or dafendonts in legal Proceedings. Strictly, these professional persone ore ettorneys ot low, ond nonsprofesianal agents are propety styled “arcomey' in fact” but the single word fe mich used as mecning an attorney a aw. A person may be an attorney in facto for onother, without being on attorney at law. AbD. Law Dict. “ARtomey-" A publ attorney, or ttorey of low, says Webster, ison officer of «court of law legally qualified to prosecute and defend! actions in such court on the retoiner of cients. “The principal dts ofan attorney are () to be true tothe court ond to his client: (2) to manage the business of his cent with core, kil, nd integrity: (2) to Keep his ent informed as to the state of his business: (2) to laep hie secrete confided to him os such. Hi ight are tobe justly compensated for bis services” Bou. Law Dict te. “Attorney” The transitive vera ‘practice os defined by Webster, means to do or perform fequenty, customarily, or habitaly to perform by a succession of acs, as to proctice gang, to carry on in practice o repeated action to apply, as a theory to real fe: to exercise, cr @ profession trade, art te: as, to practic law medicine ete.” [Stoke v. Bryan, SE 522 52% Emphasis supplied) In this jursdiction, we hove ruled that the protize of law denotes Frequency oF @ sucession of acts Thus, we stated inthe cave of People v vilonueva (1 SCRA 109 [1905] Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in Frequent or customory actions, « succession af lcs ofthe some kind. In other words its Frequont habitual cxerise (State ¥ Gotrer 12, p87 Kan. 868, 2 LRA, MS. 760). Practice of law to Fall within the prohibition of statute has been interpreted es customary or haoitualy holding one's ze cut tothe publ, ot lower and demanding payment fr such series... at p12) Weis tobe note thatthe Comission on appointmere ite recognizes hebituelty a: @ require component ofthe rearing of proctice of lw in a Memorandum prepared one issued by to wit 1. Hobituaty. The term practice of law implies customariyor habitualy halding ane’ self out to the pubic ox 1 lowyer (People v. Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109 citing State v, Bryon, 4 SE 522, 98 NC. 648) such as when one sends «