274 | Prohibitions Against Designations in an Acting Capacity (Constitutional Commissions) | G.R.

No. 93867 December 18, 1990 | CRUZ, J.

SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., Petitioner, vs. HAYDEE B. YORAC, in her capacity as ACTING
CHAIRPERSON of the COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

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.

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 over the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Haydee Yorac, an associate commissioner in the COMELEC, was
appointed by then President Corazon Aquino as a temporary substitute, in short, she was appointed in an
acting capacity. Sixto Brillantes, Jr. 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 further argued that the choice of the acting chairman should not come from the President 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.

ISSUE:

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

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.

Yes. Yoracs designation as acting chairman is unconstitutional. 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. It is the members
of the COMELEC who should choose whom to sit temporarily as acting chairman in the absence of Davide
(they normally do that by choosing the most senior member).

But even though the presidents appointment of Yorac as acting president is void, the members of
COMELEC can choose to reinstate Yorac as their acting chairman the point here is that, it is the members
who should elect their acting chairman pursuant to the principle that constitutional commissions are
independent bodies.