Brillantes vs. Yorac

The President of the Philippines may not designate an Acting Chairman of the Commission on Elections; the selection of a temporary presiding officer in the absence of the regular Chairman is an internal prerogative of the Commission as an independent constitutional body, and a presidential designation—being temporary, revocable at will, and therefore a form of acting appointment—contravenes the absolute prohibition under Article IX‑C, Section 1(2) of the 1987 Constitution against appointment or designation of any COMELEC member in a temporary or acting capacity.

Chairman Hilario B. Davide, Jr. of the Commission on Elections was named chairman of a fact‑finding commission created to investigate the December 1989 coup d’état attempt. While Davide performed that task, the chairmanship of the COMELEC was left vacant. President Corazon C. Aquino designated Associate Commissioner Haydee B. Yorac as Acting Chairman. Respondent Yorac was not the most senior associate commissioner; Associate Commissioner Alfredo E. Abueg, Jr. outranked her.

• Nature of the Controversy: Petitioner, a citizen and lawyer, filed suit directly in the Supreme Court to annul the presidential designation of respondent Haydee B. Yorac as Acting Chairman of the COMELEC.
• The Vacancy: COMELEC Chairman Hilario B. Davide, Jr. was appointed chairman of a fact‑finding commission investigating the December 1989 coup d’état attempt, effectively vacating the chairmanship on a temporary basis.
• The Designation: President Corazon C. Aquino designated Associate Commissioner Haydee B. Yorac as Acting Chairman of the COMELEC. Respondent Yorac was not the senior associate commissioner; Associate Commissioner Alfredo E. Abueg, Jr. held higher seniority.
• Constitutional Prohibition: Article IX‑C, Section 1(2) of the 1987 Constitution provides: “(I)n no case shall any Member (of the Commission on Elections) be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.”
• Petitioner’s Cited Precedent: Petitioner invoked Nacionalista Party v. Bautista, 85 Phil. 101, where the Supreme Court struck down the President’s designation of the Solicitor General as acting member of the COMELEC.
• Comparative Practice: Petitioner pointed to the practice of the Supreme Court, where the senior Associate Justice serves as Acting Chief Justice in the Chief Justice’s absence, without any presidential designation.
• Solicitor General’s Position: The Solicitor General argued that, unlike the Supreme Court (where succession is provided by statute), the COMELEC had no statutory or internal rule for automatic succession; thus, the President’s designation was necessary for “administrative expediency” to prevent disruption.

• Internal Autonomy: Petitioner argued that the selection of an Acting Chairman is an internal matter that should be resolved by the members of the Commission themselves, without intrusion by the President, in order to preserve the Commission’s independence.
• Constitutional Ban: Petitioner maintained that the designation of respondent as Acting Chairman squarely violates Article IX‑C, Section 1(2) of the Constitution, which absolutely prohibits any member from being appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.
• Seniority: Petitioner noted that respondent was not the senior associate commissioner and that, even on an internal basis, seniority would not point to her.

• Administrative Expediency: The Solicitor General contended that the COMELEC had no internal rule governing temporary succession, unlike the Supreme Court; thus, presidential designation was the only way to prevent a hiatus in the Commission’s leadership and operations.
• Distinction from Judicial Succession: Respondent argued that the automatic succession of the senior Associate Justice to Acting Chief Justice was based on specific statutory provisions (Section 12 of the Judiciary Act of 1948; Section 5 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129), whereas no analogous statute existed for the COMELEC, making presidential action necessary.

• Presidential Power to Designate: Whether the President of the Philippines has the power to designate an Acting Chairman of the Commission on Elections.
• Independence and the Constitutional Prohibition: Whether the designation violates the independence of the Commission on Elections and the constitutional prohibition against temporary or acting appointments.

• Presidential Power to Designate: The President has no constitutional or statutory authority to designate an Acting Chairman of the COMELEC. Article IX‑A, Section 1 of the Constitution describes all Constitutional Commissions as “independent” and places them outside the control of the President in the discharge of their functions. The choice of a temporary presiding officer in the absence of the regular chairman falls within the Commission’s internal discretion, a discretion that cannot be exercised by the President, even with the Commission’s consent.

• Independence and the Constitutional Prohibition: The designation was declared unconstitutional because it contravened both the independence of the Commission and the explicit prohibition in Article IX‑C, Section 1(2). A designation as Acting Chairman is by its nature temporary and revocable at will, thus falling squarely within the class of “temporary or acting” capacities prohibited by the Constitution. Such revocability subjects the designee to executive control and impairs security of tenure. The absence of an internal COMELEC rule on succession did not justify presidential intervention; the Commission members could themselves have chosen a temporary chairman.

• Doctrine of Independence of Constitutional Commissions — Under Article IX‑A, Section 1, the Constitutional Commissions are expressly declared “independent.” They are not under the control of the President in discharging their respective functions. This independence encompasses the authority to choose a temporary presiding officer when the regular chairman is absent. The Court relied on this principle to hold that the President cannot substitute her judgment for that of the Commission in selecting an acting chairman.

• Absolute Prohibition on Temporary or Acting Appointments to the COMELEC — Article IX‑C, Section 1(2) provides: “in no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.” The prohibition is absolute and extends to presidential designations of an Acting Chairman. A designation as “Acting Chairman” is, by its terms, temporary and revocable at will; it therefore amounts to a prohibited acting designation that undermines the security of tenure and independence of the Commission.

• “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.”

• “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.”

• “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.”

• “The lack of a statutory rule covering the situation at bar is no justification for the President of the Philippines to fill the void by extending the temporary designation in favor of the respondent. This is still a government of laws and not of men.”

• Nacionalista Party v. Bautista, 85 Phil. 101 — The Court followed this precedent, where the designation of the Solicitor General as acting member of the COMELEC was struck down as unconstitutional, to reinforce that the President cannot intrude into the composition of an independent constitutional body through temporary designations.

• Article IX‑A, Section 1, 1987 Constitution — Declares the Constitutional Commissions independent. Applied to bar presidential control over the internal choice of an Acting Chairman.
• Article IX‑C, Section 1(2), 1987 Constitution — Provides that “in no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.” The presidential designation of an Acting Chairman was held to be a prohibited acting designation, rendering it unconstitutional.
• Section 12, Judiciary Act of 1948 — Mentioned by the Solicitor General to illustrate statutory succession in the Supreme Court; the Court distinguished it, noting the absence of such a statute for the COMELEC did not empower the President to act.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ. (Feliciano, J., on leave; Sarmiento, J., took no part.)