Constitutional Commission Case Digests

Constitutional Commissions

Brillantes v. Yorac

The petitioner is challenging the designation by the President of the Philippines of 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' etat attempt.

The petitioner 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.

Ruling: 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.

Borromeo v. CSC

Jesus Borromeo wrote a letter to the Commission on Audit (COA) Chairman, coursed through the CSC Chairman, requesting an opinion on
whether or not the money value of the terminal leave of retired Constitutional Commission members should include the allowances received
at the time of retirement.

DBM did not approve

Respondent CSC adds, the determination of the legality of claims on leave matters is within the province of the CSC and not of COA.

Ruling: The respondent CSC's stance, however, that it is the body empowered to determine the legality of claims on leave matters, to the
exclusion of COA, is not well- taken. While the implementation and enforcement of leave bene􏰃ts are matters within the functions of the CSC
as the central personnel agency of the government, the duty to examine accounts and expenditures relating to leave benefits properly pertains
to the COA. Where government expenditures or use of funds is involved, the CSC cannot claim an exclusive domain simply because leave
matters are also involved.

The COA, the CSC, and the Commission on Elections are equally pre-eminent in their respective spheres. Neither one may claim dominance
over the others. In case of conflicting rulings, it is the Judiciary which interprets the meaning of the law and ascertains which view shall prevail.

Gaminde v. COA
Thelma Gaminde was appointed as ad interim Commissioner of the CSC. Assumed office on June 22, 1993. Was confirmed on Feb
7, 1993. Asked when her term expiration be. Was informed by Chief Presidential Legal Counsel that her term will expire on on Feb
2, 2000. But it should be Feb 2, 1999.

Chairman Corazon Alma G. de Leon; wrote the Commission on Audit requesting opinion on whether or not Commissioner Thelma
P. Gaminde and her co-terminus staff may be paid their salaries notwithstanding the expiration of their appointments on February
02,1999. COA said no.

In case of a belated appointment or qualification, the interval between the start of the term and the actual qualification of the
appointee must be counted against the latter. The President appointed Atty. Thelma P. Gaminde Commissioner, Civil Service
Commission, for a term expiring February 02, 1999.

Funa v. Villar

On February 15, 2001, PGMA appointed Guillermo N. Carague (Carague) as Chairman of the COA for a term of seven (7) years,
pursuant to the 1987 Constitution Carague's term of office started on February 2, 2001 to end on February 2, 2008.
Meanwhile, on February 7, 2004, PGMA appointed Reynaldo A. Villar as the third member of the COA for a term of seven (7) years
starting February 2, 2004 until February 2, 2011.

Carague retired on 2008. Villar took over on until 2011. But he said it should’ve been another seven years. He stepped down
though and Tita Grace took over.

Evelyn San Buenaventura took over on the post of villar.

Ruling: the provision, on its face, does not prohibit a promotional appointment from commissioner to chairman as long as the
commissioner has not served the full term of seven years, further qualified by the third sentence of Sec. 1 (2), Article IX (D) that "the
appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor." In addition, such promotional
appointment to the position of Chairman must conform to the rotational plan or the staggering of terms in the commission
membership such that the aggregate of the service of the Commissioner in said position and the term to which he will be appointed
to the position of Chairman must not exceed seven years so as not to disrupt the rotational system in the commission prescribed by
Sec. 1 (2), Art. IX (D)

Funa v. Duque III

January 11, 2010, PGMA appointed Duque as Chairman of the CSC. The Commission on Appointments confirmed Duque's
appointment on February 3, 2010. On February 22, 2010, PGMA issued Executive Order No. 864. Pursuant to it Duque was
designated as a member of the Board of Directors or Trustees of the following government-owned or government-controlled
corporations (GOCCs): (a) GSIS; (b) PHILHEALTH; (c) ECC; and (d) HDMF.

Dennis A.B. Funa, in his capacity as taxpayer, concerned citizen and lawyer, filed the instant petition challenging the
constitutionality of EO 864 and Section 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (EO 292), otherwise known as
The Administrative Code of 1987

Petitioner argues that Section 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V of EO 292 unduly and unconstitutionally expands the role of the CSC,
which is primarily centered on personnel- related concerns involving government workers, to include insurance, housing and health
matters of employees in the government service

Ruling:

that Section 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V of EO 292 is constitutional matters affecting the career development, rights and
welfare of government employees are among the primary functions of the CSC and are consequently exercised through its
Chairman

ANNULS AND VOIDS Executive Order No. 864 dated February 22, 2010 and the designation of Hon. Francisco T. Duque III in an
ex officio capacity in relation to his appointment as Chairman of the Civil Service Commission for being UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
VIOLATIVE of Sections 1 and 2, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution.

Macalintal v. Comelec
Petitioner Romulo B. Macalintal, a member of the Philippine Bar, sought to declare certain provisions of Republic Act No. 9189
entitled, "An Act Providing for A System of Overseas Absentee Voting by Qualified Citizens of the Philippines Abroad, Appropriating
Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes" as unconstitutional.

Petitioner claims that the provision of Section 18.5 of R.A. No. 9189 empowering the COMELEC to order the proclamation of
winning candidates insofar as it affects the canvass of votes and proclamation of winning candidates for president and vice-
president, is unconstitutional because it violates the following provisions of paragraph 4, Section 4 of Article VII of the Constitution

Does Section 18.5 of the same law empowering the COMELEC to proclaim the winning candidates for national offices and party list
representatives including the President and the Vice-President violate the constitutional mandate under Section 4, Article VII of the
Constitution that the winning candidates for President and the Vice-President shall be proclaimed as winners by Congress?

Ruling: The constitutionality of Section 18.5 of R.A. No. 9189 is UPHELD with respect only to the authority given to the COMELEC
to proclaim the winning candidates for the Senators and party-list representatives but not as to the power to canvass the votes and
proclaim the winning candidates for President and Vice-President which is lodged with Congress under Section 4, Article VII of the
Constitution.

By virtue of Section 19 of R.A. No. 9189, Congress has empowered the COMELEC to "issue the necessary rules and regulations to
effectively implement the provisions of this Act within sixty days from the effectivity of this Act." This provision of law follows the
usual procedure in drafting rules and regulations to implement a law – the legislature grants an administrative agency the authority
to craft the rules and regulations implementing the law it has enacted, in recognition of the administrative expertise of that agency in
its particular 􏰋eld of operation. 47 Once a law is enacted and approved, the legislative function is deemed accomplished and
complete. The legislative function may spring back to Congress relative to the same law only if that body deems it proper to review,
amend and revise the law, but certainly not to approve, review, revise and amend the IRR of the COMELEC.

By vesting itself with the powers to approve, review, amend, and revise the IRR for The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003,
Congress went beyond the scope of its constitutional authority. Congress trampled upon the constitutional mandate of
independence of the COMELEC. Under such a situation, the Court is left with no option but to withdraw from its usual reticence in
declaring a provision of law unconstitutional.

The second sentence of the 􏰋rst paragraph of Section 19 stating that "[t]he Implementing Rules and Regulations shall be submitted
to the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created by virtue of this Act for prior approval," and the second sentence of the
second paragraph of Section 25 stating that "[i]t shall review, revise, amend and approve the Implementing Rules and Regulations
promulgated by the Commission," whereby Congress, in both provisions, arrogates unto itself a function not speci􏰋cally vested by
the Constitution, should be stricken out of the subject statute for constitutional in􏰋rmity. Both provisions brazenly violate the
mandate on the independence of the COMELEC.

CSC v. DBM

Civil Service Commission

Commission on Election

Commission on Audit