SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., PETITIONER, VS. HAYDEE B. YORAC, IN HER CAPACITY AS ACTING CHAIR­PERSON OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

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 qualifications of the
respondent are conceded by the petitioner and are not in issue in this
case.  What is the power of the
President of the Philippines to make the challenged designation in view of the status of the Commission on
Elections as an independent constitutional body and the specific provision of Article IX-C, Section 1(2) of
the Constitution that “(I)n no case shall any Member (of the Commission on
Elections) be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.”

The petitioner invokes
the case of Nacionalista Party v. Bautista, 85 Phil. 101, 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 Constitution.  It is also alleged
that the respondent is not even the senior member of the Commission on
Elections, being outranked by Associate
Commissioner Alfredo E. Abueg, Jr.

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.  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.

In his Comment, the
Solicitor General argues that no such designation is necessary in the case of
the Supreme Court because the temporary succession cited is provided for in
Section 12 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. 
A similar rule is found in
Section 5 of BP 129 for the Court of Appeals. 
There is no such arrangement, however, in the case of the Commission on
Elections.  The designation made by the
President of the Philippines should therefore be sustained for reasons of
“administrative expediency,” to prevent disruption of the functions
of the COMELEC.

Expediency is a dubious
justification.  It may also be an overstatement to suggest that the operations of the Commission on Elections would have been disturbed or stalemated if the
President of the Philippines had not stepped in and designated an Acting
Chairman.  There did not seem to be any
such problem.  In any event, even
assuming that difficulty, we do not agree that “only the President (could)
act to fill the hiatus,” as the Solicitor General maintains.

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 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.

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.  It is doubtful if the respondent, having
accepted such designation, will not be estopped from challenging its
withdrawal.

It is true, as the Solicitor General points out, that the
respondent cannot be removed at will from
her permanent position as Associate Commissioner.  It is
no less true, however, that she can be
replaced as Acting Chairman, with or without cause, and thus deprived of the powers and perquisites of that temporary
position.

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.  The problem allegedly sought to be
corrected, if it existed at all, did not call for presidential action.  The situation could have been handled by the
members of the Commission on Elections themselves without the participation of the President, however well-meaning.

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 Court has not the
slightest doubt that the President of the Philippines was moved only by the best of motives when
she issued the challenged designation. 
But while conceding her goodwill, we cannot sustain her act
because it conflicts with the Constitution. 
Hence, even as this Court revoked the designation in the Bautista case,
so too must it annul the designation in the case at bar.

The Constitution provides
for many safeguards to the independence of the Commission on Elections,
foremost among which is the security of tenure of its members.  That guaranty is not available to the
respondent as Acting Chairman of the Commissions on Elections by designation of
the President of the Philippines.

WHEREFORE, the designation by the President of the Philippines of respondent Haydee B. Yorac as Acting
Chairman of the Commissions on Elections is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and the
respondent is hereby ordered to desist from serving as such.  This is without prejudice to the incumbent
Associate Commissioners of the Commission on Elections restoring her to the
same position if they so desire, or choosing another member in her place, pending the appointment of a permanent
Chairman by the President of the Philippines with the consent of the Commission
on Appointments.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras,
Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea,
and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., on leave.

Sarmiento, J., no part.