A.
TERM OF COMELEC COMMISSIONERS
MEMBERS
1 chairman
6 commissioners
***shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments
for a term of seven years without reappointment.
TERM
Of those first appointed, three Members shall hold office for seven years, two Members for five
years, and the last Members for three years, without reappointment
QUALIFICATIONS
1. natural-born citizens of the Philippines
2. at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age
3. holders of a college degree,
4. must not have been candidates for any elective positions in the immediately preceding
elections.
****However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine
Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
BRILLANTES VS YORAC
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: 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.
NP VS. DE VERA
F: This is an action brought by the Nacionalista Party against De Vera on the ground that his
appointment as Chairman of the COMELEC is a violation of the Constitution particularly Art. X, Sec. 1 of
the 1935 Constitution which
provides that the members of the COMELEC shall hold office for nine years without reappointment.
Held: The prohibition against reappointment comes as a continuation of the requirement that the
Commission shall hold office for a term of nine years. Reappointment is not prohibited provided his
term will not exceed nine years in all. In July 1945, three Commissioners were appointed. De Vera was
appointed for three years. If he were to succeed himself, he cannot be reappointed to do so because
that would preclude the appointment of a new member after 3 years and would furthermore increase
his term to 12 years since upon the expiration of his term,
his successor must be appointed for nine years. But in this case, de Vera's appointment was by virtue of
the death of the Chairman in 1947 and he was
promoted to occupy the chairmanship of the Commission for the unexpired term only. Thus, this is not
offensive to the Constitution because it does not increase de Vera's term of office to more than nine
years nor does it
preclude the appointment of a new member upon the expiration of the first term of three years
REPUBLIC VS IMPERIAL
F: This is a quo warranto proceeding to test the legality of the continuance in office of Imperial as
Chairman and Perez as member of COMELEC. When Chairman de Vera died in August 1951, before the
expiration of the maximum term of nine years of the Chairman of the Commission, Imperial was
appointed Chairman to succeed de Vera. His appointment provided for a term
expiring July 12, 1960. The SG contended that the term for which he will legally serve as Chairman
legally expired on July
12, 1954, the expiration of the 9 year term for which the first Chairman was appointed. Comelec
member Perez on the other hand, was appointed for a term of 9 years expiring on 24 November 1958.
The SG contended that his term legally expired on July 12, 1951, the expiration of the term of 6 years for
which Commissioner Enage, his predecessor was appointed.
Held: The terms cannot begin from the first appointments made in July 12, 1945 but from the date of
the organization of the COMELEC under CA 657 on June 21, 1941. Thus, the term of office of the first
Chairman, Lopez Vito began on June 21, 1941 and ended June 20, 1950. That of member Enage began
on June 21, 1941 to June 20, 1944 (but this was not filled). Since the first 3 year term had already
expired in 1944, the appointment of De Vera on June 12, 1945 must be for the full term of nine years
(June 1944 to June 1953). The first vacancy occurred by the expiration of the term of Enage. His
successor, Perez, was named for a full 9 year term which shall have started on June 1947 to June 1956.
The second vacancy happened upon the death of Lopez Vito on May 1947. To succeed him, de Vera
appointed and lasted only up to June 1950, the unexpired period of Lopez Vito's term. Thus, on June
1950, a vacancy occurred which De Vera could no longer fill because his appointment was expressly
prohibited by the Constitution. Thus, the next Chairman was respondent Imperial whose term of 9 years
must be deemed to have began on June 21, 1990 to expire on June 20, 1959. Adapted.
B. POWER TO IMPOSE AND ADMINISTER ELECTION LAWS
BAGUMBAYAN MOVEMENT VS COMELEC
FACTS: Petitioners Bagumbayan Volunteers for a New Philippines Movement, Inc. (Bagumbayan-VNP,
Inc.) and Former Senator Richard J. Gordon (Gordon) filed this Petition2 for mandamus before this court
to compel respondent Commission on Elections to implement the Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail
security feature.
This VVPAT functionality is in the form of a printed receipt and a touch screen reflecting the votes in the
vote-counting machine.
Petitioners claim that VVPAT "consists of physical paper records of voter ballots as voters have cast
them on an electronic voting system."22 Through it, the voter can verify if the choices on the paper
record match the choices that he or she actually made in the ballot.23 The voter can confirm whether the
machine had actually read the ballot correctly. Petitioners seek to compel the Commission on Elections
to have the vote-counting machine issue receipts once a person has voted.
ISSUE: Petitioners claim that the Commission on Elections refuses to implement the VVPAT function
based on fears that the security feature may aid in vote-buying, and that the voting period may take
longer.28 On February 9, 2016, petitioners read from ABS-CBN News Online that with a vote of 7-0, the
Commission on Elections En Banc decided not to implement the VVPAT for the 2016
Elections.29 Petitioners attached a copy of the article.30 Other news reports state that the Commission
on Elections ruled similarly against the voting receipts in 2010 and 2013
Petitioners argue that the Commission on Elections' fears are "baseless and speculative."37 In assailing
the Commission on Elections' reasons, petitioners cite the Position Paper38 of alleged automated
elections expert, Atty. Glenn Ang Chong (Atty. Chong). Atty. Chong recommended that the old yellow
ballot boxes be used alongside the voting machine. The VVPAT receipts can be immediately placed
inside the old ballot boxes
HELD
It is true that the Commission on Elections is given ample discretion to administer the elections, but
certainly, its constitutional duty is to "enforce the law." The Commission is not given the constitutional
competence to amend or modify the law it is sworn to uphold. Section 6(e), (f), and (n) of Republic Act
No. 8436, as amended, is law. Should there be policy objections to it, the remedy is to have Congress
amend it.
The Commission on Elections cannot opt to breach the requirements of the law to assuage its fears
regarding the VVPAT. Vote-buying can be averted by placing proper procedures. The Commission on
Elections has the power to choose the appropriate procedure in order to enforce the VVPAT
requirement under the law, and balance it with the constitutional mandate to secure the secrecy and
sanctity of the ballot.73
We see no reason why voters should be denied the opportunity to read the voter's receipt after casting
his or her ballot. There is no legal prohibition for the Commission on Elections to require that after the
voter reads and verifies the receipt, he or she is to leave it in a separate box, not take it out of the
precinct. Definitely, the availability of all the voters' receipts will make random manual audits more
accurate.
The credibility of the results of any election depends, to a large extent, on the confidence of each voter
that his or her individual choices have actually been counted. It is in that local precinct after the voter
casts his or her ballot that this confidence starts. It is there where it will be possible for the voter to
believe that his or her participation as sovereign truly counts.chanrobleslaw
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Mandamus is GRANTED. The Commission on Elections is ORDERED to
enable the vote verification feature of the vote-counting machines, which prints the voter's choices
without prejudice to the issuance of guidelines to regulate the release and disposal of the issued
receipts in order to ensure a clean, honest, and orderly elections such as, but not limited to, ensuring
that after voter verification, receipts should be deposited in a separate ballot box and not taken out of
the precinct.
