The Constitutional Commissions

Introduction
The Philippine government has three branches: the executive, the
legislative and the judiciary. Aside from the three branches, the 1987
Constitution also created the three independent commissions through Article
IX which perform the vital functions of the government. These are the Civil
Service Commission, Commission on Elections and Commission on Audit.
They are considered independent because the members are prohibited to hold
other office or employment during their tenure, the salary of the Chairman
and the Commissioners is fixed by law and will not be decreased during their
tenure, they are given the power to appoint their officials and employees, they
enjoy fiscal autonomy, and they may promulgate their own rules concerning
pleadings and practice before it or any of its offices. The independence of
these commissions is necessary to be protected against politically motivated
influence and pressure.

The Article IX of the1987 Constitution which is dedicated to the

Constitutional Commissions is divided into three parts to provide for sections
that would specifically apply to each commission. Part A discusses the
provisions for the Civil Service Commission, Part B discusses the provisions
for the Commission on Elections and Part C discusses the provisions for the
Commission on Audit.

Composition and Tenure of Office

The Civil Service Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and
two Commissioners. The President shall appoint the Chairman for a term of
seven years without reappointment, the Commissioner for five years, and the
other Commissioner for three years, also without reappointment. In case of
vacancy, the successor shall fulfill only the unexpired term of the predecessor.
No Member shall be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting
capacity.

The Commission on Elections shall be composed of a Chairman and

six Commissioners. The President shall appoint the Chairman and the
Commissioners for a term of seven years without reappointment. The first
three Members shall hold office for seven years, two Members for five years,
and the last Members for three years. In case of vacancy, the successor shall
fulfill only the unexpired term of the predecessor. No Member shall be
appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.

The Commission on Audit shall be composed of a Chairman and two

Commissioners. The President shall appoint the Chairman and the
Commissioners for a term of seven years without reappointment. For the first
Members, the Chairman shall hold office for seven years, one Commissioner
for five years, and the other Commissioner for three years. In case of vacancy,

1
the successor shall fulfill only the unexpired term of the predecessor. No
Member shall be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.

The appointment of the President of the Members of the Civil Service

Commission, Commission on Elections and Commission on Audit shall be
approved by the Commission on Appointment.

Qualifications
The Chairman and the two Commissioners of the Civil Service
Commission shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time
of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, with proven capacity for
public administration, and must not have been candidates for any elective
position in the elections immediately preceding their appointment.

The Chairman and the six Commissioners of the Commission on

Elections shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of
their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree,
and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the immediately
preceding elections. Moreover, a majority of them, including the Chairman,
shall be Members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice
of law for at least ten years.

The Chairman and two Commissioners shall be natural-born citizens of

the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years
of age, certified public accountants with not less than ten years of auditing
experience, or members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years, and must not have been candidates for
any elective position in the elections immediately preceding their
appointment. There shall be no instances that all the Members of the
Commission belong to the same profession. This means that the Members
shall not be all certified public accountants nor can they be all members of the
Philippine Bar at the same time. There shall be at least one certified public
accountant and at least one member of the Philippine Bar among them all the
time.

Purpose
The main objective of the Civil Service Commission is to establish and
promote professionalism and efficiency in public service. (Bernas, 2009)

The purpose of the creation of the Commission on Elections is to take

charge of the enforcement of all laws relative to the conduct of elections and
devise means and methods that will insure the accomplishment of free,
orderly, and honest elections. ((Sumulong vs. Commission on Elections, 73
Phil., 288; Nacionalista Party vs. The Solicitor General, 85 Phil., 101; 47 Off.
Gaz. 2356)
The objective of the Commission on Audit is to examine the accuracy
of the records kept and determine whether expenditures have been made in

2
conformity with law and to take corrective action when necessary. (Bernas,
2009)

Scope
The Civil Service Commission embraces all branches, subdivisions,
instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government and government-owned
and controlled corporations with original charters.
The Commission on Election is an administrative agency which possess
executive, quasi-judicial, and quasi-legislative powers. It has been given
judicial power as sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns,
and qualifications of all elective local officials. (Bernas, 2009)

The power and authority of the Commission on Audit to examine, audit,

and settle pertains to the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or
instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations
with original charters. Moreover, it has post-audit authority over
constitutional bodies, autonomous state colleges and universities, other
government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries, and non-
governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from
or through the government, which are required by law or by the granting
institution.

Functions of the Independent Commissions

The functions of the Civil Service Commission are the following:

• It shall establish a career service and adopt measures to promote
morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in
the civil service.

• It shall strengthen the merit and rewards system, integrate all human
resources development programs for all levels and ranks, and institutionalize
a management climate conducive to public accountability.
• It shall submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on its
personnel programs.

The functions of the Commission on Elections are the following:

• Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct
of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.

• Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the

elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and
city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective
municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving
elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.

3
• Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting
elections, including determination of the number and location of polling
places, appointment of election officials and inspectors, and registration of
voters.

• Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law enforcement

agencies and instrumentalities of the Government, including the Armed
Forces of the Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of ensuring free, orderly,
honest, peaceful, and credible elections.

• Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or

coalitions which, in addition to other requirements, must present their
platform or program of government; and accredit citizens’ arms of the
Commission on Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be
registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through violence or
unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to this Constitution, or which
are supported by any foreign government shall likewise be refused
registration.

• File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in

court for inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate and, where appropriate,
prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts or omissions
constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.
• Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize election
spending, including limitation of places where propaganda materials shall be
posted, and to prevent and penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses,
malpractices, and nuisance candidacies.

• Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or employee it

has deputized, or the imposition of any other disciplinary action, for violation
or disregard of, or disobedience to its directive, order, or decision.
• Submit to the President and the Congress a comprehensive report on
the conduct of each election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or recall.

The functions of the Commission on Audit are the following:

 To examine and audit all accounts pertaining to the revenue and

receipts of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the
Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities,
including government-owned or controlled corporations with original
charters.

 To examine and audit all accounts pertaining to the expenditures or

uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the
Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities,
including government-owned or controlled corporations with original
charters.

4
 To settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and
expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or
pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or
instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations
with original charters.

 To adopt such measures, including temporary or special pre-audit, as

are necessary and appropriate to correct the deficiencies where the internal
control system of the audited agencies is inadequate. It shall keep the general
accounts of the Government and, for such period as may be provided by law,
preserve the vouchers and other supporting papers pertaining thereto.

 To define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the

techniques and methods required therefor

 To promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including

those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary,
excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or uses of
government funds and properties.

 To decide administrative cases involving expenditure of public funds

Cases and Application

Cayetano v. Monsod , G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991

The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 1 (1), Article IX-C:

There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and

six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and,
at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a
college degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective position 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.

In the case of Cayetano v. Monsod, Christian Monsod was nominated

by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of Chairman of the
COMELEC in a letter received by the Secretariat of the Commission on
Appointments on April 25, 1991. Cayetano opposed the nomination because
allegedly Monsod does not possess the required qualification of having been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
After graduating from the College of Law and having hurdled the bar,
Atty. Monsod worked in the law office of his father. During his stint in the
World Bank Group (1963-1970), Monsod worked as an operations officer for
about two years in Costa Rica and Panama, which involved getting acquainted
with the laws of member-countries negotiating loans and coordinating legal,

5
economic, and project work of the Bank. Upon returning to the Philippines in
1970, he worked with the Meralco Group, served as chief executive officer of
an investment bank and subsequently of a business conglomerate, and since
1986, has rendered services to various companies as a legal and economic
consultant or chief executive officer. As former Secretary-General (1986) and
National Chairman (1987) of NAMFREL. Monsod's work involved being
knowledgeable in election law. He appeared for NAMFREL in its
accreditation hearings before the COMELEC. In the field of advocacy,
Monsod, in his personal capacity and as former Co-Chairman of the Bishops
Businessmen's Conference for Human Development, has worked with the
under privileged sectors, such as the farmer and urban poor groups, in
initiating, lobbying for and engaging in affirmative action for the agrarian
reform law and lately the urban land reform bill. Monsod also made use of his
legal knowledge as a member of the Davide Commission, a quast judicial
body, which conducted numerous hearings (1990) and as a member of the
Constitutional Commission (1986-1987), and Chairman of its Committee on
Accountability of Public Officers, for which he was cited by the President of
the Commission, Justice Cecilia Muñoz-Palma for "innumerable amendments
to reconcile government functions with individual freedoms and public
accountability and the party-list system for the House of Representative.
The Court in the case of Philippine Lawyers Association v.Agrava,
(105 Phil. 173,176-177) stated:

The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in

court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to
actions and special proceedings, the management of such actions and
proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition,
conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in
matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and
condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body,
the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy
and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and
in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice,
as do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done
involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts
and conditions. (5 Am. Jr. p. 262, 263). (Emphasis supplied)

Practice of law under modem conditions consists in no small part of

work performed outside of any court and having no immediate relation to
proceedings in court. It embraces conveyancing, the giving of legal advice on
a large variety of subjects, and the preparation and execution of legal
instruments covering an extensive field of business and trust relations and
other affairs. Although these transactions may have no direct connection with
court proceedings, they are always subject to become involved in litigation.
They require in many aspects a high degree of legal skill, a wide experience
with men and affairs, and great capacity for adaptation to difficult and
complex situations. These customary functions of an attorney or counselor at

6
law bear an intimate relation to the administration of justice by the courts. No
valid distinction, so far as concerns the question set forth in the order, can be
drawn between that part of the work of the lawyer which involves appearance
in court and that part which involves advice and drafting of instruments in his
office. It is of importance to the welfare of the public that these manifold
customary functions be performed by persons possessed of adequate learning
and skill, of sound moral character, and acting at all times under the heavy
trust obligations to clients which rests upon all attorneys. (Moran, Comments
on the Rules of Court, Vol. 3 [1953 ed.] , p. 665-666, citing In re Opinion of
the Justices [Mass.], 194 N.E. 313, quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. v.
Automobile Service Assoc. [R.I.] 179 A. 139,144).

The issue of the case was whether or not Atty. Christian Monsod
qualified with the requirement of 10 year practice of law. The Court has held
that it must interpret the law according to its spirit and not on its letter, thus,
dismissing the petition of Cayetano.

CSC v. DBM, G.R. 158791, July 22, 2005

Article IX (A), Section 5 of the Constitution which provides:

Sec. 5. The Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Their approved

appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released.
The Civil Service Commission seeks to compel the Department of
Budget and Management to release the balance of its budget for fiscal year
2002. At the same time, it seeks a determination by this Court of the extent of
the constitutional concept of fiscal autonomy.

By petitioners claim, the amount of ₱215,270,000.00 was appropriated

for its Central Office by the General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 2002,
while the total allocations for the same Office, if all sources of funds are
considered, amount to ₱285,660,790.44. It complains, however, that the total
fund releases by respondent to its Central Office during the fiscal year 2002
was only ₱279,853,398.14, thereby leaving an unreleased balance of
₱5,807,392.30.

To petitioner, this balance was intentionally withheld by respondent on

the basis of its no report, no release policy whereby allocations for agencies
are withheld pending their submission of the documents mentioned in
Sections 3.8 to 3.10 and Section 7.0 of National Budget Circular No. 478 on
Guidelines on the Release of the FY 2002 Funds.

The no report, no release policy may not be validly enforced against

offices vested with fiscal autonomy is not disputed. Indeed, such policy cannot
be enforced against offices possessing fiscal autonomy without violating
Article IX (A), Section 5 of the Constitution.
Respecting justification of the respondents for the withholding of funds
from petitioner as due to a shortfall in revenues, the same does not lie. In the

7
first place, the alleged shortfall is totally unsubstantiated. In the second place,
even assuming that there was indeed such a shortfall does not justify non-
compliance with the mandate of above-quoted Article IX (A), Section 5 of the
Constitution.

The agencies which the Constitution has vested with fiscal autonomy
should thus be given priority in the release of their approved appropriations
over all other agencies not similarly vested when there is a revenue shortfall.
Considering that the budget for agencies enjoying fiscal autonomy is only a
small portion of the total national budget, only in the most extreme
circumstances will the total revenue collections fall short of the requirements
of such agencies.

Fiscal Autonomy shall mean independence or freedom regarding

financial matters from outside control and is characterized by self-direction or
self-determination. CFAG Joint Resolution No. 49 categorically declares that
fiscal autonomy encompasses: (1) budget preparation and implementation; (2)
flexibility in fund utilization of approved appropriations; and (3) use of
savings and disposition of receipts.

The Court has held that the act of DBM withholding the subject funds
from CSC due to revenue shortfall is unconstitutional. DBM wass directed to
release to CSC the amount of ₱5,807,392.30 representing the unreleased
balance of petitioners appropriation for its Central Office by the General
Appropriations Act for FY 2002.

Brillantes vs. Yorac, G.R. No. 93867, December 18, 1990

Article IX-C, Section 1(2) of the Constitution provides that:

In 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.
The Solicitor General argues that no such designation is necessary in
the case of the Supreme Court because the temporary succession cited is

8
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. . 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.

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

The court has held that the designation by the President of the
Philippines of respondent Haydee B. Yorac as Acting Chairman of the
Commission on Elections is unconstitutional, and the respondent was ordered
to desist from serving as such 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.

Reyes v. COA, G.R. No. 125129, March 29, 1999

Article IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution provides that decisions,
orders or rulings of the Commission on Audit may be brought to the Supreme
Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party.

Petitioner Joseph H. Reyes, a member of the TLRC Provident Fund

Board of Trustees filed a petition with the Supreme Court on June 17, 1996,
as an appeal by certiorari assailing the decision of the Commission on Audit
disallowing the refund of the government share in the fund to the employee-
members, and the denial of the motion for reconsideration of the said decision.

9
 The TLRC Executive Committee created a Provident Fund the primary
purpose of which was to augment the retirement benefits of the officers and
employees of TLRC. The Provident Fund also provided additional benefits 5
to its members, in accordance with the policies and guidelines approved by
the Board of Trustees. The Fund's sources of capital were from contributions
of each member consisting of 2% of his gross monthly salary and TLRC's or
the government's counterpart share equivalent to 10% of the member's gross
monthly salary, earnings of the fund and others.

On June 3, 1993, Corporate Auditor Adelaida S. Flores suspended the

transfer of funds from TLRC to the Provident Fund for the years 1990-1991,
amounting to ₱11,065,715.84, per Notice of Suspension No. 93-006. Auditor
Flores held that under Par. 5.4 of Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10,
Rules and Regulations, issued under R. A. 6758, fringe benefits were allowed
provided that statutory authority covered such grant of benefits. In this case,
there is no law authorizing the grant of fringe benefits to TLRC officers and
employees. Furthermore, all Provident Funds are covered by R. A. 4537, to
which TLRC may not qualify. On December 2, 1993, Corporate Auditor
Flores issued Notice of Disallowance No. 93-003, disallowing in audit the
amount of ₱11,065,715.84, representing the government's share paid to the
TLRC Provident Fund refunded to members, covering the period 1990 to
1991, including all amounts that may have been transferred to the Fund after
1991.

The judgments and final orders of the Commission on Audit are not
reviewable by ordinary writ of error or appeal via certiorari to this Court. Only
when the Commission on Audit acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, may
this Court entertain a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Hence, a petition
for review on certiorari or appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court under
Rule 44 or 45 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court is not allowed from any
order, ruling or decision of the Commission on Audit.

The Supreme Court found that the Commission on Audit did not
commit a grave abuse of discretion in disallowing the distribution of the
government share in the aborted TLRC Provident Fund to its members. As
correctly pointed out by the COA in its decision, the government contributions
were made on the condition that the same would be used to augment the
retirement and other benefits of the TLRC employees. Since the purpose was
not attained due to the question on the validity of the Fund, then the employees
are not entitled to claim the government share disbursed as its counterpart
contribution to the Fund. Otherwise, it would be tantamount to the use of
public funds outside the specific purpose for which the funds were
appropriated. The Provident Fund was dissolved due to lack of statutory basis.
Thus, contributions made were unauthorized, if not unlawful.

The Court had denied the petition had affirmed the decision of the
Commission on Audit.

Guevarra v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-12596 July 31, 1958

10
 Article IX-C Section 2 paragraph 1 of the 1987 Constitution states that:
The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and
functions:

(1) Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the
conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.

Jose L. Guevara, petitioner, was ordered by the Commissioner on

Elections to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for
having published in the Sunday Times issue of June 2, 1957 an article entitled
"Ballot Boxes Contract Hit", which tended to interfere with and influence the
Commission on Elections and its members in the adjudication of a controversy
then pending investigation and determination before said body "arising from
the third petition for reconsideration of May 20, 1957 and the supplementary
petition thereof of June 1, 1957 filed by Acme Steel Mfg. Co., Inc., praying
for reconsideration of the resolutions of the Commission of May 4 and 13,
1957, awarding the contracts for the manufacture and supply of 34,000 ballot
boxes to the National Shipyards & Steel Corporation and the Asiatic Steel
Mfg. Co., Inc. and the respective answers of the latter two corporations to said
petitions; and which article likewise tended to degrade, bring into disrepute,
and undermine the exclusive constitutional function of this Commission and
its Chairman Domingo Imperial and Member Sixto Brillantes in the
administration of all the laws relative to the conduct of elections
The Commission on Elections, on May 4, 1957, after proper
negotiations, awarded to the National Shipyards & Steel Corporation
(NASSCO), the Acme Steel Mfg. Co., Inc. (ACME), and the Asiatic Steel
Mfg. Co., Inc. (ASIATIC), the contracts to manufacture and supply the
Commission 12,000, 11,000 and 11,000 ballot boxes at ₱17.64, ₱14.00, and
₱17.00 each, respectively. On May 8, 1957, both the NASSCO and the
ASIATIC signed with the Commission on Elections the corresponding
contracts thereon. On May 13, 1957, the Commission cancelled the award to
the ACME for failure of the latter to sign the contract within the designated
time and awarded to the NASSCO and the ASIATIC, one-half each, the
11,000 ballot boxes originally allotted to the ACME. The corresponding
contracts thereon were signed on May 16, 1957.
Then followed a series of petitions filed by the ACME for the
reconsideration of the resolution of the Commission of May 13, 1957. The
first of these petitions was filed on May 14, 1957 which, after hearing, was
denied by the Commission in its resolution of May 16, 1957. The second
petition was filed on May 16, 1957 and was denied on May 17, 1957. The
third petition was filed on May 20, 1957, and because of the seriousness of
the grounds alleged therein for the annulment of its previous resolutions, the
Commission resolved to conduct a formal investigation on the matter ordering
the NASSCO and the ASIATIC to file their respective answers. Thereafter,

11
after these corporations had filed their answers, the Commission held a formal
hearing thereon on May 24, 1957. On May 28, 1957, the ACME filed a
memorandum on the points adduced during the hearing, and on June 4, 1957,
the Commission issued its resolution denying the third motion for
reconsideration. The article signed by petitioner was published in the June 2,
1957 issue of the Sunday Times, a newspaper of nation-wide circulation.
The issue is whether the Commission on Elections has the power and
jurisdiction to conduct contempt proceedings against petitioner with a view to
imposing upon him the necessary disciplinary penalty in connection with the
publication of an article in the Sunday Times issue of June 2, 1957 which,
according to the charge, tended to interfere with and influence said
Commission in the adjudication of a controversy then pending determination
and to degrade and undermine the function of the Commission and its
members in the administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections.
The Commission on Elections is an independent administrative body.
Its powers are defined in the Constitution. It provides that it shall have
exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to
the conduct of elections and shall exercise all other functions which may be
conferred upon it by law. It shall decide, save those involving the right to vote,
all administrative questions, affecting elections, including the determination
of the number and location of polling places, and the appointment of election
inspectors and of other election officials.

The Commission on Elections not only has the duty to enforce and
administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections but the power to try,
hear and decide any controversy that may be submitted to it in connection
with the elections. And as an incident of this power, it may also punish for
contempt in those cases provided for in Rule 64 of the Rules of Court under
the same procedure and with the same penalties provided therein. In this sense,
the Commission, although it cannot be classified as a court of justice within
the meaning of the Constitution (Section 13, Article VIII), for it is merely an
independent administrative body, may however exercise quasi-judicial
functions in so far as controversies that by express provision of the law come
under its jurisdiction.

It has been held that the Commission has no power to annul an election
which might not have been free, orderly and honest for such matter devolves
upon other agencies of the Government (Nacionalista Party vs. Commission
on Elections, 85 Phil., 148; 47 Off. Gaz. 2851); neither does it have the power
to decide the validity or invalidity of votes cast in an election for such
devolves upon the courts or the electoral tribunals; it does not also have the
power to order a recounting of the votes before the proclamation of election
even if there are discrepancies in the election returns for it is a function of our
courts of justice (Ramos vs. Commission on Elections, 80 Phil., 722); nor does
it have the power to order the correction of a certificate of canvass after a
candidate had been proclaimed and assumed office (De Leon vs. Imperial, 94
Phil., 680); and only very recently this Court has held that the Commission
12
has no power to reject a certificate of candidacy except only when its purpose
is to create confusion in the minds of the electors (Abcede vs. Imperial, 103
Phil., 136).

In the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct

of elections, the first duty of the Commission is to set in motion all the
multifarious preparatory processes ranging from the purchase of election
supplies, printing of election forms and ballots, appointments of members of
the boards of inspectors, establishment of precincts and designation of polling
places to the preparation of the registry lists of voters, so as to put in readiness
on election day the election machinery in order that the people who are legally
qualified to exercise the right of suffrage may be able to cast their votes to
express their sovereign will. It is incumbent upon the Commission to see that
all these preparatory acts will insure free, orderly and honest elections. All
provisions of the Revised Election Code contain regulations relative to these
processes preparatory for election day. It is incumbent upon the Commission
on Elections to see that all these preparatory acts are carried out freely,
honestly and in an orderly manner. It is essential that the Commission or its
authorized representatives, in establishing precincts or designating polling
places, must act freely, honestly and in an orderly manner. It is also essential
that the printing of election forms and the purchase of election supplies and
their distribution are done freely, honestly and in an orderly manner. It is
further essential that the political parties or their duly authorized
representatives who are entitled to be represented in the boards of inspectors
must have the freedom to choose the person who will represent them in each
precinct throughout the country. It is further essential that once organized, the
boards of inspectors shall be given all the opportunity to be able to perform
their duties in accordance with law freely, honestly and in an orderly manner,
individually and as a whole. In other words, it is the duty of the Commission
to see that the boards of inspectors, in all their sessions, are placed in an
atmosphere whereby they can fulfill their duties without any pressure,
influence and interference from any private person or public official. All these
preparatory steps are administrative in nature and all questions arising
therefrom are within the exclusive powers of the Commission to resolve. All
irregularities, anomalies and misconduct committed by any official in these
preparatory steps are within the exclusive power of the Commission to
correct. Any erring official must respond to the Commission for investigation.
Of these preparatory acts, the preparation of the permanent list of voters is the
matter involved in this case, which to our mind is completely an
administrative matter. (Decision of the Commission on Elections, October 28,
1951, In Re Petition of Angel Genuino vs. Prudente, et al., Case No. 196)

Although the negotiation conducted by the Commission has resulted in

controversy between several dealers, that however merely refers to a
ministerial duty which the Commission has performed in its administrative
capacity in relation to the conduct of elections ordained by our Constitution.
In proceeding on this matter, it only discharged a ministerial duty; it did not
exercise any judicial function. Such being the case, it could not exercise the

13
power to punish for contempt as postulated in the law, for such power is
inherently judicial in nature.

The Court has held that the Commission on Elections has no power nor
authority to submit petitioner to contempt proceedings if its purpose is to
discipline him because of the publication of the article mentioned in the charge
under consideration. The petition was granted. Commission on Elections was
hereby enjoined from proceeding with the case set forth in its resolution of
June 20, 1957.

De Jesus vs. People, G.R. No. L-61998 February 22, 1983

On January 18, 1980, Ananias Hibo defeated candidate of the

Nacionalista Party for the office of mayor of the Municipality of Casiguran,
Sorsogon filed with the COMELEC a complaint charging petitioner Rogelio
de Jesus, then COMELEC registrar of Casiguran, with violation of the 1978
Election Code. Copy of the complaint was sent to the Ministry of Justice
which endorsed the same to the Provincial Fiscal of Sorsogon for
investigation. Noting that petitioner was being charged in relation to his
office, Asst. Fiscals Manuel Genova and Delfin Tarog in their capacity as
deputized Tanodbayan prosecutors, conducted an investigation. Thereafter
Fiscal Genova issued a resolution finding the existence of a prima facie case
against petitioner for violation of section 89 and sub-sections [x] and [mm]
of Section 178 of the Election Code of 1978. After approval thereof by the
Tanodbayan, the following information, dated January 27, 1982, was filed
before the Sandiganbayan:

That on or about January 30, 1980 and sometime thereafter to February

6, 1980, in the Municipality of Casiguran Province of Sorsogon,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused while discharging the Office of the Election
Registrar in the Municipality of Casiguran, Province of Sorsogon,
taking advantage and abusing his official position, did there and there
wilfully unlawfully and feloniously by reason of his being a registrar
knowingly registered persons in order to vote on January 30, 1980
being an election day and at the same time issuing Identification cards
during election day, thereby violating the provision of the Election
Code of 1978 and at the same time tampering with the election reports
by mag it appear that 10,727 persons were the total number of registered
voters for the election of January 30, 1980, when in truth and in fact the
actual total number of voters as - sported on January 27, 1980 by the
accused was only 10,532 but then changed to 10,727, thereby violating
the provisions of Section '89' and Section.'178' under Article XVI
specifically sub- section 'X' and sub-section 'MM' which is a violation
of the Election Code of 1978 to the erosion of public faith and
confidence.

14
 Petitioner filed a motion to quash the information, contending that
neither the Tanodbayan nor the Sandiganbayan has the authority to
investigate, prosecute and try the offense.

The COMELEC, having learned of the pendency of the case, entered

its appearance as amicus curiae, and through its law department manager,
Atty. Zoilo Gomez, Jr., submitted a memorandum supporting petitioner's
stand.
On August 13, 1982, the Sandiganbayan issued the questioned
resolution denying the motion to quash. Petitioner's motion for
reconsideration was likewise denied.

Petitioner and respondents rely on different provisions of the 1973

Constitution as bases for their respective contentions. Petitioner invokes
Section 2 of Article XII[c] of the 1973 Constitution which vests upon the
COMELEC the power "to enforce and administer all laws relative to the
conduct of elections, and its implementing legislation, Section 182 of the 1978
Election Code, which provides the following:

Section 182 — Prosecution. The Commission shall, thru its duly

authorized legal officer, have the power to conduct preliminary investigation
of all election offenses punishable under this Code and to prosecute the same.
The Commission may avail of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the
government.

Upon the other hand, the Sandiganbayan, in its resolution of August 13,
1982, asserts its jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 5054 on the authority of
Section 5, Article XIII of the Constitution, which mandated the creation by
the Batasan Pambansa of a special court, to be known as Sandiganbayan,
which shall have jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft and
corrupt practices, and such other offenses committed by public officers and
employees, including those in government-owned and controlled
corporations, in relation to their office as may be determined by law.

To the Sandiganbayan, the key phrase in the determination as to which

of the Sandiganbayan or the regular courts of first instance should take
cognizance of an election offense, is the phrase, 'in relation to their office'. If
the election offense is committed by a public officer or employee NOT in
relation to their office, generally, jurisdiction will be assumed by the regular
courts. If, on the other hand, the offense was committed by a public officer or
employee in relation to their office, then there is no other tribunal vested with
jurisdiction to try such offense but this court, in consonance with the mandate
of the Constitution that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction.

The grant to the COMELEC of the power, among others, to enforce and
administer all laws relative to the conduct of election and the connected
authority to investigate and prosecute election offenses is not without
compelling reason. The evident constitutional intendment in bestowing this

15
power to the COMELEC is to insure the free, orderly and honest conduct of
elections, failure of which would result in the frustration of the true will of the
people and make a mere Idle ceremony of the sacred right and duty of every
qualified citizen to vote. To divest the COMELEC of the authority to
investigate and prosecute offenses committed by public officials in relation to
their office would thus seriously impair its effectiveness in achieving this clear
constitutional mandate.
From a careful scrutiny of the constitutional provisions relied upon by
the Sandiganbayan, We perceive neither explicit nor implicit grant to it and
its prosecuting arm, the Tanodbayan, of the authority to investigate, prosecute
and hear election offenses committed by public officers in relation to their
office, as contra-distinguished from the clear and categorical bestowal of said
authority and jurisdiction upon the COMELEC and the courts of first instance
under Sections 182 and 184, respectively, of the Election Code of 1978.
Under the Constitution, the Sandiganbayan shall have jurisdiction over
offenses committed by public officers in relation to their office as may be
determined by law [Sec. 5, Art. XIII]; while the Office of the Tanodbayan
shall receive and investigate complaints relative to public office. [Sec. 6, Art.
XIII] The clause, "as may be determined by law" is imbued with grave import.
It called for a legislation that would define and delineate the power and
jurisdiction of both the Tanodbayan and the Sandiganbayan, as what, in fact
had been provided for in Presidential Decree Nos. 1606 and 1607, creating
the said entities. It is, however, to be noted that it is phased in terms so broad
and general that it cannot be legitimately construed to vest said entity with
exclusive jurisdiction over election offenses committed by public officers in
relation to their office.
As aptly observed by the COMELEC as well as the Solicitor General,
splitting the jurisdiction over election offenses would serve no beneficial
purpose but would rather spawn much controversy and complaints about
unequal protection, about inconsistent decisions which are not conducive to a
fair and speedy administration of justice.
The Court has held that the Commission on Elections shall conduct the
investigation, and if the evidence so warrants, prosecute the complaint against
petitioner before the proper court of first instance.

16