Election Laws Cases Essay

1. Cayetano v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210FACTS Monsod was nominated by ch cinch Aquino as moderate of the Comelec. The Commission on Appointments confirmed the appointment disrespect Cayetanos objection, establish on Monsods alleged lack of the required qualification of 10 year law suffice. Cayetano filed this certiorari and prohibition.ISSUE Whether or non Monsod has been employed in the practice of law for 10 yearsRULING YES. 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 much(prenominal) actions and proceedings on behalf of clients, and other indusexam plant where the work through involves the stopping point of the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions (PLA vs. Agrava.)The records of the 1986 constitutional focus show that the interpretation of the term practice of law was liberal as to consider lawyers employed in the Commission of Audit as booked in the practice of law provided that they use their legal knowledge or talent in their respective work. The court besides cited an article in the January 11, 1989 issue of the Business Star, that lawyers nowadays stupefy their hold specialized handle much(prenominal) as tax lawyers, prosecutors, etc., that because of the demands of their specialization, lawyers engage in other works or functions to meet them. These days, for example, most corporation lawyers ar involved in management policy formulation. Therefore, Monsod, who passed the bar in 1960, worked with the World Bank grouping from 1963-1970, then worked for an investment bank till 1986, became member of the CONCOM in 1986, and also became a member of the Davide Commission in 1990, notify be considered to have been engaged in the practice of law as lawyer-economist, lawyer-manager, lawyer-entrepreneur, etc.2. 18 December 1990G.R. No. 93867FACTSThe suer is challe nging the appointee by the President of Associate Commissioner Yorac as Acting Chairman of the COMELEC, in place of Chariman Davide. The wooer argues that the choice of the Acting Chairman is an internal matter to the COMELEC. It is also averred that the designation done by the President of the Philippines violates the liberty of the COMELEC.ISSUEWhether the designation done by the President of the Philippines violates denomination IX-A, particle 1 of the Constitution.RULING expression IX-A, Section 1 of the Constitution expressly describes all the Constitutional Commissions as independent. Although essentially executive in nature, they are not on a lower floor the gibe of the President of the Philippines in the discharge of their respective functions. Its closes, orders and rulings are subject unless to review on certiorari by the Court as provided by the Constitution in obligate IX-A, Section 7. The choice of temporary chairman in the absence of the regular chairman come s under that discretion. That discretion cannot be exercised for it, even with its consent, by the President. The designation by the President of answerer Yorac as Acting Chairman of the COMELEC is declared unconstitutiona2. Sixto Brillantes, Jr. vs. Haydee B. YoracG.R. No. 93867. December 18, 1990. FACTS reticuloendothelial systempondent, as Associate COMELEC Chairman, was appointed by the President as Chairmanthereof, replacing actor Chairman Hilario Davide the former chairman was appointed to thefact-finding commission regarding the December 1989 putsch d etat. Petitioner moved for herremoval, stating that her appointment was contrary to Article IX-C, Section 1(2) of the 1987Constitution, where (I)n no case shall every Member (of the Commission on resources) beappointed or designated in a temporary or actingcapacity.Issue Is responders appointment as Chairman in the case at bar unconstitutional.Ruling Yes. Article IX-A Section 1 of the Constitution expressly provides for the i ndependence of theConstitutional Commissions from the executive department this means that they are governedby the Constitution itself and cannot be under the control of the Pres.3. UNIDO VS. COMELECIn 1981, the BP proposed amendments to the 1973 Constitution. The amendments were to be placed to a plebiscite for the mints approval. The YES voting was being advanced by KBL invalidatecos Party. While the NO vote was being advanced by UNIDO. To ensure parity and personifyity, COMELEC issued consequences 1467-1469 w/c basically provided that there be bear on opportunity, equal time and equal space on media use for campaigns for both sides. On 12 Mar 1981, Marcos campaigned for the YES vote via TV and radio from 930pm to 1130pm.The same was broadcasted proceed by 26 TV stations and 248 radio stations nationwide. UNIDO petitioned out front the COMELEC that they be granted the same opportunity as Marcos has pursuant to Resns 1467-69. COMELEC denied the demand. UNIDO assailed the d enial as a denial of equal protection onward the laws. ISSUE Whether or not UNIDO was denied equal protection by faithfulness of COMELECs denial of their request.HELDThe SC ruled that UNIDO was not denied due abut nor were they not afforded equal protection. It is the considered view of the SC that when Marcos conducted his pulong-pulong or consultation with the people on March 12, 1981, he did so in his capacity as President/Prime Minister of the Philippines and not as the whirl of any political society. Under the Constitution, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet shall be responsible . . . for the program of government and shall determine the guidelines of national policy. In instances where the head of state is at the same time the president of the political party that is in power, it does not necessarily follow that he speaks with two voices when he dialogues with the governed. The president is accorded certain privileges that the opposition may not have. Further, the SC can not obligate TV stations and radio stations to give UNIDO free air time as they are not party to this case. UNIDO must desire contract with these TV stations and radio stations at their own expense.4. SANIDAD vs. COMELEC181 SCRA 529Facts On 23 October 1989, RA 6766 (Act providing for an organic act for the Cordillera independent Region) was enacted into law. The plebiscite was plan 30 January 1990. The Comelec, by virtue of the power vested by the 1987 Constitution, the unavowed instructor Election Code (BP 881), RA 6766 and other pertinent pick laws, promulgated Resolution 2167, to govern the conduct of the plebiscite on the say Organic Act for theCordillera Autonomous Region. Pablito V. Sanidad, a newspaper pillarist of Overview for the Baguio Midland Courier assailed the constitutionality of Section 19 (Prohibition on columnists, commentators or announcers) of the said resolution, which provides During the plebiscite campaign period, on the day in advance and on plebisc ite day, no mass media columnist, commentator, announcer or personality shall use his column or radio or television time to campaign for or against the plebiscite issues.Issue Whether columnists are prohibited from expressing their opinions, or should be under Comelec regulation, during plebiscite periods.Held Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution that what was granted to the Comelec was the power to supervise and grade the use and sport of franchises, permits or other grants issued for the operation of transportation or other human race utilities, media of communication or information to the end that equal opportunity, time and space, and the mightily to reply, including reasonable, equal rates therefor, for public information campaigns and forums among candidates are ensured. Neither Article IX-C of the Constitution nor Section 11-b, 2nd paragraph of RA 6646 (a columnist, commentator, announcer or personality, who is a candidate for any elective office is required to polish o ff a leave of absence from his work during the campaign period) can be construed to mean that the Comelec has also been granted the right to supervise and regulate the exercise by media practitioners themselves of their right to expression during plebiscite periods.Media practitioners exercising their free SANIDAD vs. COMELEC5. LAZATIN VS. COMELECLazatin filed the min petition assailing the jurisdiction of the COMELEC to annul his proclamation subsequentlyward he had taken his oath of office, assumed office, and discharged the duties of Congressman of the 1st District of Pampanga. Lazatin claims that the firm of Representatives electoral Tribunal and not the COMELEC is the sole judge of all election contests. Buan, Jr., and Timbol (Lazatins opposition), alleged that the instant petition has become moot and schoolman because the assailed COMELEC Resolution had already become final and executory when the SC issued a TRO on October 6, 1987. In the COMMENT of the Sol-Gen, he alle ges that the instant petition should be devoted due fall because the proclamation was valid. The Telex Order issued by the COMELEC say the canvassing board to proclaim the winner if warranted under Section 245 of the Omnibus Election Code, was in effect a grant of authority by the COMELEC to the canvassing board, to proclaim the winner.A Separate Comment was filed by the COMELEC, alleging that the proclamation of Lazatin was illegal and void because the board simply corrected the returns contested by Lazatin without waiting for the final resolutions of the petitions of candidates Timbol, Buan, Jr., and Lazatin himself, against certain election returns. ISSUE Whether or not the issue should be placed under the HRETs jurisdiction. HELD The SC in a Resolution dated November 17, 1987 resolved to give due course to the petition.The petition is impressed with merit because petitioner has been proclaimed winner of the congressional elections in the first district of Pampanga, has taken his oath of office as such, and assumed his duties as Congressman. For this Court to take cognizance of the electoral objection against him would be to usurp the functions of the House Electoral Tribunal. The alleged invalidity of the proclamation(which had been antecedently ordered by the COMELEC itself) despite alleged irregularities in connection therewith, and despite the pendency of the protests of the rival candidates, is a matter that is also addressed, considering the premises, to the sound ruling of the Electoral Tribunal.6. JAVIER VS. COMELEC 144 SCRA 194 G.R. NOS. L-68379-81 22 SEPT 1986Facts The petitioner and the private respondent were candidates in antiquated for the Batasang Pambansa in the May 1984 elections. The former appeared to enjoy more popular offer but the last mentioned had the advantage of being the nominee of the KBL with all its perquisites of power. On May 13, 1984, the eve of the elections, the bitter contest between the two came to a head when se veral followers of the petitioner were ambushed and killed, allegedly by the latters men. Seven suspects, including respondent Pacificador, are now facing trial for these murders. Owing to what he claimed were attempts to railroad the private respondents proclamation, the petitioner went to the Commission on Elections to question the canvass of the election returns.His complaints were dismissed and the private respondent was proclaimed winner by the Second Division of the said body. The petitioner thereupon came to this Court, arguing that the proclamation was void because made plainly by a division and not by the Commission on Elections en banc as required by the Constitution. Meanwhile, on the strength of his proclamation, the private respondent took his oath as a member of the Batasang Pambansa. Issue Whether or non the Second Division of the Commission on Elections authorized to promulgate its decision of July 23, 1984, proclaiming the private respondent the winner in the elec tion.Held This Court has repeatedly and consistently demanded the cold neutrality of an impartial judge as the indispensable autocratic of due process. To bolster that requirement, we have held that the judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial as an added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just. The litigants are entitled to no less than that. They should be sure that when their rights are profaned they can go to a judge who shall give them umpire. They must depone the judge, otherwise they will not go to him at all. They must cogitate in his sense of fairness, otherwise they will not seek his judgment. Without such confidence, there would be no point in invoking his action for the justice they expect.Due process is intended to insure that confidence by requiring ossification with what Justice Frankfurter calls the rudiments of fair play. Fair play cans for equal justice. There cannot be equal justice where a suitor approaches a cour t already committed to the other party and with a judgmentalready made and waiting only to be formalized after the litigants shall have undergone the charade of a formal hearing. Judicial (and also extra-judicial) proceedings are not orchestrated plays in which the parties are supposed to perk up the motions and reach the denouement according to a prepared script. There is no writer to foreordain the ending. The judge will reach his conclusions only after all the evidence is in and all the arguments are filed, on the introduction of the established facts and the pertinent law.