RENATO L. CAYETANO, petitioner, vs. CHRISTIAN MONSOD, HON. JOVITO R.

SALONGA, COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, and HON. GUILLERMO CARAGUE

in his capacity as Secretary of Budget and Management, respondents.
Facts: This is an instant petition for Certiorari and Prohibition praying that said confirmation and
the consequent appointment filed by Renate Cayetano against Christian Monsod, one of the
respondents, as Chairman of the Commission on Elections be declared null and void. Monsod, a
lawyer, was nominated by then President Corazon Aquino to be the Chairman of Commission of
Election in a letter received by the Secretariat of the Commission on Appointments on April 1991.
Cayetano, the petitioner, then opposed the nomination stating that the appointment because
according to him, Monsod is disqualified as the position’s qualification requires ten (10) years of
practice of law.
On June 5, 1991, the Commission of Appointments confirmed Monsod’s chairmanship. Then on
June 11, he took his oath and occupy the office.
Issue/s: Whether the appointment violates Section 1(1), Article IX-C of the Constitution.
Ruling: No. The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 1 (1), Article IX-C, that 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 this case, Atty. Monsod has been practicing law privately. Having passed the bar exam in 1960,
he has been paying his as member of IBP since the beginning and paying his professional license
fees for more than 10 years. The court define what private practice is. It is stated that "an individual
or organization engaged in the business of delivering legal services." Monsod' submitted
documents for public hearings for confirmation, determined that he possessed the necessary
qualifications as required by law. The judgment made by the Commission in the exercise of such
an acknowledged power is beyond judicial interference except only upon a clear showing of a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Only when such grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall the Court interfere with the
Commission's judgment. In this case, there is no occasion for the exercise of the Court's corrective
power, since no abuse, that would amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction and would warrant the
issuance of the writs prayed, for has been clearly shown. Appointment is an essentially
discretionary power and must be performed by the officer in which it is vested according to his
best lights, the only condition being that the appointee should possess the qualifications required
by law. If he does, then the appointment cannot be faulted on the ground that there are others better
qualified who should have been preferred. This is a political question involving considerations of
wisdom which only the appointing authority can decide.