Enriquez, Thea

AB Political Science – 3A

RENATO L. CAYETANO v. CHRISTIAN MONSOD

GR No. 100113
Date: 1991-09-03

FACTS:
Christian Monsod was appointed by President Corazon C. Aquino to the
Chairman of the COMELEC issued on April 25, 1991. Renato Cayetano contradicted
the selection because allegedly, Monsod haven't been occupied with the act of law for
at least ten years. This is due to the fact that he did not work on being a legal advisor in
the limits of court alone. The 1987 constitution gives in Section 1, Article IX-C: There will
be a Commission on Elections made out of a Chairman and six Commissioners who
should be regular conceived residents of the Philippines, at least 35 years old, bearers
of a higher education, and should not have been candidates for any elective situation in
the preceeding elections. Notwithstanding, a greater part thereof, including the
Chairman, will be individuals from the Philippine Bar who have been occupied with the
practice of law for at least ten years.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Cayetano possesses the required qualification of engaging
himself in the practice of law for at least ten years.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Monsod possessed the required qualification.
Stated in Association vs. Agrava: The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of
cases or litigation in court. 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 judicial body, the
foreclosure of 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. Therefore, the practice of law
implies any movement regardless if it is in or out of court which requires the utilization of
law, legitimate strategy, information, preparing and experience.
 TAÑADA v. TUVERA

G.R. No. L-63915

Date: 1985-05-24

FACTS:

Applicants Lorenzo M. Tanada, et. al. summoned fair treatment in requesting the
exposure of various Presidential Decrees which they asserted had not been published
as legally necessary. The public authority contended that while publication was
essential, it was not so when it was generally given, as when the decrees themselves
announced that they were to take effect upon approval. The distribution implies total
distribution, and that distribution should be made in the official gazette. Furthermore, on
the provision clause “unless otherwise provided” in Article 2 of the civil code implied that
the publication required therein was not always imperative, that the publication when
necessary, did not have to be made in the official gazette.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a distinction be made between laws of general applicability and

laws which are not as to their publication.

RATIO DECIDENDI:

In Article 2's proviso "except if it is otherwise provided" alludes to the date of

effectivity and not to the prerequisite of distribution itself, which can't be discarded. To
clarify, the provision doesn't imply that the assembly may allow the law to take effect
upon endorsement without its past publication. All statutes, including those of local
application and private laws, will be released as a condition for their effectivity, which
will start 15 days after publication except if an alternate effectivity date is fixed by the
council.