CAYETANO VS MONSOD

ISSUE:  W/N the appointment of Chairman Monsod of Comelec violates Section 1 (1), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution.

FACTS:  Respondent 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. Petitioner 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. On June
5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC. On June 18, 1991, he
took his oath of office. On the same day, he assumed office as Chairman of the COMELEC. Challenging the validity of the confirmation
by the Commission on Appointments of Monsod's nomination, petitioner as a citizen and taxpayer, filed the instant petition for certiorari
and Prohibition praying that said confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections
be declared null and void. 

DECISION:  No 

RATIO DECIDENDI:  The judgment rendered 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. (Art. VIII, Sec. 1
Constitution). In the leading case of Luego v. Civil Service Commission, the Court said that, 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.  

G.R. No. 118712, October 6, 1995

Landbank of the Philippines
vs Court of Appeals, Pedro Yap, Heirs of Emiliano Santiago, Agricultural Management and Development Corp.
Ponente: Francisco

Facts:
Yap and Santiago are landowners whose landholdings were acquired by the DAR, subjecting it for transfer to qualified CARP
beneficiaries. Aggrieved by the compensation valuation of DAR and LBP, respondents filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with a
preliminary mandatory injunction. The case was referred to CA for proper determination and disposition.

Respondents argued that DAR and LBP committed grave abuse of discretion and acted without jurisdiction when they opened trusts
accounts in lieu of the depositing in cash or bonds, before the lands was taken and the titles are cancelled. Respondents claim that before
the taking of the property, the compensation must be deposited in cash or bonds.

DAR, maintained that the certificate of deposit was a substantial compliance with the rule on taking and compensation. LBP confirms that
the certificate of deposit expresses "reserved/deposited".

CA ruled in favor of Yap and Santiago. DAR filed a petition.  DAR, maintain that the word "deposit" referred merely to the act of
depositing and in no way excluded the opening of a trust account as form of deposit.

Issue: Whether the opening of trust account tantamount to deposit.

Ruling:
Contention of DAR is untenable. Section 16 of RA 6657 provides: (e)        Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment
or, in case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the
compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request
the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. . . . (emphasis
supplied)

It is very explicit that the deposit must be made only in cash or LBP bonds, there is no ambiguity.