The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.
The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until after disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress. (Sec. 16, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution) |
|---|
In August 1987, President Cory Aquino designated petitioner Mary Concepcion Bautista as "Acting Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights. In December 1987, she extended to Bautista a permanent appointment as Chairman of the Commission. Bautista took her oath of office and immediately discharged her functions and duties.
In January 1989, President Aquino extended an "ad interim appointment" to Bautista.
In February 1989, the Commission on Appointments, requested Bautista's presence along with documents as required by its rules in connection with the confirmation of her appointment. Bautista refused to be placed under CA's review. She then filed a petition for certiorari with a prayer for the immediate issuance of a TRO before the SC, to declare "as unlawful and unconstitutional and without any legal force and effect any action of the CA on her lawfully extended appointment on the ground that they have no lawful and constitutional authority to confirm and to review her appointment.
Meanwhile, the CA wrote a letter to Executive Secretary Macaraig informing him that the CA disapproved Bautista's "ad interim appointment" as Chairperson of the CHR.
Pending the resolution of Bautista's case, President Aquino designated Mallillin as "Acting Chairman of the CHR".
Bautista filed a supplemental urgent ex-parte motion seeking to restrain Mallillin from continuing to exercise the functions of chairman. The SC issued a TRO.
CA contends that, granting that Bautista's appointment as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights is one that, under Sec. 16, Art. VII of the Constitution, as interpreted in the Mison case, is solely for the President to make, yet, it is within the president's prerogative to voluntarily submit such appointment to the CA for confirmation.
Malilin invoked EO 163-A which provides that the tenure of the Chairman and the Commissioners of the CHR shall be at the pleasure of the President.
In January 1989, President Aquino extended an "ad interim appointment" to Bautista.
In February 1989, the Commission on Appointments, requested Bautista's presence along with documents as required by its rules in connection with the confirmation of her appointment. Bautista refused to be placed under CA's review. She then filed a petition for certiorari with a prayer for the immediate issuance of a TRO before the SC, to declare "as unlawful and unconstitutional and without any legal force and effect any action of the CA on her lawfully extended appointment on the ground that they have no lawful and constitutional authority to confirm and to review her appointment.
Meanwhile, the CA wrote a letter to Executive Secretary Macaraig informing him that the CA disapproved Bautista's "ad interim appointment" as Chairperson of the CHR.
Pending the resolution of Bautista's case, President Aquino designated Mallillin as "Acting Chairman of the CHR".
Bautista filed a supplemental urgent ex-parte motion seeking to restrain Mallillin from continuing to exercise the functions of chairman. The SC issued a TRO.
CA contends that, granting that Bautista's appointment as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights is one that, under Sec. 16, Art. VII of the Constitution, as interpreted in the Mison case, is solely for the President to make, yet, it is within the president's prerogative to voluntarily submit such appointment to the CA for confirmation.
Malilin invoked EO 163-A which provides that the tenure of the Chairman and the Commissioners of the CHR shall be at the pleasure of the President.
Issues:
1. Does the appointment of the Chairman and Members of the CHR require the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments?
2. After Bautista took an oath and discharged the functions of the office, could the President extend an "ad interim appointment" or any other kind of appointment that called for confirmation by the CA?
3. Was the appointment or re-appointment of Bautista on January 14, 1989 an ad interim appointment? Does an ad interim appointments apply to appointments solely for the President to make, i.e., without the participation of the CA?
1. Does the appointment of the Chairman and Members of the CHR require the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments?
2. After Bautista took an oath and discharged the functions of the office, could the President extend an "ad interim appointment" or any other kind of appointment that called for confirmation by the CA?
3. Was the appointment or re-appointment of Bautista on January 14, 1989 an ad interim appointment? Does an ad interim appointments apply to appointments solely for the President to make, i.e., without the participation of the CA?
4. Can the tenure in office of said Chairman (and Members) be made dependent on the pleasure of the President?
5. Can Bautista be removed from office?
5. Can Bautista be removed from office?
Held:
1. No. Since the position of Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights is not among the positions mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution, it follows that the appointment by the President of the Chairman of the (CHR), is to be made without the review or participation of the Commission on Appointments.
To be more precise, the appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Commission on Human Rights is not specifically provided for in the Constitution itself, unlike the Chairmen and Members of the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit, whose appointments are expressly vested by the Constitution in the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments.
2. Neither the Executive nor the Legislative (Commission on Appointments) can create power where the Constitution confers none. The evident constitutional intent is to strike a careful and delicate balance, in the matter of appointments to public office, between the President and Congress (the latter acting through the Commission on Appointments). To tilt one side or the other of the scale is to disrupt or alter such balance of power. In other words, to the extent that the Constitution has blocked off certain appointments for the President to make with the participation of the Commission on Appointments, so also has the Constitution mandated that the President can confer no power of participation in the Commission on Appointments over other appointments exclusively reserved for her by the Constitution. The exercise of political options that finds no support in the Constitution cannot be sustained.
Nor can the Commission on Appointments, by the actual exercise of its constitutionally delimited power to review presidential appointments, create power to confirm appointments that the Constitution has reserved to the President alone. Stated differently, when the appointment is one that the Constitution mandates is for the President to make without the participation of the Commission on Appointments, the executive's voluntary act of submitting such appointment to the Commission on Appointments and the latter's act of confirming or rejecting the same, are done without or in excess of jurisdiction.
Even if the president may voluntarily submit to the commission on appointments an appointment that under the constitution solely belongs to her, still, there was no vacancy to which an appointment could be made on 14 January 1989. When Her Excellency, the President converted Bautista's designation as Acting Chairman to a permanent appointment as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, significantly she advised Bautista (in the same appointment letter) that, by virtue of such appointment, she could qualify and enter upon the performance of the duties of the office of Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights. All that remained for Bautista to do was to reject or accept the appointment. Obviously, she accepted the appointment by taking her oath of office before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Hon. Marcelo B. Fernan and assuming immediately thereafter the functions and duties of the Chairman of the CHR. Bautista's appointment therefore on 17 December 1988 as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights was a completed act on the part of the President.
3. No. Under the Constitutional design, ad interim appointments do not apply to appointments solely for the President to make, i.e., without the participation of the Commission on Appointments. Ad interim appointments, by their very nature under the 1987 Constitution, extend only to appointments where the review of the Commission on Appointments is needed. That is why ad interim appointments are to remain valid until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress; but appointments that are for the President solely to make, that is, without the participation of the Commission on Appointments, can not be ad interim appointments.
4. No. Previous to Executive Order No. 163-A, or on 5 May 1987, Executive Order No. 163 was issued by the President, Sec. 2(c) of which provides:
Tenure in office should not be confused with term of office. As Mr. Justice (later, Chief Justice) Concepcion in his concurring opinion in Alba vs. Evangelista, stated:
The distinction between "term" and "tenure" is important, for, pursuant to the Constitution, "no officer or employee in the Civil Service may be removed or suspended except for cause, as provided by law" (Art. XII, section 4), and this fundamental principle would be defeated if Congress could legally make the tenure of some officials dependent upon the pleasure of the President, by clothing the latter with blanket authority to replace a public officer before the expiration of his term.
When Executive Order No. 163 was issued, the evident purpose was to comply with the constitutional provision that "the term of office and other qualifications and disabilities of the Members of the Commission (on Human Rights) shall be provided by law" (Sec. 17(2), Art. XIII, 1987 Constitution).
As the term of office of the Chairman (and Members) of the Commission on Human Rights, is seven (7) years, without reappointment, as provided by Executive Order No. 163, and consistent with the constitutional design to give the Commission the needed independence to perform and accomplish its functions and duties, the tenure in office of said Chairman (and Members) cannot be later made dependent on the pleasure of the President.
Executive Order No. 163 was declared unconstitutional.
5. Bautista is the lawful incumbent of the office of Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights by virtue of her appointment, as such, by the President on 17 December 1988, and her acceptance thereof, is not to say that she cannot be removed from office before the expiration of her seven (7) year term. She certainly can be removed but her removal must be for cause and with her right to due process properly safeguarded. (Bautista vs. Salonga, G.R. No. 86439, April 13, 1989)
1. No. Since the position of Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights is not among the positions mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution, it follows that the appointment by the President of the Chairman of the (CHR), is to be made without the review or participation of the Commission on Appointments.
To be more precise, the appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Commission on Human Rights is not specifically provided for in the Constitution itself, unlike the Chairmen and Members of the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit, whose appointments are expressly vested by the Constitution in the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments.
2. Neither the Executive nor the Legislative (Commission on Appointments) can create power where the Constitution confers none. The evident constitutional intent is to strike a careful and delicate balance, in the matter of appointments to public office, between the President and Congress (the latter acting through the Commission on Appointments). To tilt one side or the other of the scale is to disrupt or alter such balance of power. In other words, to the extent that the Constitution has blocked off certain appointments for the President to make with the participation of the Commission on Appointments, so also has the Constitution mandated that the President can confer no power of participation in the Commission on Appointments over other appointments exclusively reserved for her by the Constitution. The exercise of political options that finds no support in the Constitution cannot be sustained.
Nor can the Commission on Appointments, by the actual exercise of its constitutionally delimited power to review presidential appointments, create power to confirm appointments that the Constitution has reserved to the President alone. Stated differently, when the appointment is one that the Constitution mandates is for the President to make without the participation of the Commission on Appointments, the executive's voluntary act of submitting such appointment to the Commission on Appointments and the latter's act of confirming or rejecting the same, are done without or in excess of jurisdiction.
Even if the president may voluntarily submit to the commission on appointments an appointment that under the constitution solely belongs to her, still, there was no vacancy to which an appointment could be made on 14 January 1989. When Her Excellency, the President converted Bautista's designation as Acting Chairman to a permanent appointment as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, significantly she advised Bautista (in the same appointment letter) that, by virtue of such appointment, she could qualify and enter upon the performance of the duties of the office of Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights. All that remained for Bautista to do was to reject or accept the appointment. Obviously, she accepted the appointment by taking her oath of office before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Hon. Marcelo B. Fernan and assuming immediately thereafter the functions and duties of the Chairman of the CHR. Bautista's appointment therefore on 17 December 1988 as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights was a completed act on the part of the President.
3. No. Under the Constitutional design, ad interim appointments do not apply to appointments solely for the President to make, i.e., without the participation of the Commission on Appointments. Ad interim appointments, by their very nature under the 1987 Constitution, extend only to appointments where the review of the Commission on Appointments is needed. That is why ad interim appointments are to remain valid until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress; but appointments that are for the President solely to make, that is, without the participation of the Commission on Appointments, can not be ad interim appointments.
4. No. Previous to Executive Order No. 163-A, or on 5 May 1987, Executive Order No. 163 was issued by the President, Sec. 2(c) of which provides:
Sec. 2(c). The Chairman and the Members of the Commission on Human Rights shall be appointed by the President for a term of seven years without reappointment. Appointments to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of the predecessor.It is to be noted that, while the earlier executive order (No. 163) speaks of a term of office of the Chairman and Members of the Commission on Human Rights — which is seven (7) years without reappointment — the later executive order (163-A) speaks of the tenure in office of the Chairman and Members of the Commission on Human Rights, which is "at the pleasure of the President."
Tenure in office should not be confused with term of office. As Mr. Justice (later, Chief Justice) Concepcion in his concurring opinion in Alba vs. Evangelista, stated:
The distinction between "term" and "tenure" is important, for, pursuant to the Constitution, "no officer or employee in the Civil Service may be removed or suspended except for cause, as provided by law" (Art. XII, section 4), and this fundamental principle would be defeated if Congress could legally make the tenure of some officials dependent upon the pleasure of the President, by clothing the latter with blanket authority to replace a public officer before the expiration of his term.
When Executive Order No. 163 was issued, the evident purpose was to comply with the constitutional provision that "the term of office and other qualifications and disabilities of the Members of the Commission (on Human Rights) shall be provided by law" (Sec. 17(2), Art. XIII, 1987 Constitution).
As the term of office of the Chairman (and Members) of the Commission on Human Rights, is seven (7) years, without reappointment, as provided by Executive Order No. 163, and consistent with the constitutional design to give the Commission the needed independence to perform and accomplish its functions and duties, the tenure in office of said Chairman (and Members) cannot be later made dependent on the pleasure of the President.
Executive Order No. 163 was declared unconstitutional.
5. Bautista is the lawful incumbent of the office of Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights by virtue of her appointment, as such, by the President on 17 December 1988, and her acceptance thereof, is not to say that she cannot be removed from office before the expiration of her seven (7) year term. She certainly can be removed but her removal must be for cause and with her right to due process properly safeguarded. (Bautista vs. Salonga, G.R. No. 86439, April 13, 1989)
0 Comments
Post a Comment