Harold S.

Mape Legal Research (EH 410)

Orlando B. Biscayda Atty. Joan Dymphna Saniel-Amit


Case Synthesis on Presidential Appointments under Sec. 6, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution

The Supreme Court has decided five cases on Presidential Appointments under Sec. 16,
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
In the case of Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 549, the Supreme Court ruled on the
dismissal of the petition on the ground that the 1987 Constitution deliberately and expressly
excluded the head of bureaus from the appointments which require the confirmation of the
Commission on Appointments by reason of the careful study of the deliberations of the 1986
Constitutional Commission. The said deliberations clearly showed the intent of the framers to
exclude by reason that it may be subject them to political influence.
In the case of Mary Concepcion Bautista v. Salonga, 172 SCRA 160, the Supreme Court
ruled in favor of the petition by adhering to the doctrine set in the Mison case. The court
explained that since the position of the Chairman of the Commission of Human Rights is not
among the positions mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. 16, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution, thus such appointments need not to be confirmed by the Commission of
Appointment. The court added that such appointment specifically fall on the second sentence of
the said provision. Lastly, it is consonance with Sec 2 (c) of Executive Order No. 163, 5 May
1987, which authorizes the President to appoint the Chairman and members of the Commission
of Human Rights.
In the case of Teresita Quintos Deles, et. al. v. The Commission on Constitutional
Commission, 177 SCRA 259, 260, the Supreme Court ruled on the dismissal of the petition on
the ground that sectoral representatives of The House of Representatives fall on the first sentence
of the first paragraph of Sec. 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution whose appointments
require the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments. It is also furthermore in pursuant
with Paragraph 2 of Sec. 16, Article VII since the appointment of Deles was made while
Congress was in recess thus implicitly requiring the approval of CoA. Moreover, the president as
a matter of fact submitted to CoA the appointment of Deles thus clearly portrays the need for the
approval of the CoA.
In the case of Calderon v. Carale, 208 SCRA 254, the Supreme Court ruled on the
unconstitutionality of RA 6715 (Herrera-Veloso) Law which expressly provides that the
Chairman and the Commissioners of NLRC shall be appointed by the President subject to the
confirmation of the Commission on Appointment. It ruled that Congress cannot by law expand
the powers of the Commission on Appointment thus requiring its confirmation for it has been
stated clearly in the first sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII of the 1987 the list of appointees subject to
the approval of the Commission on Appointment hence, unconstitutional.
In the case of Tarrosa v. Singson, 232 SCRA 553, the Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the
petition on the grounds that it is in the form of quo warranto which seeks the ouster of the
respondent and thus such special civil action sought by the petitioner (prohibition) can only be
executed by the Solicitor-General or a person claiming to be entitled to a public office or
position unlawfully held or exercised by another. The court explained that if it permitted such
action, it would encourage every citizen to resort to such action which may create hindrance to
the efficient operation of the government. Lastly, it reiterated the decision laid down in the
Carale case in which the Congress cannot by law expand the powers of the Commission on
Appointment and require confirmation of other government officials not expressly declared in
the first sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution.
From the cases above, the Supreme Court have laid down a strict compliance to the 1987
Constitution on the subject of Presidential Appointments whether it needs approval or not by the
Commission on Appointments. Based upon the said cases, three principles are deducible: (1)
Confirmation of the Commission on Appointments is required only for presidential appointees
stated in the First Sentence of Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution and to those
expressly vested in him by the Constitution (Sectoral representatives to Congress and members
of Constitutional Commissios of Audit, Civil Service and Election) (Deles case). (2)
Confirmation is not required on Government on officers not mentioned in the First Sentence of
the First paragraph of Sec. 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution whose appointment are not
otherwise provided by law or those officers whom he maybe authorize to appoint (Mison and
Bautista Case). (3) The Congress cannot by law expand the powers of the Commission on
Appointment for it runs contrary to Sec. 16, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution (Calderon and
Tarrosa Case).
All five cases are anchored upon a common ground which is Sec. 16, Article VII of the
1987 Constitution. The said provision lay down the situations wherein the presidents appointees
are subject or not to the approval of the Commission on Appointments. Moreover, it portrays the
strict adherence to the provisions laid down by the 1987 Constitution.
Additional ideas can also be deduced from the said cases such as: (1) Laws that run
contrary (such as RA 6715 and Sec. 6 of RA 6753) to the provision of the 1987 Constitution are
void and unconstitutional (Calderon and Tarrosa case). (2) Only the Solicitor-General and a
person entitled to a position usurped by another can bring about a judicial question in a manner
of quo warranto or special civil action to oust a government official in office (Tarrosa case). (3)
Appointments done by the President for Sectoral Representatives during the recess of the
Congress both expressly and impliedly require the confirmation of the Commission on
Appointments (Deles Case).(4) Head of Bureaus were intended by the framers of the 1987
Constitution to be excluded in the appointments which require the confirmation of the
Commission on Appoinments (Mison Case).