Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
On 9 January 1989, petitioner Bautista received a letter from the Secretary of the Commission on Appointments
requesting her to submit to the Commission certain information and documents as required by its rules in connection
with the confirmation of her appointment as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights. 7 On 10 January 1989,
the Commission on Appointments' Secretary again wrote petitioner Bautista requesting her presence at a meeting of
the Commission on Appointments Committee on Justice, Judicial and Bar Council and Human Rights set for 19
January 1989 at 9 A.M. at the Conference Room, 8th Floor, Kanlaon Tower I, Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City that
would deliberate on her appointment as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights. 8
On 13 January 1989, petitioner Bautista wrote to the Chairman of the Commission on Appointments stating, for the
reasons therein given, why she considered the Commission on Appointments as having no jurisdiction to review her
appointment as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights.
Feb 1, 1989 - Commission on Appointments disapproved petitioner Bautista's "ad interim appointment' as
Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights in view of her refusal to submit to the jurisdiction of the
Commission on Appointments.
CA denied her motion for recon
Issue: WON the appointment by the President of the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), an
"independent office" created by the 1987 Constitution, is to be made with or without the confirmation of the
Commission on Appointments
Held: Petition granted Bautista is duly appointed Chairman of CHR
When Her Excellency, the President converted petitioner Bautista's designation as Acting Chairman to a permanent
appointment as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights on 17 December 1988, 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 Commission on Human Rights. 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.
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.
Appointments that are for the President solely to make, that is, without the participation of the Commission
on Appointments, cannot be ad interim appointments.
8. Quintos-Deles vs Commission on Appointments (177 SCRA 259)
September 4, 1989
J. Bidin
On April 6, 1988, petitioner and three others were appointed Sectoral Representatives by the President pursuant to
Article VII, Section 16, paragraph 2 and Article XVIII, Section 7 of the Constitution. Executive Secretary Catalino
Macaraig, Jr. transmitted by letter, also dated April 6,1988 (Annex L) the appointment of the said sectoral
representatives to Speaker Ramon Mitra, Jr.
Quintos Deles was appointed as representative of the womens sector
On April 18, 1988, the above-mentioned sectoral representatives were scheduled to take their oaths before Speaker
Ramon V. Mitra, Jr. at the Session Hall of Congress after the Order of Business. However, petitioner and the three
other sectoral representatives- appointees were not able to take their oaths and discharge their duties as members of
Congress due to the opposition of some congressmen-members of the Commission on Appointments, who insisted
that sectoral representatives must first be confirmed by the respondent Commission before they could take their
oaths and/or assume office as members of the House of Representatives. This opposition compelled Speaker
Ramon V. Mitra, Jr. to suspend the oath-taking of the four sectoral representatives.
Petitioner in a letter dated April 22, 1988 addressed to Speaker Ramon V. Mitra, Jr. (Annex V) appealed to the House
of Representatives alleging, among others, that since no attempt was made to subject the sectoral representatives*
already sitting to the confirmation process, there is no necessity for such confirmation and subjection thereto of the
present batch would certainly be discriminatory.
In reply, Speaker Mitra in a letter dated May 2, 1988 (Annex BB) informed petitioner that since "President Corazon C.
Aquino has submitted your appointment to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation in a letter dated April
11, 1988, . . . the Commission on Appointments now has sole jurisdiction over the matter."
On May 10, 1988, petitioner Deles received an invitation dated May 6, 1988 to attend a Commission on
Appointments Committee Meeting scheduled for May 12, 1988 for the deliberation of her appointment as sectoral
representative for women (Annex DD). Petitioner sent a reply dated May 11, 1988 explaining her position and
questioning the jurisdiction of the Commission on Appointments over the appointment of sectoral representatives
(Annex EE).
In the May 12,1988 meeting of the Committee of the Constitutional Commissions and Offices of the Commission on
Appointments, chaired by Sen. Edgardo J. Angara, the Committee ruled against the position of petitioner Deles.
Issue: WON Quintos-Deles appointment as Sectoral Representative for Women by the President pursuant to Section
7, Article XVIII of the Constitution, does not require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments to qualify her to
take her seat in the House of Representatives
Held: Petition dismissed
Since the seats reserved for sectoral representatives in paragraph 2, Section 5, Art. VI may be filled by
appointment by the President by express provision of Section 7, Art. XVIII of the Constitution, it is
undubitable that sectoral representatives to the House of Representatives are among the "other officers
whose appointments are vested in the President in this Constitution," referred to in the first sentence of
Section 16, Art. VII whose appointments are subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments
(Sarmiento v. Mison, supra).
Nevertheless, there are appointments vested in the President in the Constitution which, by express mandate of the
Constitution, require no confirmation such as appointments of members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower
courts (Sec. 9, Art. VIII) and the Ombudsman and his deputies (Sec. 9, Art. XI). No such exemption from
confirmation had been extended to appointments of sectoral representatives in the Constitution.
Implicit in the invocation of paragraph 2, Section 16, Art. VII as authority for the appointment of petitioner is, the
recognition by the President as appointing authority that petitioner's appointment requires confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments. Under paragraph 2, Section 16, Art. VII, appointments made by the President
pursuant thereto "shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next
adjournment of the Congress." If indeed appointments of sectoral representatives need no confirmation, the
President need not make any reference to the constitutional provisions above-quoted in appointing the petitioner, As
a matter of fact, the President in a letter dated April 11, 1989 had expressly submitted petitioner's appointment for
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Considering that Congress had adjourned without respondent
Commission on Appointments having acted on petitioner's appointment, said appointment/nomination had become
moot and academic pursuant to Section 23 of the Rules of respondent Commission and "unless resubmitted shall not
again be considered by the Commission."
The power of the President to appoint sectoral representatives remains directly derived from Section 7, Article XVIII
of the Constitution which is quoted in the second "Whereas' clause of Executive Order No. 198. Thus, appointments
by the President of sectoral representatives require the consent of the Commission on Appointments in accordance
with the first sentence of Section 16, Art. VII of the Constitution. More to the point, petitioner Deles' appointment was
issued not by virtue of Executive Order No. 198 but pursuant to Art. VII, Section 16, paragraph 2 and Art. XVIII,
Section 7 of the Constitution which require submission to the confirmation process.
9. Calderon vs Carale (208 SCRA 254)
April 23, 1992
J. Padilla
Facts:
Sometime in March 1989, RA 6715 (Herrera-Veloso Law), amending the Labor Code (PD 442) was approved. It
provides in Section 13 thereof as follows: The Chairman, the Division Presiding Commissioners and other
Commissioners shall all be appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
Pursuant to said law (RA 6715), President Aquino appointed the Chairman and Commissioners of the NLRC
representing the public, workers and employers sectors. The appointments stated that the appointees may qualify
and enter upon the performance of the duties of the office. After said appointments, then Labor Secretary Franklin
Drilon issued Administrative Order No. 161, series of 1989, designating the places of assignment of the newly
appointed commissioners.
Petitioner insists on a mandatory compliance with RA 6715 which has in its favor the presumption of validity. RA 6715
is not, according to petitioner, an encroachment on the appointing power of the executive contained in Section 16,
Art. VII, of the Constitution, as Congress may, by law, require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of
other officers appointed by the President additional to those mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16 of Article
VII of the Constitution.
The Solicitor General, on the other hand, contends that RA 6715 which amended the Labor Code transgresses
Section 16, Article VII by expanding the confirmation powers of the Commission on Appointments without
constitutional basis.
Issue: WON Congress may, by law, require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of appointments
extended by the president to government officers additional to those expressly mentioned in the first sentence of Sec.
16, Art. VII of the Constitution whose appointments require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments
Held: Petition denied - Art. 215 of the Labor Code as amended by RA 6715 insofar as it requires the confirmation of
the Commission on Appointments of appointments of the Chairman and Members of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) is hereby declared unconstitutional and of no legal force and effect
The Congress cannot, by law, expand the list of public officials required to be confirmed by the Commission on
Appointments as provided under Art VII Sec 16 of the Constitution.
Indubitably, the NLRC Chairman and Commissioners fall within the second sentence of Section 16, Article VII of the
Constitution, more specifically under the "third groups" of appointees referred to in Mison, i.e. those whom the
President may be authorized by law to appoint. Undeniably, the Chairman and Members of the NLRC are not among
the officers mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII whose appointments requires confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments. To the extent that RA 6715 requires confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments of the appointments of respondents Chairman and Members of the National Labor Relations
Commission, it is unconstitutional because:
1) it amends by legislation, the first sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII of the Constitution by adding thereto
appointments requiring confirmation by the Commission on Appointments; and
2) it amends by legislation the second sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII of the Constitution, by imposing the
confirmation of the Commission on Appointments on appointments which are otherwise entrusted only with
the President.
Deciding on what laws to pass is a legislative prerogative. Determining their constitutionality is a judicial function. The
Court respects the laudable intention of the legislature. Regretfully, however, the constitutional infirmity of Sec. 13 of
RA 6715 amending Art. 215 of the Labor Code, insofar as it requires confirmation of the Commission on
Appointments over appointments of the Chairman and Member of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
is, as we see it, beyond redemption if we are to render fealty to the mandate of the Constitution in Sec. 16, Art. VII
thereof.
nomination and advised to qualify, Alvarez assumed office as third member of the Provincial Board of Negros
Occidental despite vigorous opposition from Ramos, who thereafter filed the present petition in this Court to have
himself declared legally entitled to the office and to have Alvarez ousted therefrom.
Petitioner contends (1) that he is still legally entitled to the office because his appointment was not subject to the
consent or disapproval of the Commission on Appointments, and (2) that respondent has no title to the office
because his appointment is illegal, being in violation of section 21 (b) of the Revised Election Code for the reason
that he has ceased to be a member of the Liberal party and has not been recommended for appointment by its
president.
Respondent, on his part, contends (1) that petitioner's appointment was subject to the consent of the Commission on
Appointments so that, in accordance with paragraph (4) of section 10, Article VII of the Constitution, it ceased to be
effective upon disapproval of that body; (2) that respondent was, at the time of his appointment, a member of the
Liberal party of Negros Occidental and not opposed by the president, national directory or provincial directory of the
party or by anyone of its members in the Commission; and (3) that, even assuming that respondent was not
recommended by the Liberal party, his appointment would nevertheless be valid, because section 21 (b) of the
Revised Election Code is unconstitutional in so far as it makes such recommendation a prerequisite to a presidential
appointment, thereby depriving the Chief Executive of his right to choose his appointees.
Issue: WON petitioners appointment as member of provincial broad is subject to consent of Commission on
Appointments (YES)
Held: Petition for quo warranto denied
It is our opinion that petitioner's appointment as third member of the provincial board of Occidental Negros
was subject to the consent of the Commission on Appointments, so that his right to the office ceased when
his appointment was rejected by the Commission. Having no legal title to the office, petitioner has no right to
insist on respondent's ouster.
rule is that "when a statute does not specify how an officer is to be appointed, it must be by the President by and with
the consent of the Senate.
The aforementioned section 21 (b) of the Revised Election Code, under which petitioner was appointed, reads:
(b) Whenever in any elective local office a vacancy occurs as a result of the death, resignation, removal or
cessation of the incumbent, the President shall appoint thereto a suitable person belonging to the political
party of the officer whom he is to replace, upon the recommendation of said party, save in the case of a
mayor, which shall be filled by the vice-mayor.