Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
AYTONA V. CASTILLO
On December 29, 1961, Outgoing President Carlos
Garcia appointed petitioner Dominador Aytona as ad
interim Governor of the Central Bank. Aytona took the
corresponding oath. On the same day, at noon,
President-elect Diosdado Macapagal assumed office;
and on the next day, he issued administrative order
no. 2 recalling, withdrawing, and cancelling all ad
interim appointments made by former President
Garcia. There were all-in all, 350 midnight or last
minute appointments made by the former President
Garcia. On January 1, President Macapagal appointed
Andres Castillo as ad interim Governor of the Central
Bank. Aytona instituted a case (quo warranto) against
Castillo, contending that he was validly appointed,
thus the subsequent appointment to Castillo by the
new President, should be considered void.
ISSUE: Whether or not the 350 midnight appointments
of former President Garcia were valid.
RULING: No. After the proclamation of the election of
President Macapagal, previous President Garcia
administration was no more than a care-taker
administration. He was duty bound to prepare for the
orderly transfer of authority the incoming President,
and he should not do acts which he ought to know,
would embarrass or obstruct the policies of his
successor.
It was not for him to use powers as
incumbent President to continue the political warfare
JARDELEZA V. SERENO
Following Justice Abads compulsory retirement, the
JBC announced the application or recommendations for
the position left by the Associate Justice. Jardeleza,
the incumbent Sol-Gen at the time, was included in the
list of candidates. However, he was informed through
telephone call from some Justices that the Chief Justice
herself CJ Sereno, will be invoking Sec 2, Rule 10 of
JBC-009 or the so-called unanimity rule against him.
Generally, the rule is that an applicant is included in
the shortlist when s/he obtains affirmative vote of at
least a majority of all the members of the JBC. When
Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009, however, is invoked
because an applicants integrity is challenged, a
unanimous vote is required.
Jardeleza was then
directed to make himself available on June 30, 2014
before the JBC during which he would be informed of
the objections to his integrity.
Jardeleza wrote a letter-petition asking the SC to
exercise its supervisory power and direct the JBC to,
among others, give Jardeleza a written notice and
sworn written statements of his oppositors or any
documents in the JBC hearings, and to disallow CJ
Sereno from participating in the voting process for
nominees on June 30, 2014.
During the June 30, 2014 meeting of the JBC, Justice
Carpio appeared and disclosed a confidential
information which, to CJ Sereno, characterized
Jardelezas integrity as dubious. Jardeleza demanded
SEC 16
ATTY. ELPIDIO SORIANO III VS. REUBEN LISTA, ET
AL.
Eight officers of the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) were
promoted by the President to Vice Admiral, Rear
Admiral, Commodore, Naval Captain, and they
assumed
office
without
confirmation
by
the
Commission on Appointments (COA). Petitioner, as a
taxpayer, filed a petition with the Supreme Court
questioning the constitutionality of their assumption of
office, which requires confirmation of the COA.
Held: Petitioner has no locus standi. A party bringing a
suit challenging the constitutionality of an act or
Arroyo
(President
Arroyo)
through
Executive
Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita (Secretary Ermita) to
Florencio B. Abad, Avelino J. Cruz, Jr., Michael T.
Defensor, Joseph H. Durano, Raul M. Gonzalez, Alberto
G. Romulo, Rene C. Villa, and Arthur C. Yap
(respondents) as acting secretaries of their
respective departments.
On August 2004, Arroyo issued appointments to
respondents as acting secretaries of their respective
departments.
Congress adjourned on 22 September 2004. On 23
September 2004, President Arroyo issued ad interim
appointments to respondents as secretaries of the
departments to which they were previously appointed
in an acting capacity.
Issue:
Is
President
Arroyos
appointment
of
respondents as acting secretaries without the consent
of the Commission on Appointments while Congress is
in session, constitutional?
Held: Yes. The power to appoint is essentially
executive in nature, and the legislature may not
interfere with the exercise of this executive power
except in those instances when the Constitution
expressly allows it to interfere. Limitations on the
executive power to appoint are construed strictly
against the legislature. The scope of the legislatures
interference in the executives power to appoint is
limited to the power to prescribe the qualifications to
an appointive office. Congress cannot appoint a person
MATIBAG V. BENIPAYO
On February 1999, petitioner Matibag was appointed
Acting Director IV of the Comelecs EID by then
Comelec Chairperson Harriet Demetriou in a
temporary capacity. On March 2001, respondent
Benipayo was appointed Comelec Chairman together
with other commissioners in an ad interim
appointment. While on such ad interim appointment,
respondent Benipayo in his capacity as Chairman
issued a Memorandum address transferring petitioner
to the Law Department. Petitioner requested Benipayo
to reconsider her relief as Director IV of the EID and
her reassignment to the Law Department. She cited
Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 7
dated April 10, 2001, reminding heads of government
offices that transfer and detail of employees are
prohibited during the election period. Benipayo denied
her request for reconsideration on April 18, 2001,
citing COMELEC Resolution No. 3300 dated November
6, 2000, exempting Comelec from the coverage of the
said Memo Circular. Petitioner appealed the denial of
her request for reconsideration to the COMELEC en
banc. She also filed an administrative and criminal
complaint Department 17 against Benipayo, alleging
SEC17
BIRAOGO
V.
COMMISSION
THE
PHILIPPINE
TRUTH
RULING:
4.
Court
finds
difficulty
in
upholding
the
constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1 in view of its
apparent transgression of the equal protection clause
enshrined in Section 1, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the
1987 Constitution.
Equal protection requires that all persons or things
similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to
rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. It
requires public bodies and institutions to treat similarly
situated individuals in a similar manner. The purpose
of the equal protection clause is to secure every
person within a states jurisdiction against intentional
and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by
the express terms of a statue or by its improper
execution through the states duly constituted
authorities.
There must be equality among equals as determined
according to a valid classification. Equal protection
clause permits classification. Such classification,
however, to be valid must pass the test of
reasonableness. The test has four requisites: (1) The
classification rests on substantial distinctions; (2) It is
germane to the purpose of the law; (3) It is not limited
to existing conditions only; and (4) It applies equally to
all members of the same class.
The classification will be regarded as invalid if all the
members of the class are not similarly treated, both as
to rights conferred and obligations imposed.