G.R. No. 79974 December 17, 1987

ULPIANO P. SARMIENTO III AND JUANITO G. ARCILLA, petitioners, vs.SALVADOR MISON, in his capacity as COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, AND GUILLERMO CARAGUE, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET, respondents, COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, intervenor.

FACTS:

Respondent Salvador Mison was appointed as the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs by then

President (Corazon) Aquino. The said appointment made by the President is being questioned by

petitioner Ulpiano Sarmiento III and Juanito Arcilla who are both taxpayers, members of the bar, and

both Constitutional law professors, stating that the said appointment is not valid since the appointment

was not submitted to the Commission On Appointment (COA) for approval. Under the Constitution, the

appointments made for the "Heads of Bureau" requires the confirmation from COA.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT the appointment made by the President without the confirmation from COA is valid.

RULING:

The President acted within her constitutional authority and power in appointing Salvador Mison,

without submitting his nomination to the CoA for confirmation. He is thus entitled to exercise the full

authority and functions of the office and to receive all the salaries and emoluments pertaining thereto.

The 1987 Constitution framers removed “heads of bureaus” as one of those officers needing

confirmation by COA

Under Sec 16 Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution, there are 4 groups of officers whom the President shall

appoint:

1st, appointment of executive departments and bureaus heads, ambassadors, other public ministers,

consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers with

the consent and confirmation of the CoA. 2nd, all other Government officers whose appointments are

not otherwise provided by law; 3rd those whom the President may be authorized by the law to appoint;

4th, low-ranking officers whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the President alone.

First group of officers is clearly appointed with the consent of the Commission on Appointments.

Appointments of such officers are initiated by nomination and, if the nomination is confirmed by the

Commission on Appointments, the President appoints.

2nd, 3rd and 4th group of officers are the present bone of contention. By following the accepted rule in

constitutional and statutory construction that an express enumeration of subjects excludes others not

enumerated, it would follow that only those appointments to positions expressly stated in the first

group require the consent (confirmation) of the Commission on Appointments.

It is evident that the position of Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs (a bureau head) is not one of

those within the first group of appointments where the consent of the Commission on Appointments is

required. The 1987 Constitution deliberately excluded the position of "heads of bureaus" from

appointments that need the consent (confirmation) of the Commission on Appointments.

G.R. No. 86439 April 13, 1989

MARY CONCEPCION BAUTISTA, petitioner, vs.SENATOR JOVITO R. SALONGA, COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND HESIQUIO R. MALLILLIN, respondents

FACTS:

On August 27, 1987, President Cory Aquino appointed petitioner Mary Concepcion Bautista as

permanent Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). On December 22, 1988, Bautista

took her oath of office to Chief Justice Marcelo Fernan and immediately acted as such. The Secretary of

the Commission on Appointments (CoA) wrote a letter to Bautista requesting for her presence along

with several documents at the office of CoA on January 19. Bautista refused to be placed under CoA's

review. Bautista filed a petition with the Supreme Court. While waiting for the progress of the case,

President Aquino appointed Hesiquio R. Mallillin as "Acting Chairman of the Commission on Human

Rights" but he was not able to sit in his appointive office because of Bautista's refusal to surrender her

post. Malilin invoked EO 163-A which provides that the tenure of the Chairman and the Commissioners

of the CHR should be at the pleasure of the President thus stating that Bautista shall be subsequently

removed as well.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Bautista's appointment is subject to CoA's confirmation. Whether or not Bautista's

appointment is an ad interim appointment.

RULING:

Sec. 16, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution provides:

“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 the 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 disapproval by the Commission on

Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.

The Court held that it is within the authority of the President, vested upon her by the Constitution, that

she appoint Executive officials. The second sentence of the provision Section 16, Article VII provides

that the President is authorized by law to appoint, without confirmation of CoA, several government

officials. The position of Chairman of CHR is not among the positions mentioned in the first sentence of

Sec. 16, Art VII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides the appointments which are to be made with

the confirmation of CoA. It therefore follows that the appointment of the Chairman of CHR by the

President is to be made and finalized even without the review or participation of CoA. Bautista's

appointment as the Chairman of CHR, therefore, was already a completed act on the day she took her

oath as the appointment was finalized upon her acceptance, expressly stated in her oath.

Furthermore, the Court held that the provisions of EO 163-A is unconstitutional and thus cannot be

invoked by Mallillin. The Chairman of CHR cannot be removed at the pleasure of the President for it is

constitutionally guaranteed that they must have a term of office.

To hold, as the Court holds, that petitioner 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.

It is to the credit of the President that, in deference to the rule of law, after petitioner Bautista had

elevated her case to this Tribunal, Her Excellency merely designated an Acting Chairman for the

Commission on Human Rights (pending decision in this case) instead of appointing another permanent

Chairman. The latter course would have added only more legal difficulties to an already difficult

situation.

Petitioner Bautista is declared to be, as she is, the duly appointed Chairman of the Commission on

Human Rights and the lawful incumbent thereof, entitled to all the benefits, privileges and emoluments

of said office. The temporary restraining order heretofore issued by the Court against respondent

Mallillin enjoining him from dismissing or terminating personnel of the Commission on Human Rights is

made permanent.