Petition for prohibition to review the constitutionality & legality of the appointment of respondents
FACTS: Sec.16, Art.VII: The President shall nominate &, w/ the consent of the Com on Appointments (CA), appoint the heads of the exec departments., ambassadors, other public ministers & consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain & 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, & 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.
Sarmiento III v. Mison: (On power of CA to confirm appointments) The position of the BOC Commissioner (a bureau head) is not one of those w/n the 1st group of appointments where the consent of the CA is required. While the 1935 Constitution includes ‘heads of bureaus’ among those officers whose appointments need the consent of the CA, the 1987 Constitution deliberately excluded the position of ‘heads of bureaus’ from appointments that need the consent of CA. The intent was to exclude presidential appointments from confirmation by CA, except appointments to offices expressly mentioned in the 1st sentence of Sec. 16, Art VII.
Bautista v. Salonga: The position of Chairman of the Com on Human Rights is not among those mentioned in the 1st sentence of Sec. 16, Art VII of 1987 Consti, appointments to w/c are to be made w/ the confirmation of the CA. The Pres appoints the CHR Chairman & members pursuant to the 2nd sentence in Sec. 16, Art VII, that is, w/o confirmation of CA bec they are among the officers of govt whom the Pres ‘may be authorized by law to appoint.’ And Sec 2(c) of EO 163 authorizes the Pres to appoint the Chairman & members of CHR.
Quintos Deles, et al. v. The Commission on Const’l Commissions: Since the seats reserved for sectoral reps in par.2, Sec. 5, Art VI may be filled by appointment by the Pres by express provision of Sec. 7, Art XVIII of the Consti, it is indubitable that sectoral reps are among the ‘other officers whose appointments are vested in the Pres in this Consti’ referred to in the 1st sentence of Sec. 16, Art VII whose appointments are subject to CA confirmation.
DOCTRINES FROM THE 3 CASES:
1) Confirmation by CA is required only for presidential appointees mentioned in the 1st sentence of Sec. 16, Art VII, including those officers whose appointments are expressly vested by the Consti in the Pres. 2) Confirmation is not required when the Pres appoints other govt officers whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law or those officers whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. Also, in Mison, when Congress creates inferior offices but omits to provide for appointment thereto, or provides in an unconst’l manner for such appointments, the officers are considered as among those whose appointments are not other wise provided by law.
In March 1989, RA 6715, amending the Labor Code (PD 442) was approved.Sec. 13, RA 6715: “The Chairman, the Division Presiding Commissioners shall all be appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by CA….”Pursuant to RA 6715, Pres Aquino appointed the Chairman & Commissioners of the NLRC. Drilon then issued AO No. 161, designating the places of assignment of the newly appointed commissioners.The present petition questions the constitutionality & legality of the permanent appointments mentioned above w/o submitting the same to CA for confirmation pursuant to Art. 215 of the Labor Code as amended by RA 6715.PETITIONER: insists on a mandatory compliance w/ RA 6715. Mison & Bautista are not decisive in this case for in the case at bar, the Pres issued permanent appointments w/o submitting them to CA for confirmation despite passage of a law (RA 6715) w/c requires the confirmation by the CA of such appointments.SOLGEN (RESPONDENTS): RA 6715 transgresses Sec. 16, Art. VII by expanding the confirmation powers of CA w/o const’l basis. Mison &Bautista laid the issue to rest.SOLGEN: “Three points as regards subsec. 3 of Sec. 10 of Art VII of the 1935 Consti & in the orig text of Sec. 16, Art. VII of 1987 Consti as proposed in Resolution No. 517:
1) in both, the appointments of heads of bureaus were required to be confirmed by CA;
2) in both, the appointments of other officers “whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law to appoint” are expressly made subject to confirmation by CA. However, in the final version of Resolution No. 517, as embodied in Sec. 16, Art. VII of 1987 Consti, the appointment of heads of bureaus & other officers whose appointments are not provided for by law & those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint – are excluded from the list of those officers whose appointments are to be confirmed by CA; 3) Under 1935 Consti, the word “nominate” qualifies the entire Subsec.3 of Sec. 10 of Art VII thereof.SOLGEN: If confirmation is required, the 3 stage process of nomination, confirmation & appointment operates. This is only true of the 1st grp enumerated in Sec. 16, Art. VII but the word nominate does not appear in the 2nd & 3rd sentences. Therefore, the president’s appointment pursuant to the 2nd & 3rd sentences need no confirmation.
ISSUE: 1) Whether or not Congress may, by law, require confirmation by CA of appointments extended by the President to government officers additional to those expressly mentioned in the 1st sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII whose appointments require confirmation by the CA.
RULING: Mison: There are 4 groups of officers whom the Pres shall appoint
1) Heads of exec depts., ambassadors, other public ministers & consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, & other officers whose appointment are vested in him in this Consti.
2) All other officers of the Govt whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law
3) Those whom the Pres may be authorized by law to appoint
4) Officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the Pres alone.
In the course of the debates on the text of Sec 16, Art VII, there were 2 major changes proposed & approved by Const’l Commission: 1) exclusion of the appointments of heads of bureaus from the requirement of confirmation by CA; 2) exclusion of appointments made under the 2nd sentence of the section from the same requirement.
The 2nd sentence refers to all other officers of the govt whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law & those whom the Pres may be authorized by law to appoint.
The NLRC Chairman & Commissioners fall w/n the 2nd sentence of Sec 16, Art VII, more specifically, under the “third grp” in Mison (I.e. those whom the Pres may be authorized by law to appoint). Thus, they are not among those mentioned in 1st sentence whose appointments require confirmation by CA.
To the extent that RA 6715 requires confirmation by CA of the appointments of respondents Chairman & Members of NLRC, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL because:
1) It amends by legislation, the 1st sentence of Sec 16, Art VII by adding thereto appointments requiring confirmation by CA
2) It amends by legislation the 2nd sentence of Sec 16, Art VII by imposing the confirmation of the CA on appointments w/c are otherwise entrusted only w/ the Pres. Legislation cannot expand a constitutional provision after the SC has interpreted it.
Sec 16, Art VII was deliberately intended by the framers to be a departure from the system embodied in the 1935 Constitution where the CA exercised the power of confirmation over almost all presidentiall appointments, leading to many cases of abuse of such power of confirmation.
Subsec. 3, Sec. 10, Art. VII, 1935 Constitution: “The Pres shall nominate & w/ the consent of the CA, shall appoint the heads of the exec departments. & bureaus, officers of the Army from the rank of colonel, of the Navy & Air Forces from the rank of captain or commander, & all other officers of the Govt whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, & those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint.
The solution to Congress’ displeasure/disapproval to the deliberate limitation on the CA’s power of confirmation is a future constitutional change w/c may consider either a return to the 1935 constitutional provisions or the adoption of a hybrid system between 1935 & 1987 Constitution.
RULING: Petition DISMISSED. Art. 215 of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 6715 insofar as it requires the confirmation of CA of appointments of the Chairman & Members of the NLRC is UNCONSTITUTIONAL & of no legal force & effect.
No comments:
Post a Comment