Title
Bautista vs. Salonga
Case
G.R. No. 86439
Decision Date
Apr 13, 1989
Mary Bautista's CHR appointment did not require CA confirmation; her permanent role was valid, rendering a second appointment void. EO 163-A was unconstitutional, as it compromised CHR independence.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 86439)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Constitutional and Doctrinal Background
    • Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
– First sentence: “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.” – Second sentence: “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.” – Third sentence: “The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone….”
  • In Sarmiento III v. Mison (Dec. 17, 1987), this Court held that only those positions expressly mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16 require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments (CA); all other presidential appointments are made without CA participation.
  • Appointment of Mary Concepcion Bautista
    • August 27, 1987: President Aquino designates Mary Concepcion Bautista as Acting Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR).
    • May 5, 1987: Executive Order No. 163 vests in the President the power to appoint CHR Chairman and Members for a term of seven years without reappointment.
    • December 17, 1988: President Aquino appoints Bautista as permanent Chairman of the CHR, advising her that she “may qualify and enter upon the performance of the duties” of office.
    • December 22, 1988: Bautista takes her oath of office before Chief Justice Marcelo B. Fernan and begins performing the duties of CHR Chairman.
  • Commission on Appointments Proceedings and Executive Action
    • January 9 & 10, 1989: CA Secretary requests Bautista to submit documents and appear before the CA Committee on Justice, Judicial and Bar Council and Human Rights.
    • January 13, 1989: Bautista writes to CA Chairman Salonga, asserting CA has no jurisdiction over her appointment.
    • January 14, 1989: President purportedly extends an “ad interim appointment” of Bautista as CHR Chairman, submitting it anew to the CA (per CA’s subsequent correspondence).
    • February 1, 1989: CA plenary disapproves Bautista’s ad interim appointment and denies a motion for reconsideration; Secretary of CA so informs both the Executive Secretary and Bautista.
    • February 3, 1989: Press reports President Aquino designates CHR Member Hesiquio Mallillin as Acting Chairman pending Supreme Court resolution.
  • Judicial Proceedings
    • January 20, 1989: Bautista files a petition for certiorari with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to enjoin CA proceedings on her appointment.
    • February 9, 1989: Bautista files an amended petition impleading Mallillin and seeking annulment of his appointment; ex parte motion for TRO leads to issuance of TRO against Mallillin.
    • Parties file comments and replies; the Court reserves decision on merits while TRO vs. Mallillin remains in force.

Issues:

  • Whether the appointment of the CHR Chairman by the President requires confirmation by the Commission on Appointments under Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
  • Whether the January 14, 1989 “ad interim” appointment of Bautista was valid in view of her completed December 17, 1988 appointment and lack of vacancy.
  • Whether Executive Order No. 163-A (June 30, 1987), declaring the tenure of CHR Chairman and Members to be “at the pleasure of the President,” is constitutional.
  • Whether Bautista is the duly appointed and lawful incumbent CHR Chairman, entitled to exercise its functions and receive its emoluments.
  • What is the proper mode and ground for removal of an independent constitutional officer such as the CHR Chairman.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

About Privacy Terms