Facts:

The case of Peter John D. Calderon vs. Bartolome Carale, et al. (G.R. No. 91636) was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on April 23, 1992. The controversy arose from the appointments made by President Corazon Aquino of the Chairman and Commissioners of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) under the provisions of Republic Act No. 6715, also known as the Herrera-Veloso Law, which amended the Labor Code. The law stipulated that the Chairman and Commissioners of the NLRC were to be appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Calderon, the petitioner, challenged the constitutionality of these appointments, arguing that they were made without the required confirmation from the Commission on Appointments, thus violating Article VII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution. The lower court had to determine whether the appointments were valid under the law and the Constitution, leading to the present petition for prohibit...

Facts:

1. Legislative Background: Republic Act No. 6715 (Herrera-Veloso Law) amended the Labor Code (PD 442) in March 1989. Section 13 of RA 6715 provided that the Chairman, Division Presiding Commissioners, and other Commissioners of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall be appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments (CA).

2. Appointments by the President: Pursuant to RA 6715, President Corazon Aquino appointed the Chairman and Commissioners of the NLRC, representing the public, workers, and employers sectors. The appointments did not require confirmation by the CA, and the appointees were allowed to qualify and assume their duties immediately.

3. Administrative Order: Labor Secretary Franklin Drilon issued Administrative Order No. 161, series of 1989, designating the places of assignment for the newly appointed commissioners.

4. Petition for Prohibition: Peter John D. Calderon filed a petition questioning the constitutionality and legality of the permanent appointments made by the President to the NLRC Chairman and Commissioners without submitting them to the CA for confirmation, as required by RA 6715.

5. Petitioner's Argument: Calderon argued that RA 6715, which mandates confirmation by the CA, is valid and does not encroach on the President's appointing power under Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. He contended that Congress has the authority to require confirmation for appointments beyond those explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

6. Respondent's Argument: The Solicitor General argued that RA 6715 is unconstitutional because it expands the confirmation powers of the CA without constitutional basis. He relied on the Supreme Court's rulings in Sarmiento III v. Mison and Bautista v. Salonga, which held that confirmation by the CA is required only for appointments explicitly mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution.

Issue:

The primary issue before the Court was whether Congress, through RA 6715, could require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments for appointments made by the President to the NLRC Chairman and Commissioners, beyond those explicitly mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and declared Section 13 of RA 6715, which required confirmation by the Commission on Appointments for the appointments of the NLRC Chairman and Commissioners, unconstitutional. The Court held that:

1. The NLRC Chairman and Commissioners fall under the second sentence of Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution, which refers to officers whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law or those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint. Their appointments do not require confirmation by the CA.
2. RA 6715 unconstitutionally expanded the confirmation powers of the CA by adding appointments that are not explicitly mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution.
3. The Court reaffirmed its rulings in Sarmiento III v. Mison and Bautista v. Salonga, which limited the CA's confirmation powers to appointments explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

Ratio:

1. Constitutional Framework: Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution delineates the President's appointing power. The first sentence requires confirmation by the CA for specific appointments (e.g., heads of executive departments, ambassadors, and officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain). The second sentence covers all other officers whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law or those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint, and these do not require CA confirmation.
2. Legislative Overreach: RA 6715 attempted to expand the CA's confirmation powers beyond the constitutional framework by requiring confirmation for appointments to the NLRC. This was deemed an unconstitutional amendment of Section 16, Article VII.
3. Judicial Precedent: The Court reiterated its rulings in Sarmiento III v. Mison and Bautista v. Salonga, which established that the CA's confirmation powers are limited to appointments explicitly mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII. Any expansion of these powers through legislation is unconstitutional.
4. Separation of Powers: The Court emphasized that the interpretation of the Constitution is a judicial function, and Congress cannot amend the Constitution through legislation. The framers of the 1987 Constitution deliberately limited the CA's confirmation powers to prevent abuses seen under the 1935 Constitution.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinions

• Concurring Opinion (Justice Gutierrez, Jr.): While Justice Gutierrez disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 16, Article VII in previous cases, he concurred with the dismissal of the petition to provide finality to the issue and avoid endless litigation.
• Dissenting Opinion (Justice Cruz): Justice Cruz dissented, arguing that the Court should re-examine its ruling in Sarmiento III v. Mison, which he believed was erroneous. He maintained that the CA's confirmation powers should not be as narrowly construed as the majority held.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional limits on the Commission on Appointments' confirmation powers, ruling that Congress cannot expand these powers through legislation. The appointments of the NLRC Chairman and Commissioners, falling under the second sentence of Section 16, Article VII, do not require CA confirmation. RA 6715, insofar as it required such confirmation, was declared unconstitutional.