Title
Calderon vs. Carale
Case
G.R. No. 91636
Decision Date
Apr 23, 1992
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 13 of RA 6715, requiring CA confirmation for NLRC appointments, was unconstitutional, as it expanded CA powers beyond the 1987 Constitution's limits.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 91636)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Constitutional Framework
    • Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution divides presidential appointees into four groups:
      • “First” group—heads of executive departments, ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces from colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in the President by the Constitution.
      • “Second” group—all other officers whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law.
      • “Third” group—officers whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint.
      • “Fourth” group—inferior officers whose appointments Congress may, by law, vest in the President alone (Mison doctrine).
    • Jurisprudence (Sarmiento III v. Mison, Bautista v. Salonga, Quintos-Deles v. Commission on Constitutional Commissions) held that only the first group requires confirmation by the Commission on Appointments (CA); the second and third groups do not.
  • Legislative and Executive Acts
    • Republic Act No. 6715 (RA 6715; Herrera-Veloso Law) amended Section 13 of the Labor Code (Art. 215), requiring CA confirmation of the NLRC Chairman, Division Presiding Commissioners, and other Commissioners.
    • President Aquino appointed the NLRC Chairman and Commissioners without submitting their nominations to the CA; Labor Secretary Drilon issued Administrative Order No. 161 assigning the appointees.
  • Petition for Prohibition
    • Petitioner Peter John Calderon sought prohibition, arguing that permanent appointments of the NLRC Chairman and Commissioners without CA confirmation violated RA 6715 and the Labor Code as amended.
    • Solicitor General countered that RA 6715 transgressed Sec. 16, Art. VII of the Constitution by expanding the CA’s confirmation power beyond the first group of appointees.

Issues:

  • Constitutional Question
    • May Congress, by ordinary legislation, require CA confirmation of presidential appointments to officers beyond those specified in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution?
    • Is Section 13 of RA 6715, which imposes CA confirmation on NLRC appointments, constitutional under Sec. 16, Art. VII?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.