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:

Background and Context

• The case involves a challenge to the constitutional validity and legality of permanent appointments made by the President of the Philippines to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) without submitting such appointments for confirmation by the Commission on Appointments (CA).
• These appointments were made pursuant to RA 6715 (Herrera-Veloso Law), which amended the Labor Code (PD 442) by requiring that the appointments of the Chairman, Division Presiding Commissioners, and other Commissioners of the NLRC be subject to CA confirmation.
• Subsequent to the enactment of RA 6715, Administrative Order No. 161, series of 1989, was issued by Labor Secretary Franklin Drilon to designate the places of assignment for the newly appointed NLRC commissioners.

Constitutional and Doctrinal Framework

• The controversy centers on Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, which states:

- The President nominates and, with the consent of the CA, appoints heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, officers of the armed forces from a specified rank, and other officers expressly provided by the Constitution. - It also provides that the President has the power to make appointments during the recess of Congress, albeit these appointments remain temporary until either CA disapproval or the next adjournment. - Only appointments expressly mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII require CA confirmation. - Other appointments, including those made under the second sentence (and those to which the President is authorized by law) do not require such confirmation.

The Appointments at Issue

• The appointments under scrutiny are those of the NLRC Chairman and its Members.
• Petitioner Peter John D. Calderon questions whether the mandatory CA confirmation prescribed by RA 6715 for these appointments is valid.
• The petitioner argues that the permanent appointments executed by the President without CA confirmation contravene Section 16, Article VII since such appointments fall under the category which does not require confirmation.

Contentions of the Parties

• Petitioner’s Position

- Argues that RA 6715 must be strictly followed, presuming its validity and mandatory application in requiring CA confirmation for NLRC appointments. - Contends that the prior rulings in Mison and Bautista should not automatically extend to the fact that even under RA 6715, confirmation is not required. - Asserts that RA 6715 is itself unconstitutional since it improperly expands the confirmation power of the CA beyond the limits established by the 1987 Constitution. - Reiterates following the doctrinal lines laid out in Mison and Bautista that only appointments specifically enumerated in the Constitution are subject to CA confirmation.

Issue:

• Whether Congress, through RA 6715, may require that permanent appointments (specifically the NLRC Chairman and Members) made by the President be subjected to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, even though such appointments are not among those expressly mandated by Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
• Whether the statutory requirement for CA confirmation of these appointments amounts to an unconstitutional expansion or amendment of the President’s inherent appointment power as provided under the Constitution.
• Whether the legislative intent behind RA 6715, as applied to the NLRC appointments, is consistent with the constitutional provisions and the established doctrines articulated in previous cases like Sarmiento III v. Mison, Bautista v. Salonga, and Teresita Quintos Deles v. The Commission on Constitutional Commissions.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)