G.R. No. L-25577 - Guevara vs. Inocentes

Petitioner Onofre P. Guevara was extended an ad interim appointment as Undersecretary of Labor by the former Executive on November 18, 1965.
He took his oath of office on November 25, 1965.
In contrast, respondent Raoul M. Inocentes was given a similar ad interim appointment by the incumbent Executive on January 23, 1966.

Petitioner initiated a quo warranto petition seeking a declaration that he was the person legally entitled to hold the Undersecretary of Labor office.
The petition was based on the provisions of Article VII, Section 10(4) of the Constitution.

No express disapproval occurred because the Commission on Appointments had not been constituted during the special session convened by President Marcos.
There had been no legal adjournment of Congress as argued by petitioner:

The special session was suspended by the House on January 22, 1966, at 10:55 p.m. to resume on January 24, 1966, at 10:00 a.m.
The Senate passed a resolution for adjournment sine die on January 23, 1966, after the session had effectively ended.
The suspension and subsequent resumption signified a continuous session, in petitioner's view.

The petitioner further argued that the phrase “until the next adjournment of the Congress” should be interpreted in conjunction with “until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments,” thereby requiring the actual organization of the Commission for the adjournment clause to take effect.

The respondent contended that the petitioner’s appointment lapsed when Congress adjourned its last special session called under Proclamation No. 2.
It was argued that ad interim appointments naturally cease valid after each term of Congress, with petitioner’s appointment having lapsed as early as December 30, 1965.
The respondent further maintained that such appointments were contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy, rendering them null and void.
Reliance was placed on judicial doctrine as laid down in the case of Rodriguez, Jr. vs. Quirino.

Whether an ad interim appointment made during a recess remains valid until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or whether it lapses automatically upon the next adjournment of Congress.

Whether the adjournment clause in Article VII, Section 10(4) applies regardless of whether Congress is in regular or special session.
The impact of the non-constitution or delayed organization of the Commission on Appointments on the validity of the appointment.

How the suspension of a special session by one House (the House of Representatives) interacts with the adjournment performed by the Senate.
Whether the continuity of a session (or lack thereof) affects the termination of ad interim appointments.

Whether the practice of making large numbers of ad interim appointments by an outgoing President infringes upon the incoming President’s prerogative and disrupts the orderly transition of government authority.
The extent to which the doctrine of separation of powers and checks and balances informs the termination or continuation of such appointments.