Case Digest (G.R. No. 164978) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., et al. vs. Exec. Secretary Ermita, et al., decided on October 13, 2005, petitioners—Senators Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., Edgardo J. Angara, Juan Ponce Enrile, Luisa P. Ejercito-Estrada, Jinggoy E. Estrada, Panfilo M. Lacson, Alfredo S. Lim, Jamby A.S. Madrigal, and Sergio R. Osmeña III—filed an original petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court directly with the Supreme Court. They challenged the constitutionality of appointments made by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo through Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita, which designated Florencio B. Abad, Avelino J. Cruz Jr., Michael T. Defensor, Joseph H. Durano, Raul M. Gonzalez, Alberto G. Romulo, Rene C. Villa, and Arthur C. Yap as acting secretaries of their respective departments without the consent of the Commission on Appointments while Congress was in session. Congress convened its regular session on July 26, 2004, and constituted the Commission on Appointments Case Digest (G.R. No. 164978) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Petition
- Petitioners: Senators Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., Edgardo J. Angara, Juan Ponce Enrile, Luisa P. Ejercito-Estrada, Jinggoy E. Estrada, Panfilo M. Lacson, Alfredo S. Lim, Jamby A.S. Madrigal, and Sergio R. Osmeña III.
- Respondents: President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita, and acting secretaries Florencio B. Abad, Avelino J. Cruz, Jr., Michael T. Defensor, Joseph H. Durano, Raul M. Gonzalez, Alberto G. Romulo, Rene C. Villa, Arthur C. Yap.
- Congressional Sessions and Commission on Appointments
- Congress convened its regular session on 26 July 2004; Commission on Appointments constituted on 25 August 2004.
- Congress adjourned on 22 September 2004.
- Acting Appointments
- On 15 and 23 August 2004, President Arroyo issued “ACTING SECRETARY” appointments to the eight department heads, directing them to qualify and assume duties.
- Respondents took their oaths and immediately performed the functions of their departments.
- Petition and Ad Interim Appointments
- On 8 September 2004, petitioners filed for certiorari, prohibition, and a preliminary injunction to declare the acting appointments unconstitutional.
- On 23 September 2004—immediately after Congress recessed—President Arroyo issued ad interim appointments to the same respondents as full Secretaries.
Issues:
- Justiciability
- Is the petition moot in light of subsequent ad interim appointments?
- Do petitioners, as Senators, have standing to challenge the appointments?
- Appointment Power
- May the President appoint acting Secretaries without the Commission on Appointments’ consent while Congress is in session?
- Do the 1987 Constitution and EO 292 authorize such acting appointments?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)