Case Digest (G.R. No. L-79974) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Sarmiento III v. Mison, G.R. No. 79974, decided by the Supreme Court En Banc on December 17, 1987, petitioners Ulpiano P. Sarmiento III and Juanito G. Arcilla, both taxpayers, lawyers, Integrated Bar members and Constitutional Law professors, sought a writ of prohibition to enjoin Salvador Mison from exercising the functions of Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and Guillermo Carague, Secretary of the Department of Budget, from disbursing funds for Mison’s salary and emoluments. They alleged that President Corazon C. Aquino’s appointment of Mison on November 11, 1987 was unconstitutional because it was not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments (CA). The Commission on Appointments intervened to defend its prerogative, and respondents argued that under the 1987 Constitution the appointment was valid without CA confirmation. The Court, without ruling on whether prohibition was the proper remedy or on petitioners’ standing, consolidated issues, required comments and held Case Digest (G.R. No. L-79974) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Subject Matter
- Petitioners: Ulpiano P. Sarmiento III and Juanito G. Arcilla, taxpayers and lawyers, challenged appointment of Salvador Mison as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and payment of his emoluments.
- Respondents: Salvador Mison (Customs Commissioner) and Guillermo Carague (Budget Secretary); intervenor: Commission on Appointments.
- Procedural History
- Petition for prohibition filed to enjoin Mison from exercising his office and Carague from disbursing funds for his salary.
- Court gave due course, allowed Commission on Appointments to intervene, required comments, held oral arguments on December 8, 1987.
- Constitutional and Statutory Background
- Section 16, Article VII, 1987 Constitution classifies Presidential appointees into four groups regarding nomination and confirmation.
- Philippine Tariff and Customs Code (RA 1937, amended by PD 34) vests appointment of Customs Commissioner in the President.
Issues:
- Constitutional Authority
- Does the President have authority under Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution to appoint the Customs Commissioner without prior confirmation by the Commission on Appointments?
- Appointment Validity
- Is respondent Mison’s appointment unconstitutional for lacking Commission on Appointments confirmation?
- Confirmation Requirement Scope
- Which categories of executive officers require Commission on Appointments consent under Section 16, Article VII?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)