Case Digest (G.R. No. 203372)
Facts:
Atty. Cheloy E. Velicaria‑Garafil v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 203372; Atty. Dindo G. Venturanza v. Office of the President et al., G.R. No. 206290; Irma A. Villanueva and Francisca B. Rosquita v. Court of Appeals and Office of the President, G.R. No. 209138; Eddie U. Tamondong v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 212030, June 16, 2015, Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio, J., writing for the Court. These consolidated petitions contest the recall/revocation of presidential appointments pursuant to Executive Order No. 2 (EO 2) (30 July 2010) and raise the constitutionality and scope of the midnight‑appointment ban under Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.Petitioners are appointees of outgoing President Gloria Macapagal‑Arroyo: Atty. Velicaria‑Garafil (State Solicitor II, OSG; G.R. No. 203372), Atty. Venturanza (Prosecutor IV / City Prosecutor, Quezon City; G.R. No. 206290), Irma Villanueva (CDA Administrator for Visayas) and Francisca Rosquita (NCIP Commissioner; consolidated as G.R. No. 209138), and Atty. Eddie Tamondong (member, SBMA Board; G.R. No. 212030). Each received appointment papers dated in late February or March 2010, but the dates of actual transmittal, receipt by the agencies, delivery through the Malacañang Records Office (MRO), oath‑taking, and assumption of office varied.
After President Benigno S. Aquino III assumed office, EO 2 (30 July 2010) defined “midnight appointments,” recalled/revoked them and declared affected positions vacant; it authorized OIC designations to preserve continuity. Following EO 2, affected agencies implemented revocations (e.g., Solicitor General Cadiz notified OSG personnel of termination notices; DOJ designated an OIC in Quezon City).
Multiple petitioners filed actions in the Supreme Court: G.R. Nos. 203372, 206290 and 212030 were brought under Rule 45 (petitions for review on certiorari); G.R. No. 209138 was filed under Rule 65 (certiorari). On 31 January 2012 the Court referred the consolidated cases to the Court of Appeals (CA) to receive and assess evidence and decide issues as if originally filed there. The CA issued separate Decisions (31 August 2012 for G.R. Nos. 203372, 206290, 212030; 28 August 2013 for G.R. No. 209138) uniformly upholding EO 2 as constitutional but differing on whether particular appointments might be spared and in some instances referring factual evaluation back to the Office of the President. Petitioners sought review in the Supreme Court; the present consolidated decision is by way of the Rule 45 petitions (and the Rule 65 filing in G.R. No. 209138).
Key factual findings (CA record and MRO testimony): thousands of appointment papers were signed in March 2010; only a fraction were released through the MRO; where MRO release/receipt dates exist they fell on or after 11 March 2010 (the start of the two‑month prohibition for the May 2010 elections); the petitioners in these cases took their oaths or assumed office on...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the petition in G.R. No. 209138 procedurally proper and timely (Rule 65 vs. Rule 45 and compliance with the period to file a Rule 45 petition)?
- Were the petitioners’ appointments made in violation of Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution (i.e., were they “midnight appointments” and therefore void)?
- Is Executive Order No. 2 a constitutional exercise of executive authority defining...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)