Title
Supreme Court
Velicaria-Garafil vs. Office of the President
Case
G.R. No. 203372
Decision Date
Jun 16, 2015
Petitioners challenged EO 2 revoking Arroyo-era "midnight appointments"; SC upheld EO 2, ruling appointments violated constitutional ban, making revocation valid.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 203372)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Petitioners and Their Appointments
    • G.R. No. 203372 (Velicaria-Garafil)
      • Appointed State Solicitor II, OSG; appointment paper dated 5 Mar 2010.
      • Transmittal letter dated 8 Mar 2010 received by the Malacañang Records Office (MRO) on 13 May 2010; oath on 22 Mar 2010; assumed office on 6 Apr 2010.
    • G.R. No. 206290 (Venturanza)
      • Appointed Prosecutor IV (City Prosecutor), Quezon City; appointment dated 23 Feb 2010.
      • Transmittal letter dated 9 Mar 2010 received by DOJ on 12 Mar 2010; oath and assumption on 15 Mar 2010.
    • G.R. No. 209138 (Villanueva & Rosquita)
      • Villanueva appointed Administrator for Visayas, CDA, on 3 Mar 2010; no official transmittal; oath on 13 Apr 2010.
      • Rosquita appointed NCIP Commissioner on 5 Mar 2010; no official transmittal; oath on 18 Mar 2010.
    • G.R. No. 212030 (Tamondong)
      • Appointed SBMA Board Member on 1 Mar 2010; received appointment on 25 Mar 2010; oaths and assumption on 25 Mar 2010 and again on 6 Jul 2010.
  • Executive Order No. 2 (EO 2)
    • Issued 30 Jul 2010 by President Aquino, recalling/revoking all “midnight appointments” made in violation of Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
    • Section 1(a): includes appointments dated before the cut-off (11 Mar 2010) where oath or assumption occurred on or after 11 Mar 2010; Sections 1(b)–(c): other categories; Section 2: recall and revocation; Section 3: temporary OIC designations.
  • Subsequent Events and CA Proceedings
    • August 2010: OSG and DOJ instruct recall of petitioners’ appointments; salaries withheld; each petitioner files petitions with the Supreme Court.
    • 31 Jan 2012 SC Resolution: refers all petitions to the Court of Appeals to address issues of whether appointments were midnight, invalid, made in bad faith, or violated Civil Service Rules.
    • CA Decisions (31 Aug 2012 & 28 Aug 2013): uphold EO 2’s constitutionality; dismiss petitions; in Velicaria-Garafil and Venturanza cases, defer to the Office of the President to evaluate merits; in Villanueva, Rosquita, and Tamondong cases, affirm revocations as valid midnight appointments.

Issues:

  • Whether each petitioner’s appointment violated Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution (ban effective 11 Mar 2010).
  • Whether EO 2’s definition and revocation of “midnight appointments” is constitutional.
  • Whether any midnight appointment, regardless of circumstances or merits, is automatically void.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.