G.R. No. 203372 - Velicaria-Garafil vs. Office of the President

Four petitions were consolidated: G.R. No. 203372 (Atty. Cheloy E. Velicaria-Garafil, State Solicitor II, OSG), G.R. No. 206290 (Atty. Dindo G. Venturanza, City Prosecutor of Quezon City), G.R. No. 209138 (Irma A. Villanueva, CDA Administrator for Visayas, and Francisca B. Rosquita, NCIP Commissioner), and G.R. No. 212030 (Atty. Eddie U. Tamondong, SBMA Director).
All petitioners challenged Executive Order No. 2 (EO 2), issued by President Benigno S. Aquino III on 30 July 2010, which recalled, withdrew, and revoked midnight appointments made by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in violation of Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.

Section 15, Article VII bans presidential appointments “two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term,” except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.
For the 2010 elections, the last day for valid appointments was 10 March 2010; the ban commenced 11 March 2010. None of the petitioners’ appointments were claimed to fall under the temporary-appointment exception.

G.R. No. 203372 (Velicaria-Garafil): Appointment paper as State Solicitor II dated 5 March 2010; transmittal letter dated 8 March 2010 but received by Malacañang Records Office (MRO) only on 13 May 2010; oath on 22 March 2010; assumption on 6 April 2010; no evidence of OSG’s pre-ban receipt.
G.R. No. 206290 (Venturanza): Appointment paper as City Prosecutor dated 23 February 2010; OES transmittal dated 9 March 2010; MRO released to DOJ on 12 March 2010; oath and assumption on 15 March 2010; appointee secured clearances between 23 February and 12 March on verbal advice of promotion.
G.R. No. 209138 (Villanueva and Rosquita): Villanueva’s appointment as CDA Administrator (Visayas) dated 3 March 2010; oath on 13 April 2010; Rosquita’s appointment as NCIP Commissioner (Region I and Cordilleras) dated 5 March 2010; oath on 18 March 2010; no contemporaneous MRO transmittals; MRO later “turnover” of papers in May 2010; OP withheld salaries; OP revoked Rosquita’s appointment on 1 October 2010.
G.R. No. 212030 (Tamondong): Appointment as SBMA Board Director (private sector) dated 1 March 2010; received by SBMA Chair’s Office and oath on 25 March 2010; precautionary second oath on 6 July 2010; appointment paper reached MRO only on 6 May 2010.

EO 2 defined “midnight appointments” as: (a) those made on or after 11 March 2010, including those bearing pre-11 March dates where the appointee accepted, took oath, or assumed office on or after 11 March 2010 (except qualifying temporary executive appointments), (b) those made prior to 11 March 2010 but to take effect after said date or to offices vacant only after said date, and (c) appointments and promotions within 45 days before elections in violation of the Omnibus Election Code.
EO 2 recalled, withdrew, and revoked such appointments and authorized OIC designations to ensure continuity of operations.

OSG: New Solicitor General implemented EO 2; Velicaria-Garafil was directed to return government property and was removed effective 7 August 2010.
DOJ: DOJ Order No. 556 designated an OIC City Prosecutor; DOJ later directed Venturanza to cease; he sought clarification and reaffirmation.
SBMA: Tamondong was removed effective 30 July 2010; filed petition challenging EO 2.
Supreme Court referral: Multiple EO 2 challenges were referred by the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals on 31 January 2012 for reception of evidence on whether the appointments were midnight appointments, their validity, alleged haste or bad faith, and any violations of civil service rules.
CA rulings: Upheld EO 2’s constitutionality; in Velicaria-Garafil and Venturanza, suggested OP evaluation of circumstances; expressly held Villanueva, Rosquita, and Tamondong as midnight appointees; dismissed petitions.
MRO evidence: MRO Director Dimaandal and Division Chief Gatbunton testified on standard release procedures, the agatekeeper function, security marks, delivery receipts, and that many March 2010 appointments bypassed MRO; most petitioners’ transmittals either reached MRO only in May 2010 or bore irregularities; only 133 of 800+ March appointments were released via MRO; dates/time received often left blank on OES stamps.

Whether petitioners’ appointments are “midnight appointments” prohibited by Section 15, Article VII and therefore void.
Whether EO 2 is valid and constitutional, including its definition and revocation of midnight appointments.

Whether a Rule 65 petition for certiorari properly lies to review the CA’s decision, and whether the petition was timely and procedurally compliant.