Title
Advincula vs. Commission on Appointments
Case
G.R. No. L-19823
Decision Date
Aug 31, 1962
Appointments of Justices of the Peace confirmed, then reconsidered by Commission on Appointments; Supreme Court upheld Commission's rule interpretation, citing separation of powers.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-19823)

Background Facts

On October 27, 1961, former President Garcia appointed Advincula and Avelino to their respective positions. They were qualified for the positions—Advincula on November 2, 1961, and Avelino on October 31, 1961—and assumed their roles shortly thereafter. The Commission on Appointments initially confirmed their appointments on April 27, 1962. However, on April 30, 1962, a member of the Commission submitted a motion for reconsideration, leading to the withdrawal of the confirmation just before the congressional session adjourned on May 17, 1962.

Legal Basis and Issues Raised

The petitioners argued that the reconsideration of their confirmation was null and void under Section 21 of the Revised Rules of the Commission on Appointments. This section stipulates a one-day period within which a motion for reconsideration must be filed post-confirmation. The petitioners contended that since the motion was filed on a day beyond this one-day period, it breached the Rules, rendering any subsequent actions by the Commission invalid.

Proceedings and Debates

During the proceedings, the minutes of the Commission revealed a debate over the interpretation of the “one-day” requirement. Congress members expressed differing opinions regarding whether weekends should be included in this calculation. Some members asserted that filing a motion on April 30 was permissible, as it fell within the next working day post-confirmation on April 27. Others argued that the motion violated the 24-hour requirement due to the intervening non-working days (April 28 and 29).

Court's Reasoning

The court maintained that it could not interfere in the internal procedural matters of a co-equal government branch without infringing upon the principle of separation of powers. The Court underscored that the dispute involved an interpretation of the Commission's own rules rather than a constitutional or legal infraction. The Court also emphasized the discretion granted to the Commission on Appointments to establish its own procedural regulations during sessions.

Conclusion of the Decision

The petition for mandamus lodged by Advincula and Avelino was consequently dismissed due to the inability of the court to adjudicate internal procedural disputes of legislative bodies. The Court directed that the Commission’s interpretation of its own rules prevailed, thus affirming the reconsideration of the confirmation.

Resolution of January 12, 1963

In a subsequent resol

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.