Case Summary (G.R. No. 91636)
Key Dates
– 1987 Constitution effective
– December 17, 1987: Sarmiento III vs. Mison decision
– May 5, 1987: Executive Order No. 163 authorizing CHR appointments
– April 13, 1989: Bautista vs. Salonga decision
– September 4, 1989: Quintos-Deles decision
– March 1989: Enactment of RA 6715
– April 23, 1992: Decision in this case
Applicable Law
– 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article VII, Section 16 (appointment power)
– Labor Code (PD 442), as amended by RA 6715, Section 13 and Art. 215
– Executive Order No. 163 (appointment of CHR officials)
Legal Issue
Whether Congress, by law (RA 6715), may subject presidential appointments of NLRC Chairman and Commissioners—offices not listed in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII—to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
Constitutional Framework
Section 16, Article VII divides presidential appointments into four groups:
- Heads of executive departments, ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, senior military officers, and “other officers whose appointments are vested in [the President]” by the Constitution (confirmation required).
- All other government officers whose appointments are not otherwise provided by law (no confirmation required).
- Officers whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint (no confirmation required).
- Inferior officers whose appointment Congress may vest by law in the President alone, the courts, or department heads.
Precedential Interpretations
– Sarmiento III vs. Mison (1987): Confirmed that the 1987 Constitution omitted “heads of bureaus” and similar offices from CA confirmation; appointments under the second and third sentences of Sec. 16 need no CA consent.
– Bautista vs. Salonga (1989): Held that CHR Chair and Members (appointed under EO 163) fall under sentence 2 and require no CA confirmation.
– Quintos-Deles vs. Commission on Constitutional Commissions (1989): Upheld CA confirmation for sectoral representatives, as their appointments are expressly placed in Sec. 16’s first sentence.
RA 6715 Amendment
Section 13 of RA 6715 inserted a requirement that the NLRC Chairman and Commissioners be appointed “by the President, subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.” The petitioner contends this statutory requirement is valid under the Congress’s power to vest appointment of “other officers” in the CA; respondents argue it contravenes the Constitution by expanding non-CA appointments into the CA’s domain.
Court’s Analysis
- The NLRC Chair and Commissioners fall within the third group (“officers whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint”) of Section 16, Article VII.
- Under existing precedents, appointments under the second and third sentences of Sec. 16 require no CA confirmation.
- RA 6715’s confirmation requirement effectively amends both the first and second sentences of Sec. 16 by adding offices not constitutionally subject to CA consent.
- Such legislative expansion of CA powers is unconstitutional; only a constitutional amendment or convention can alter the framers’
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 91636)
Facts and Procedural History
- Republic Act No. 6715 (“Herrera–Veloso Law”) amended Article 215 of the Labor Code (PD 442) in March 1989, providing that the Chairman, Division Presiding Commissioners, and other Commissioners of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) “shall all be appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.”
- Pursuant to RA 6715, President Aquino appointed the NLRC Chairman and Commissioners representing public, worker, and employer sectors without submitting their nominations to the Commission on Appointments (CA).
- Labor Secretary Franklin Drilon issued Administrative Order No. 161 (1989), assigning the newly appointed commissioners to their places of duty.
- Petitioner Peter John D. Calderon filed a petition for prohibition questioning the constitutionality of these permanent appointments for failure to secure CA confirmation as required by RA 6715.
- Respondents, including NLRC Chairman Bartolome Carale and members of the CA and the Budget Secretary, contended that RA 6715’s confirmation requirement contravened Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
Constitutional Provision at Issue
- Section 16, Article VII, 1987 Constitution, provides:
- The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint specified high-ranking officers (heads of executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, armed forces officers from colonel or naval captain, and other officers expressly vested in him by the Constitution).
- The President shall appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint, without CA confirmation.
- Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.
- The President may make recess appointments effective until CA disapproval or the next congressional adjournment.
Leading Jurisprudence Interpreting Sec. 16, Art. VII
- Sarmiento III v. Mison (G.R. No. 7997