G.R. No. 149036 - Matibag vs. Benipayo

Case Summary (G.R. No. 149036)

Factual Background

Petitioner was Acting Director IV of the Commission on Elections' Education and Information Department, with successive temporary appointments dated February 2, 1999, February 15, 2000 and February 15, 2001. On March 22, 2001, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued ad interim appointments of Alfredo L. Benipayo as COMELEC Chairman and Resurreccion Z. Borra and Florentino A. Tuason, Jr. as COMELEC Commissioners, each for seven-year terms expiring February 2, 2008; the Commission on Appointments did not act on those nominations before Congress adjourned, and the ad interim appointments were renewed on June 1, June 8 and again on September 6, 2001, with the appointees repeatedly taking their oaths. Chairman Benipayo issued a memorandum dated April 11, 2001 designating Velma J. Cinco Officer-in-Charge of the EID and reassigning petitioner to the Law Department; petitioner protested, cited Civil Service and COMELEC memoranda, filed administrative and criminal complaints with the COMELEC Law Department, and filed the instant original petition for prohibition under Rule 65 seeking review of the constitutionality of the appointments, the legality of her reassignment, the designation of Cinco as OIC, and disbursements by the Finance Services Department.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed an original petition for prohibition with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order under Rule 65, Rules of Court. Respondents filed comments contesting the petition's timeliness and petitioner's locus standi and defended the validity of the ad interim appointments, the reassignment, the COMELEC en banc resolutions, and the disbursements. The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court En Banc with a decision authored by Justice Carpio.

Issues Presented

The Court identified and addressed the following issues: (1) whether the petition satisfied the requisites for judicial review of constitutional questions; (2) whether the ad interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason amounted to prohibited temporary or acting appointments under Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the Constitution; (3) whether the renewals of those ad interim appointments violated the constitutional prohibition on reappointment; (4) whether Chairman Benipayo acted without authority in removing and reassigning petitioner from the EID to the Law Department; and (5) whether the Officer-in-Charge of the COMELEC Finance Services Department acted in excess of jurisdiction in continuing to disburse salaries and emoluments to the questioned appointees.

Respondents' Contentions

Respondents urged dismissal on the ground that petitioner failed to meet the four requisites for this Court's exercise of judicial review in constitutional cases, arguing lack of a personal and substantial interest because petitioner did not claim entitlement to any position held by the appointees, that petitioner filed belatedly after multiple ad interim appointments had been issued, and that the lis mota concerned the legality of petitioner’s reassignment rather than the constitutionality of the appointments; respondents also defended Chairman Benipayo’s exercise of authority as Chief Executive Officer of the COMELEC and the Finance Officer’s payments as within departmental powers and existing COMELEC resolutions.

Court on Jurisdictional Requisites

The Court found petitioner had standing and that the petition met the requisites for judicial review because her reassignment directly implicated the validity of Benipayo’s claim to the Chairmanship, thus giving petitioner a personal and substantial interest; the Court held that filing before the Supreme Court constituted the earliest appropriate opportunity to raise the constitutional question and that the constitutional issue was the lis mota, especially given the public interest in preserving the integrity of actions taken by the COMELEC in the conduct of the May 14, 2001 elections.

Nature of an Ad Interim Appointment

The Court ruled that an ad interim appointment is permanent in character and takes effect immediately, subject only to the two constitutional resolutory conditions of disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or adjournment of Congress, relying on the second paragraph of Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution and established precedent such as Summers v. Ozaeta, Pacete v. Secretary of the Commission on Appointments, and Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila v. Intermediate Appellate Court; the Court distinguished ad interim appointments from temporary or acting designations, which are revocable at will and therefore constitutionally prohibited for members of the constitutional commissions.

Independence of COMELEC and Ad Interim Appointments

The Court harmonized the constitutional guarantee of COMELEC independence with the President’s power to make ad interim appointments, explaining that the framers reinstated ad interim appointments to prevent interruption of essential government services, and noting historical precedent and practice of successive Presidents issuing ad interim appointments to constitutional commissions; the Court further observed that the Commission on Appointments’ role and the staggered terms of commissioners preserve independence and checks and balances.

Renewal and Reappointment Issue

The Court held that renewals of by-passed ad interim appointments do not violate the prohibition on reappointment in Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the Constitution, distinguishing between ad interim appointments disapproved on the merits by the Commission on Appointments and those merely by-passed for lack of time; the Court cited the Commission on Appointments’ own Rule 17 and jurisprudence, including the concurring opinion in Guevara v. Inocentes, and explained that the constitutional proscription against reappointment applies where a prior appointment has been confirmed or where reappointment would allow service beyond the fixed seven-year term, none of which occurred as to Benipayo, Borra and Tuason whose appointments were for fixed terms expiring February 2, 2008.

Reassignment Authority of the Chairman

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 149036)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Ma. J. Angelina G. Matibag filed an original petition for prohibition with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order under Rule 65, Rules of Civil Procedure.
Respondents were Alfredo L. Benipayo as COMELEC Chairman, Resurreccion Z. Borra and Florentino A. Tuason, Jr. as COMELEC Commissioners, Velma J. Cinco as Director IV of EID, and Gideon C. De Guzman as Officer-in-Charge of COMELEC Finance Services Department.
The petition challenged the constitutionality of the appointments and the right to hold office of the three COMELEC appointees, the legality of petitioner’s reassignment, the designation of Cinco as Officer-in-Charge of EID, and disbursements made by De Guzman.
The Court resolved the case En Banc and dismissed the petition for lack of merit, with costs against petitioner.

Key Factual Allegations

Petitioner served as Acting Director IV of the EID by appointments dated February 2, 1999, February 15, 2000 and February 15, 2001.
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued ad interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason on March 22, 2001 and subsequently renewed those ad interim appointments on June 1, June 8 and September 6, 2001.
The Office of the President transmitted the ad interim appointments to the Commission on Appointments, which did not act on them before Congress adjourned.
On April 11, 2001 Benipayo issued a memorandum reassigning petitioner to the Law Department and designating Cinco as Officer-in-Charge of the EID.
Petitioner invoked Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 07, s. 2001 and filed administrative and criminal complaints with the COMELEC Law Department and then filed the instant petition.
The COMELEC had earlier adopted COMELEC Resolution No. 3300 (Nov. 6, 2000) authorizing transfers and reassignments of COMELEC personnel during the election prohibited period subject to limited safeguards.

Issues Presented

Whether the petition met the requisites for judicial review of constitutional questions.
Whether the ad interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason amounted to prohibited temporary or acting appointments under Section 1(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution.
Whether renewals of the ad interim appointments and repeated assumptions of office violated the constitutional prohibition on reappointment under Section 1(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution.
Whether Benipayo lawfully removed petitioner as Director IV of the EID and reassigned her without COMELEC en banc approval.
Whether De Guzman acted in excess of jurisdiction in continuing disbursements to the COMELEC officials.

Petitioner Contentions

Petitioner contended that ad interim appointments are temporary and revocable and thus violate the last sentence of Section 1(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution forbidding temporary or acting appointments.
Petitioner argued that renewals of ad interim appointments constituted prohibited reappointments in violation of Section 1(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution.
Petitioner maintained that her reassignment was unlawful because transfers during the election period required prior COMELEC en banc approval under Section 261(h) of the Omnibus Election Code.
Petitioner asserted that designation of Cinco as Officer-in-Charge and payment of salaries and emoluments to the challenged appointees were unlawful consequences of defective appointments.

Respondents Contentions

Respondents argued that petitioner lacked a personal and substantial interest and that the constitutional issue was not pleaded at the earliest opportunity or the lis mota of the case.
Respondents maintained that ad interim appointments are permanent in character until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress under the second paragraph of Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution.
Respondents asserted that renewals of by-passed ad interim appointments are permissible and do not contravene the prohibition on reappointment in Section 1(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution.
Respondents contended that the COMELEC Chairman has authority under Section 7(4), Chapter 2, Subtitle C, Book V of the Revi