Title
Matibag vs. Benipayo
Case
G.R. No. 149036
Decision Date
Apr 2, 2002
Petitioner challenged ad interim COMELEC appointments, her reassignment, and disbursements; SC upheld appointments' validity, reassignment authority, and lawful disbursements.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 149036)

Petitioner

Ma. J. Angelina G. Matibag—appointed Acting Director IV, EID—contends that her removal and reassignment, as well as ad interim appointments and renewals of COMELEC officers, violated constitutional and statutory mandates.

Respondents

• Alfredo L. Benipayo – COMELEC Chairman (ad interim)
• Resurreccion Z. Borra and Florentino A. Tuason, Jr. – COMELEC Commissioners (ad interim)
• Velma J. Cinco – Director III, EID, designated Officer-in-Charge, EID
• Gideon C. De Guzman – Officer-in-Charge, Finance Services Department, COMELEC

Key Dates

• Feb. 2, 1999 – Matibag first appointed Acting Director IV, EID
• Mar. 22, 2001 – President Arroyo ad interim appoints Benipayo, Borra, Tuason for seven-year terms expiring Feb. 2, 2008
• June 1 & 8, 2001; Sept. 6, 2001 – Renewals of those ad interim appointments
• Apr. 11–18, 2001 – Benipayo issues memorandum reassigning Matibag; she seeks reconsideration; denied
• Aug. 3, 2001 – Petition for writ of prohibition filed under Rule 65

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution, Art. VII, § 16(2) (second paragraph) – Presidential ad interim appointments during congressional recess, effective until disapproval or next adjournment
• 1987 Constitution, Art. IX-C, § 1(2) – COMELEC members appointed for seven years “without reappointment,” no “temporary or acting” designations
• Revised Administrative Code, Book V, Chap. 2, Subt. C, § 7(4) – Chairman’s power to transfer or reassign personnel per Civil Service Law
• Omnibus Election Code, § 261(h) – Prohibition on transfers or details during election period without COMELEC approval

Factual Background

By early 2001, three COMELEC terms expired unexpectedly due to a prior ruling, leaving only four commissioners for the May 14 elections. To avert operational paralysis, President Arroyo made ad interim appointments of Benipayo (Chairman) and Commissioners Borra and Tuason. Subsequent congressional recesses prevented their confirmation, prompting multiple renewals. As Chairman, Benipayo reassigned Matibag from EID to the Law Department and designated Cinco Officer-in-Charge, EID. Matibag challenged these personnel moves and the legitimacy of the ad interim appointments, alleging constitutional infirmities and unauthorized disbursements.

Issue 1: Propriety of Judicial Review

The Court confirmed that Matibag, personally and substantially injured by an unlawful Chairman’s directive, had proper standing. Her removal and reassignment depended on whether Benipayo lawfully held office; thus the constitutional challenge was the case’s lis mota. She raised it before the Supreme Court—the first competent tribunal to decide it—and public interest justified immediate resolution.

Issue 2: Nature of Ad Interim Appointments

Under Art. VII, § 16(2), ad interim appointments “take effect at once” during congressional recess and remain in force until disapproved or until Congress’s next adjournment. Philippine jurisprudence (Summers v. Ozaeta; Pacete v. Sec’y of the Commission on Appointments) treats such appointments as permanent in character, not merely temporary, despite requiring later confirmation. The ad interim appointee acquires de jure status, civil service protection, and can be removed only by constitutional conditions (disapproval or adjournment) or for cause via due process.

Issue 3: Prohibition on Reappointment

Art. IX-C, § 1(2) forbids reappointment of COMELEC members for any term—seven years or the initial five- and three-year staggered terms. That prohibition applies only to previously confirmed appointees whose terms begin upon Commission on Appointments’ consent. By-passed ad interim appointees (unacted upon due to congressional recess) face no final disapproval; thus the President may renew their ad interim appointments without breaching the “without reappointment” clause or extending beyond fixed term expirations. Renewal until Feb. 2, 2008 did not exceed seven years.

Issue 4:

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.

About Privacy Terms