Case Summary (G.R. No. 164978)
Petitioners and Respondents
- Petitioners: Members of the Senate and, some, of the Commission on Appointments.
- Respondents: Executive Secretary and departmental acting secretaries appointed by the President.
Key Dates
- 26 July 2004: Regular session of Congress begins.
- 25 August 2004: Commission on Appointments constituted.
- 15–23 August 2004: Acting appointments issued.
- 8 September 2004: Petition for certiorari and prohibition filed.
- 22 September 2004: Congress adjourns.
- 23 September 2004: Ad interim appointments issued.
- 13 October 2005: Decision rendered.
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article VII, Section 16 (appointments with Commission on Appointments’ consent; power to make recess appointments).
- Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987):
• Sec. 10(5) (undersecretary may temporarily discharge secretary’s duties or be designated Acting Secretary).
• Sec. 17 (President’s power to temporarily designate any competent person to perform functions of an executive office for up to one year).
Issue
Whether the President may appoint department secretaries in an acting capacity without the Commission on Appointments’ consent while Congress is in session.
Antecedent Facts
President Arroyo designated eight department heads as “acting secretaries” in August 2004 under existing laws and EO 292. The Commission on Appointments was active. Congress adjourned on 22 September 2004, whereupon ad interim appointments were issued the next day. Petitioners sought to declare the acting appointments unconstitutional and to enjoin respondents from exercising departmental functions.
Preliminary Matters
The Solicitor General argued mootness because ad interim appointments supplanted the acting designations. The Court applied the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception and resolved the constitutional question.
Nature of the Appointment Power
The executive power of appointment is exclusively executive. Legislative interference is limited to setting qualifications. The Commission on Appointments is an independent constitutional body exercising an executive—not legislative—function by consenting to presidential appointments.
Petitioners’ Standing
Only those petitioners who are actual members of the Commission on Appointments can claim direct injury to their prerogatives: Senators Enrile, Lacson, Angara, Ejercito-Estrada, and Osmeña III. The others lack standing.
Constitutionality of Acting Appointments
Petitioners relied on EO 292 Sec. 10(5), arguing only an undersecretary may act during a vacancy. Respondents invoked Article VII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution and EO 292 Sec. 17, authorizing the President to temporarily designate any competent person to
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 164978)
The Case
- Petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65, with prayer for preliminary injunction
- Seeks declaration of unconstitutionality of various “acting secretary” appointments issued by President Arroyo through Executive Secretary Ermita
- Requests prohibition of respondents from exercising departmental secretary functions
Antecedent Facts
- Congress opened 26 July 2004; Commission on Appointments constituted 25 August 2004
- President Arroyo appointed eight officials as acting secretaries between 15 and 23 August 2004, each pursuant to “existing laws”
- Uniform appointment form authorized appointee to qualify and perform duties, to furnish oaths to Executive Secretary’s Office and CSC
- Respondents took their oaths and assumed duties immediately
- Petition filed 8 September 2004 by nine Senators as petitioners; Congress adjourned 22 September 2004
- On 23 September 2004, ad interim appointments issued to the same respondents, effective until next adjournment or disapproval by Commission on Appointments
Issue
- Whether the President may appoint “acting secretaries” to heads of executive departments without prior consent of the Commission on Appointments while Congress is in session
Mootness
- Solicitor General contends petition is moot due to subsequent ad interim appointments
- General rule: prohibition will not enjoin acts already done
- Exception: issues capable of repetition yet evading review remain justiciable
- Court finds this controversy fits the exception and proceeds to resolve it
Nature of the Power to Appoint
- Ap