Case Summary (G.R. No. 139554)
Emergence of Dual Trusteeship and Quo Warranto Proceedings
Following the expiration of certain incumbents’ terms, President Estrada appointed seven new trustees (the Rufino group) on December 22, 1998. The five members of the Endriga board, whose terms still ran until February and July 1999, filed a quo warranto petition on January 6, 1999, claiming Section 6(b) of PD 15 barred Presidential appointments when a majority of incumbent trustees still served. The CA was tasked to resolve which group held legal right to offices.
Court of Appeals Ruling
On May 14, 1999, the CA declared that Section 6(b) plainly required incumbent trustees to fill vacancies by election and that Presidential appointment applies only if the board is wholly vacant. The CA therefore recognized the Endriga group as lawful trustees and ousted the Rufino group. It declined to consider newly raised constitutional challenges to PD 15’s vacancy-filling scheme, holding that Section 6(b) remained valid until properly tested on appeal.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- G.R. No. 139554 (Rufino group) – Whether the CA erred in upholding Section 6(b) and (c) of PD 15 over competing appointment powers, improperly refusing to address its constitutional challenge, and wrongly granting the quo warranto petition.
- G.R. No. 139565 (Endriga group) – Whether a quo warranto judgment is self-executing and immediately executory under Rule 39, Section 4 of the Rules of Court.
Justiciability and Continuing Controversy
The Supreme Court held that despite subsequent resignations and new appointments, the constitutional question over Section 6(b)–(c) of PD 15 was capable of repetition yet evading review. To prevent recurrent leadership disputes every four years, the Court assumed jurisdiction and resolved the core constitutional issue.
Appointment Power under the 1987 Constitution
Article VII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution vests Presidential appointment power in three categories and authorizes Congress to “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 Court emphasized that “officers lower in rank” must be subordinates of the appointing head, and that the appointing authority conferred by Congress is self-executing.
Characterization of CCP Trustees and “Head” of CCP
The CCP is an executive agency governed by its Board of Trustees, which constitutes the “head” of the CCP for appointment purposes. Individual trustees are officers of the CCP and thus lower in rank than the board itself. Congress could by law vest in the board the power to appoint CCP officers of lower rank, but not to elect co-equal trustees.
The President’s Power of Control under Section 17
Article VII, Section 17 provides the President “shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices” and must “ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.” This self-executing power authorizes oversight, reversal or modification of subordinate acts but does not permit Congress to place any executive office entirely beyond Presidential control.
Inconsistency of PD 15’s Trustee-Election Scheme with the Constitution
Sect
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 139554)
Background and Statutory Framework
- Presidential Decree No. 15 (PD 15) of 1972 converted the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) into a non-municipal public corporation to propagate Filipino arts and culture.
- PD 15 established a Board of Trustees (“Board”) with nine (later eleven) members serving without compensation to:
• Cultivate public appreciation of Philippine art
• Discover and develop cultural talents
• Create outlets for self-expression in cultural affairs
• Encourage cultural exhibitions and group formation - The Board holds and administers CCP property in trust for the Filipino people and maintains a Cultural Development Fund from project income.
- Section 6(b)–(c) of PD 15 (as amended) prescribes that:
• Vacancies are filled by election of a majority of remaining trustees for a full four-year term
• If only one trustee survives, that trustee, in consultation with ranking officers, fills vacancies
• Only if the Board is entirely vacant may the President appoint new trustees, likewise acting in consultation
Factual Background
- 1966: EO 30 created CCP under a seven-member Board; 1972 PD 15 expanded the Board to nine; 1985 EO 1058 expanded it to eleven trustees.
- After 1986, President Aquino replaced all trustees; President Ramos later appointed Endriga, Lagdameo, Sison, Potenciano and Fernandez to four-year terms.
- 22 December 1998: President Estrada issued appointment papers for seven new trustees (the “Rufino group”), including Armita Rufino as President, to replace the Endriga group and two others.
- Early January 1999: All Rufino appointees except Tantoco took oaths and assumed duties.
- 6 January 1999: The Endriga group filed a quo warranto petition in the Supreme Court, alleging that PD 15 § 6(b) forbade Presidential appointments so long as a quorum of incumbents remained.
Procedural History
- The Supreme Court referred the quo warranto petition to the Court of Appeals (CA) under the hierarchy of courts doctrine.
- 14 May 1999: CA rendered judgment declaring the Endriga group lawful trustees and ousting the Rufino group (except Tantoco).
- 3 August 1999: CA denied (a) Rufino group’s motion for reconsideration raising for the first time the unconstitutionality of PD 15 § 6(b), and (b) Endriga group’s motion for immediate execution of judgment.
- Two Rule 45 petitions were filed in the Supreme Court:
• G.R. No. 139554 by the Rufino group to set aside the CA decision and resolution
• G.R. No. 139565 by the Endriga group to compel immediate execut