Title
Sarmiento III vs. Mison
Case
G.R. No. L-79974
Decision Date
Dec 17, 1987
Petitioners challenged Salvador Mison’s appointment as Customs Commissioner without Commission on Appointments confirmation. Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality, ruling only specific appointments require confirmation under the 1987 Constitution.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-79974)

Groups of Officers under Section 16, Article VII

Section 16 divides Presidential appointees into four categories:

  1. Heads of executive departments, ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces from colonel or naval captain rank, and “other officers whose appointments are vested in [the President] in this Constitution.”
  2. All other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided by law.
  3. Officers whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint.
  4. Officers lower in rank whose appointment Congress may vest in the President alone, in the courts, or in heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.

Historical Constitutional Background

• Under the 1935 Constitution, nearly all Presidential appointees required Commission on Appointments confirmation, including bureau heads.
• The 1973 Constitution vested virtually all appointment power in the President (parliamentary model).
• The 1987 Constitution “struck a middle ground,” limiting confirmation to the first category of officers while restoring broader executive appointment authority without legislative confirmation for the other categories.

1986 Constitutional Commission Deliberations

Deliberations reveal deliberate exclusion of “heads of bureaus” from confirmation, and a conscious narrowing of Commission on Appointments’ scope:
• Deletion of “and bureaus” from the list of officers requiring confirmation.
• Separation of nomination-and-confirmation language in the first sentence from mere “appointment” language in the second sentence, underscoring the framers’ intent that certain officers be appointed without confirmation.

Interpretation of “Nomination” and “Appointment” Language

The Court emphasized the textual distinction:
• First sentence: “shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint”—confirmation required.
• Second sentence: “shall also appoint”—no nomination or confirmation language, indicating appointments may be made directly by the President.

Role of the Commission on Appointments

The Commission’s confirmation power applies exclusively to officers enumerated in the first sentence. All other Presidential appointees under the second, third, and fourth categories may be appointed without prior confirmation.

Statutory Authorization of Customs Commissioner Appointment

• Republic Act No. 1937 originally empowered the President to appoint the Customs Commissioner only with Commission on Appointments consent under the 1935 Constitution.
• As amended by PD No. 34 (1972), Section 601 vests appointment of the Commission

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.