Case Summary (G.R. No. 203372)
Facts of the Consolidated Cases
• Each petitioner received an appointment letter dated between 1 and 23 March 2010.
• None claimed eligibility under the temporary-appointments exception.
• Transmittal or issuance of appointment papers was delayed (in some cases not routed through the Malacañang Records Office until May 2010).
• Petitioners took their oaths and assumed office on dates ranging from 15 March to 6 July 2010—i.e., after the ban had taken effect on 11 March 2010.
Executive Order No. 2: Scope and Purpose
Issued 30 July 2010 by President Aquino, EO 2 defined as midnight appointments:
a. Appointments “made on or after March 11, 2010,” including those dated earlier if acceptance, oath, or assumption of office occurred on or after that date;
b. Appointments dated before March 11 that would take effect after that date;
c. Appointments or promotions during the 45 days before the 10 May 2010 elections in violation of the Omnibus Election Code.
It then directed the recall, withdrawal, and revocation of all such appointments.
Court of Appeals Rulings
Each petition was dismissed and EO 2 upheld as constitutional. The CA nonetheless invited the Office of the President to consider extenuating circumstances in two cases (Velicaria-Garafil and Venturanza), while explicitly sustaining the revocations in the other three.
Issues Presented
- Are the petitioners’ appointments “midnight appointments” in violation of Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution?
- Is Executive Order No. 2 valid and constitutional?
Supreme Court Ruling: Midnight Appointments Void
• The Court applies the 1987 Constitution.
• Appointment is a process with four essential steps for completion: (1) presidential signature and evidence of authority; (2) issuance or transmittal of the appointment paper; (3) vacancy in the office; (4) appointee’s receipt and acceptance via oath or assumption of office.
• Midnight-appointment ban prohibits the President from completing steps (1) and (2) in the two-month pre-election period and thereafter. The subsequent steps by the appointee are insufficient to cure a constitutionally barred appointment.
• All petitioners took their oaths or assumed office after 11 March 2010; none proved that their appointment papers were officially issued before that date.
• The Court finds each appointment void for violation of Section 15, Article VII.
Constitutionality of Executive Order No. 2
• EO 2 implements Section 15, Article VII and is within the President’s executive authority.
• It falls squarely under the President’s power to issue rules of general or permanent character for executing constitutional or statutory powers (Administrative Code, Book III, Chapter 2, Section 2).
• EO 2’s definitions of midnight appointments faithfully give effect to the constitutional ban.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion
• Justice Brion agrees that the petitions lack merit but disagrees with treating a “completed” appointment as requiring the appointee’s acceptance before the ban. He views Section 15’s “appointment” as the President’s act alone—signature and issuance—and contends that the appointee’s lat
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 203372)
Consolidated Petitions
- Four petitions consolidated under G.R. Nos. 203372, 206290, 209138, 212030.
- Petitioners and positions:
• Atty. Cheloy E. Velicaria-Garafil (State Solicitor II, OSG) – G.R. No. 203372
• Atty. Dindo G. Venturanza (Prosecutor IV, Quezon City) – G.R. No. 206290
• Irma A. Villanueva (CDA Administrator, Visayas) & Francisca B. Rosquita (NCIP Commissioner) – G.R. No. 209138
• Atty. Eddie U. Tamondong (SBMA Board Member) – G.R. No. 212030 - Central question: constitutionality of Executive Order No. 2 (EO 2) under Section 15, Article VII (midnight appointment ban).
Constitutional Ban on Midnight Appointments
- Section 15, Article VII, 1987 Constitution: prohibits all appointments “two months before” presidential elections “and up to the end of [incumbent’s] term,” except temporary executive appointments to prevent service prejudice/public safety risks.
- For 2010: appointments valid up to 10 March 2010; ban effective 11 March 2010.
- Petitioners did not claim any exception.
Factual Background
- Pre-2010 elections: outgoing President Macapagal-Arroyo issued over 800 appointments, many dated just before 11 March 2010.
- Petitioners’ appointment papers bore dates before the cut-off but were transmitted, received by MRO, and sworn in after 11 March 2010.
- No petitioner invoked the constitutional exception for temporary executive appointments.
Key Dates of Appointment Process
• Velicaria-Garafil (203372):
– Appointment: 5 Mar 2010; MRO receipt: 13 May 2010; oath: 22 Mar 2010; assumed office: 6 Apr 2010.
• Venturanza (206290):
– Appointment: 23 Feb 2010; transmittal to MRO: 12 Mar 2010; oath & assumption: 15 Mar 2010.
• Villanueva & Rosquita (209138):
– Villanueva dated 3 Mar 2010; oath 13 Apr 2010; Rosquita dated 5 Mar 2010; oath 18 Mar 2010; both MRO receipts in May 2010.
• Tamondong (212030):
– Appointment: 1 Mar 2010; received & oath: 25 Mar 2010; MRO re