Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Concepcion-Bautista vs. Salonga, 172 SCRA 160 (1989)

Concepcion-Bautista vs. Salonga, 172 SCRA 160 (1989)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5 |Likes:
Concepcion-Bautista vs. Salonga, 172 SCRA 160 (1989)
Concepcion-Bautista vs. Salonga, 172 SCRA 160 (1989)

More info:

Published by: Reginald Dwight Seguerra Florido on Oct 21, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





On 27 Aug 1987, Cory designated Bautista as the Acting Chairwoman of CHR. In December of the same year, Cory made the designation of Bautista permanent. The CoA, ignoring thedecision in the Mison case, averred that Bautista cannot take her seat w/o their confirmation.
Cory, through the Exec Sec, filed with the CoA communications about Bautista’s appointmenton 14 Jan 1989. Bautista refused to be placed under the CoA’s review hence she filed
a petition before the SC. On the other hand, Mallillin invoked EO 163-A stating that since CoA
refused Bautista’s appointment, Bautista should be removed. EO 163
-A provides that thetenure of the Chairman and the Commissioners of the CHR should be at the pleasure of thePresident.
Whether or not Bautista’s appointment is subject to CoA’s confirmation.
Since the position of Chairman of the CHR is not among the positions mentioned in thefirst sentence of Sec. 16, Art. 7 of the 1987 Constitution, appointments to which are to be madewith the confirmation of the CoA it follows that the appointment by the President of theChairman of the CHR is to be made without the review or participation of the CoA. To be moreprecise, the appointment of the Chairman and Members of the CHR is not specifically providedfor in the Constitution itself, unlike the Chairmen and Members of the CSC, the CoE and theCOA, whose appointments are expressly vested by the Constitution in the President with theconsent of the CoA. The President appoints the Chairman and Members of the CHR pursuant tothe second sentence in Sec 16, Art. 7, that is, without the confirmation of the CoA because theyare among the officers of government
“whom he (the President) may be authorized by law toappoint.” And Sec 2(c), EO 163 authorizes the President to appoint the Chairman and Members
of the CHR.Because of the fact that the president submitted to the CoA on 14 Jan 1989 the appointment of Bautista, the CoA argued that the president though she has the sole prerogative to make CHRappointments may from time to time ask confirmation with the CoA. This is untenableaccording to the SC. The Constitution has blocked off certain appointments for the President tomake with the participation of the Commission on Appointments, so also has the Constitutionmandated that the President can confer no power of participation in the Commission onAppointments over other appointments exclusively reserved for her by the Constitution.The exercise of political options that finds no support in the Constitution cannot be sustained.Further, EVEN IF THE PRESIDENT MAY VOLUNTARILY SUBMIT TO THE COMMISSION ONAPPOINTMENTS AN APPOINTMENT THAT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION SOLELY BELONGS TO HER,
STILL, THERE WAS NO VACANCY TO WHICH AN APPOINTMENT COULD BE MADE ON 14JANUARY 1989. There can be no ad interim appointments in the CHR for the appointment
thereto is not subject to CoA’s confirmation. Appointments to the CHr is always permanent in
nature.The provisions of EO 163-A is unconstitutional and cannot be invoked by Mallillin. The Chairmanand the Commissioners of the CHR cannot be removed at the pleasure of the president for it isconstitutionally guaranteed that they must have a term of office.
Republic of the Philippines
 ManilaEN BANC
G.R. No. 86439 April 13, 1989
Mary Concepcion Bautista for and in her own behalf.
Christine A.Tomas Espinosa for private respondent Hesiquio R. Mallillin
 The Court had hoped that its decision in
Sarmiento III vs. Mison,
would have settled thequestion of which appointments by the President, under the 1987 Constitution, are to be madewith and without the review of the Commission on Appointments. The Mison case was the firstmajor case under the 1987 Constitution and in construing Sec. 16, Art. VII of the 1987Constitution which provides:The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments,appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers andconsuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and otherofficers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint allother officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law,and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest theappointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the headsof the departments, agencies, commissions or boards.The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress,whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only untildisapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of theCongress.this Court, drawing extensively from the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commission
and the country’s experience under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, held that only those
appointments expressly mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII are to be reviewed
by the Commission on Appointments, namely, “the heads of the executive department,
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->