ARTICLE VII [EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT]

Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive
departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers
of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other
officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall
also appoint all other 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 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 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 until disapproved by the Commission
on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.
Pobre vs. Mendieta [G.R. No. 106677, July 23, 1993]
FACTS: These consolidated petitions under Rules 45 and 65 of the Rules of
Court were filed by Her genes Pobre to set aside the courts decision and
writ of prohibitory injunction, issued by Judge Corona Ibay-Somera,
annulling the appointment extended by President Corazon C. Aquino to the
petitioner, Hermogenes Pobre, as Commissioner/Chairman of the
Professional Regulation Commission mo (PRC) and enjoining him from
discharging the duties and functions of that office.
The controversy began on January 2, 1992, when the term of office of
Honorable Julio B. Francia as PRC Commissioner/Chairman expired. At
that time, Mariano A. Mendieta was the senior Associate Commissioner
and Hermogenes P. Pobre was the second Associate Commissioner of the
PRC.
The Executive Secretary wanted to know whether the President may
appoint as Commissioner/Chairman of the PRC another Associate
Commissioner or any person other than the Senior Associate
Commissioner.
In a Memorandum, Acting Secretary of Justice Silvestre H. Bello, III
answered the queries as follows: Based on the foregoing premises, it is our
view that Section 2 of P.D. No. 223 does not limit or restrict the appointing
power of the President. It has been said that "those matters which the
Constitution specifically confides to the executive, the legislative cannot
directly or indirectly take from his control"
Pobre opposed the issuance of a restraining order because President
Aquino had already appointed him PRC Chairman and he had, in fact,

ARTICLE VII [EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT]

already taken his oath of office on February 17, 1992. Judge Somera denied
the prayer for a restraining order as well as the petition for declaratory
relief for being moot and academic.
Consequently, Mendieta filed a petition for quo warranto contesting Pobre's
appointment as chairman of the PRC because he (Mendieta) allegedly
succeeded Francia as PRC Chairman by operation of law. Pobre disputed
Mendieta's claim on the ground that only the President of the Philippines,
in whom the appointing power is vested by law and the Constitution, may
name the successor of retired PRC Commissioner/Chairman Francia upon
the expiration of the latter's term of office.
The petition raises an issue regarding the proper construction of the
provision in Section 2 of P.D. No. 223 that: ". . . any vacancy in the
Commission shall be filled for the unexpired term only with the most Senior
of the Associate Commissioners succeeding the Commissioner at the
expiration of his term, resignation or removal," whereby the legality of
Pobre's appointment as PRC Chairman may be determined.
In interpreting this section of P.D. No. 223, consideration should be
accorded the provision of the Constitution vesting the power of
appointment in the President of the Philippines.
ISSUE:
Whether
or
not
the
appointment
of
Pobre
as
Commissioner/Chairman of the Professional Regulation Commission by the
President is lawful.
RULING: THE POWER OF APPOINTMENT CANNOT BE RESTRICTED TO
THE POINT THAT THE OFFICER LOSES THE DISCRETION. The Court
finds unacceptable the view that every vacancy in the Commission (except
the position of "junior" Associate Commissioner) shall be filled by
"succession" or by "operation of law" for that would deprive the President
of his power to appoint a new PRC Commissioner and Associate
Commissioners "all to be appointed by the President" under P.D. No.
223. The absurd result would be that the only occasion for the President to
exercise his appointing power would be when the position of junior (or
second) Associate Commissioner becomes vacant. We may not presume
that when the President issued P.D. No. 223, he deliberately clipped his
prerogative to choose and appoint the head of the PRC and limited himself
to the selection and appointment of only the associate commissioner
occupying the lowest rung of the ladder in that agency. Since such an
absurdity may not be presumed, the Court should so construe the law as to
avoid it.
"The duty devolves on the court to ascertain the true meaning where the
language of a statute is of doubtful meaning, or where an adherence to the
strict letter would lead to injustice, absurdity, or contradictory provisions,

ARTICLE VII [EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT]

since an ambiguity calling for construction may arise when the

consequence of a literal interpretation of the language is an unjust, absurd,
unreasonable, or mischievous result, or one at variance with the policy of
the legislation as a whole; and the real meaning of the statute is to be
ascertained and declared, even though it seems to conflict with the words
of the statute." (82 CJS 589-590; Emphasis supplied.)