G.R. No.

180055 July 31, 2009

FRANKLIN M. DRILON as President and in representation of the LIBERAL PARTY OF
THE PHILIPPINES (LP), AND HON. JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA, HON. WAHAB M. AKBAR,
HON. MARIA EVITA R. ARAGO, HON. PROCESSO J. ALCALA, HON. ROZZANO RUFINO
BIAZON, HON. MARY MITZI CAJAYON, HON. FREDENIL H. CASTRO, HON. GLENN ANG
CHONG, HON. SOLOMON R. CHUNGALAO, HON. PAUL RUIZ DAZA, HON. ANTONIO A.
DEL ROSARIO, HON. CECILIA S. LUNA, HON. MANUEL M. MAMBA, HON. HERMILANDO
I. MANDANAS, HON. ALVIN SANDOVAL, HON. LORENZO R. TAADA III, HON.
REYNALDO S. UY, HON. ALFONSO V. UMALI JR., HON. LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO,
Petitioners,
vs.
HON. JOSE DE VENECIA JR. in his official capacity as Speaker of the House of
Representatives; HON. ARTHUR D. DEFENSOR, SR., in his official capacity as Majority
Floor Leader of the House of Representatives, HON. MANUEL B. VILLAR, in his official
capacity as ex-officio Chairman of the Commission on Appointments, ATTY. MA.
GEMMA D. ASPIRAS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Commission on
Appointments, HON. PROSPERO C. NOGRALES, HON. EDGARDO C. ZIALCITA, HON.
ABDULLAH D. DIMAPORO, HON. JOSE CARLOS V. LACSON, HON. EILEEN R. ERMITABUHAIN, HON. JOSE V. YAP, HON. RODOLFO T. ALBANO III, HON. EDUARDO R.
GULLAS, HON. CONRADO M. ESTRELLA III, HON. RODOLFO "OMPONG" PLAZA, HON.
EMMYLOU J. TALIO-MENDOZA and HON. EMMANUEL JOEL J. VILLANUEVA, in their
individual official capacities as "elected" members of the Commission on
Appointments, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 183055 July 31, 2009
SENATOR MA. ANA CONSUELO A.S. MADRIGAL, Petitioner,
vs. SENATOR MANUEL VILLAR in his capacity as Senate President and Ex-Officio
Chairman of the Commission on Appointments, REPRESENTATIVE PROSPERO
NOGRALES in his capacity as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and THE
COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, Respondents.
____________________________________________________________________________________
FACTS:
The first petition, G.R. No. 180055, has thus indeed been rendered
moot with the designation of a Liberal Party member of the House contingent to the
CA, hence, as prayed for, the petition is withdrawn.
As for the second petition, G.R. No. 183055, it fails.

The second petition filed by Senator Jamby Madrigal in a summary

tackle about the reorganization of the membership of the CA and that, in the
meantime, "all actions of CA be held in abeyance as the same may be construed as
illegal and unconstitutional.
Senator Jamby Madrigal petitions to REORGANIZE the membership of
the CA is based upon the OBSERVATIONS that she herself observe in the list of
COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS membership that there are certain POLITICAL
PARTIES acquire a seat of membership in CA held a position which supposedly are
not allowed in the provision of the constitution , moreover, she added to estopped
the intention of the committee request that "all actions of the Commission be held
in ABEYANCE" .

ISSUE:Whether or not the petitioner is the proper party concerned.

HELD: Senator Madrigal contention has been dismissed due to the guidelines she
ignored.Petitioner has no standing to file the petition .Petitioner failed to observe
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction or prior resort. Each House of Congress has the
sole function of reconstituting or changing the composition of its own contingent to
the CA.The extraordinary remedies of Prohibition and Mandamus and the relief of a
TRO are not available to the Petitioner.
At the core of this controversy is Article VI, Section 18, of the Constitution providing
as follows:
Sec. 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President
of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators and twelve Members of the
House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional
representation from the political parties and parties or organizations registered
under the party-list system represented therein. The Chairman of the Commission
shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments
submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their submission. The
Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members.
Wherefore,the Motion with Leave of Court to Withdraw the Petition in G.R. No.
180055 is Granted. The Petition is Withdrawn. The Petition in G.R. No. 183055 is
Dismissed.

G.R. No. 86344 December 21, 1989

REP. RAUL A. DAZA, petitioner,

vs.
REP. LUIS C. SINGSON and HON. RAOUL V. VICTORINO IN THE LATTER'S CAPACITY AS
SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, respondent.
CRUZ, J.:
FACTS:
After the congressional elections of May 11, 1987, the House of
Representatives proportionally apportioned its twelve seats in the Commission on
Appointments among the several political parties represented in the chamber,
including the LakasngBansa, the PDP-Laban, the NP-Unido, the Liberal Party, and the
KBL,.Petitioner Raul A. Daza was among those chosen and was listed as a
representative of the Liberal Party.
On September 16, 1988, the Laban ngDemokratikong Pilipino was
reorganized, resulting in a political realignment in the House of Representatives.
Twenty four members of the Liberal Party formally resigned from that party and
joined the LDP, thereby swelling its number to 159 and correspondingly reducing
their former party to only 17 members.
The House of Representatives revised its representation in the
Commission onAppointments by withdrawing the seat occupied by the petitioner
and giving this to the newly-formed LDP. On December 5, 1988, the chamber
elected a new set of representatives consisting of the original members except the
petitioner and including therein respondent Luis C. Singson as the additional
member from the LDP.
The petitioner came to the Court on January 13, 1989, to challenge his removal from
the Commission on Appointments and the assumption of his seat by the
respondent.
ISSUE:Whether or not that the contention of the petitioner that he cannot be
removed from the Commission on Appointments and invoking the doctrine of
Cunanan v. Tan is valid.
HELD: Yes, petitioners plea is valid. While he may be technically correct in arguing
that it is not he who caused the petitioner's removal, The feel that this objection is
also not an insuperable obstacle to the resolution of this controversy. For one thing,
the Court treat this proceeding as a petition for quo warranto as the petitioner is
actually questioning the respondent's right to sit as a member of the Commission

on Appointments. For another, the Justices held as early as in the Emergency

Powers Cases that where serious constitutional questions are involved.
The Court would have preferred not to intervene in this matter, leaving it to
be settled by the House of Representatives or the Commission on Appointments as
the bodies directly involved
At the core of this controversy is Article VI, Section 18, of the Constitution
providing as follows:
Sec. 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President
of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators and twelve Members of the
House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional
representation from the political parties and parties or organizations registered
under the party-list system represented therein. The Chairman of the Commission
shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments
submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their submission. The
Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members.

Wherefore, the petition is Dismissed. The temporary restraining order dated

January 13, 1989, isLifted. The Court holds that the respondent has been validly
elected as a member of the Commission on Appointments and is entitled to assume
his seat in that body pursuant to Article VI, Section 18, of the Constitution. No
pronouncement as to costs.

G.R. No. 79974 December 17, 1987

ULPIANO P. SARMIENTO III AND JUANITO G. ARCILLA, petitioners,

vs.
SALVADOR MISON, in his capacity as COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS,
AND GUILLERMO CARAGUE, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
BUDGET, respondents, COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, intervenor.
PADILLA, J.:

FACTS:
The petitioners, who are taxpayers, lawyers, members of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and professors of Constitutional Law, seek to enjoin

the respondent Salvador Mison from performing the functions of the Office of
Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and the respondent Guillermo Carague, as
Secretary of the Department of Budget, from effecting disbursements in payment of
Mison's salaries and emoluments, on the ground that Mison's appointment as
Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs is unconstitutional by reason of its not
having been confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.
ISSUE:Whether or notthat the appointment of the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Customs needs the CONFIRMATION coming from the COMMISSION ON
APPOINTMENT.

HELD: No, there is no need for the respondent to be recognized or confirmed by the
Commission on Appointment regarding of his capacity as Commissioners of the
Bureau of Customs, while Guillermo Carague, in his capacity as Secretary of the
Department of Budgetwill profoundly needed the confirmation coming from the CA.
The respondents are allowed to hold public office is allowed as the
provision of the Constitution clearly stated that,
The President shall nominate and with the consent of the Commission
on Appointments, shall appoint the heads of the executive departments and
bureaus, officers of the army from the rank of colonel, of the Navy and Air Forces
from the rank of captain or commander, and all other officers of the Government
whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and those whom he may
be authorized by law to appoint; but the Congress may by law vest the appointment
of inferior officers, in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of
departments.
Furthermore,as a result of the innovations introduced in Sec. 16, Article
VII of the 1987 Constitution, there are officers whose appointments require no
confirmation of the Commission on Appointments.
Thus, to illustrate, the appointment of the Central Bank Governor
requires no confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, even if he is higher
in rank than a colonel in the Armed Forces of the Philippines or a consul in the
Consular Service.
Wherefore, the petition and petition in intervention should be, as they
are, hereby Dismissed. Without costs.