Your honors, everyone, Good Evening.

Your honors, this side of the bench strongly opposes in the necessity to declare
the appointment unconstitutional anchored on three major points:
First, the appointment of Vice President is a valid exercise of the President’s
appointing power.
Second, the Memorandum appointing VP Robredo necessarily created co-
chairperson position.
Third, the judiciary may not nullify the appointments made by the President
there being no proof of no grave abuse of discretion.
On to our first point, the appointment to office is intrinsically an executive act
and exclusive prerogative of the President which was validly exercised by the
President in designating VP Robredo as co-chairperson in ICAD.
Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution expressly granted the President the
power to appoint all officers of the Government whose appointments are not
otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to
appoint. This is more strengthened by Section 3 which allows the President to
appoint the Vice President to a cabinet position without need of confirmation.
Second, the appointment of VP Robredo necessarily created the position of
co-chairperson. It is not prerequisite that Executive Order No 15 creating the ICAD
be amended because of the appointing power of the President and his continuing
power to create positions and items and reorganize the executive offices. VP
Robredo’s acceptance of the appointment made here a member of the cabinet. In the
case of Villena v Sec of Interior, the heads of ministries are alter egos of the
President.
On to the third point, the judiciary may only nullify an act of the other branch
of the government if there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction. In the case of Pimentel v. Ermita, the courts dismissed the question
on the constitutionality of the appointments issued by the President Acting
Secretaries of various departments due to absence of abuse. In case of appointment
of VP Robredo, all the requisites of valid appointment is present: First, appointing
power; second, qualified appointee and third vacancy. Robredo is not disqualified to
take the position and her appointment is exempted from confirmation. Moreover, the
issuance of the Memorandum of appointment simultaneously created a vacant
position of co-chairperson to which she was validly appointed.
In Luego v Civil Service Commission the Court said that appointment is a
political question involving considerations of wisdom which only the appointing
authority can decide. There being lack of abuse, the appointment of Robredo is valid
and constitutional.