Quintos-Deles v.

Commission on Constitutional Commissions

G.R. No. 83216 Sept. 4, 1989 Bidin, J.
Article VII - Section 16
Petitioners Respondents
Teresita Quintos-Deles, et al. The Commission on Constitutional
Commissions, Commission on Appointments, et
al.

Recit Ready Summary

 In the case at bar, this petition seeks to compel respondent CA to allow petitioner Quintos-
Deles to discharge her duties as Member of the House of Rep. and to restrain respondents
from subjecting petitioner’s appointment to the confirmation process. Petitioner here was
appointed by the Pres. to the House of Rep. as representing the Women’s Sector.
However, she was not able to take her oath due to the opposition of some members of the
CA that she must first be confirmed by respondent CA before she can do the oath-taking
and assume office. In the deliberation of her appointment, respondents CA and
Commission on Constitutional Commissions ruled against her position and appointment.
The issue here is W/N it is constitutionally required that the appointment of sectoral reps to
the House of Rep. be confirmed by the CA. The Court ruled that, yes, the CA must confirm
or consent first to the appointment of sectoral reps made by the Pres. before they take
effect. This is so because pursuant to ART. VII, § 16 and ART. XVIII, § 7, those officers
whose appointments are specifically vested in the Pres., shall only be appointed with the
consent of the CA. The position of a sectoral rep is one such office contemplated in the
aforementioned provisions.

Facts of the Case

 This is a special civil action seeking to compel respondent Commission on
Appointments (CA) to allow petitioner Quintos-Deles to discharge her duties as a
member of the House of Rep. representing the Women’s Sector and to restrain
respondents from subjecting petitioner’s appointment to the confirmation process.
 Petitioner plus three others were appointed by Pres. Cory Aquino to be sectoral
representatives in the House of Rep. pursuant to ART. VII, § 16 and ART. XVIII, § 7 of the
present Constitution.
 However, petitioner and the other three didn’t get to do their oath-taking due to opposition of
some congressmen-members of the CA who insisted that sectoral reps must first be
confirmed by the CA before they can take their oaths and assume office. Speaker Mitra
suspended their oath-taking in the meantime.
 In view of the foregoing, a letter by Pres. Cory Aquino addressed to the CA was submitted
for confirmation of the appointments of petitioner Quintos-Deles and the other three.
 In the May 12, 1988 meeting of respondents CA and Commission on Constitutional
Commissions, the Committee ruled against the appointment of petitioner Quintos-Deles.
Hence, the present petition.
Issues Ruling
1. W/N the Constitution requires the appointment of sectoral representatives to Yes
the House of Representatives to be confirmed by the Commission on
Appointments (CA)
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
1. ART. VII, § 16 of the Const. enumerates, among others, the officers who may be appointed
by the Pres. w/ the consent of the CA. The relevant portion of the provision is the first
sentence: “The Pres. shall nominate and, w/ the consent of the CA, appoint xxx officers
whose appointments are vested in him in this Const.” Meanwhile, ART. XVIII, § 7 provides
that “xxx the Pres. may fill by appointment from a list of nominees by the respective sectors
the seats reserved for sectoral representation xxx”
2. Sarmiento v. Mison provides that ART. VII, § 16 is construed to mean that only the
appointments made by the Pres. to offices in the first sentence of the said provision require
confirmation or consent by the CA.
3. The SC ruled that pursuant to the invocation of ART. XVIII, § 7 as the authority for the
appointment of petitioner Quintos-Deles, this places the said appointment under the ambit
of the first sentence of ART. VII, § 16. Thus, the appointment of petitioner is subject to
confirmation by the CA under the Mison doctrine.
4. Moreover, ART. VII, § 16, ¶ 2 provides that “The Pres. shall have the power to make
appointments during the recess of Congress xxx but such appointments shall be effective
only until disapproval by the CA xxx”. Records show that petitioner’s appointment was
made while Congress was in recess. Hence, this portion of the provision also applies to her
case.
5. The petition has also become moot and academic pursuant to Sec. 23 of the Rules of the
Commission, which provides that if appointments by the Pres. are not finally acted upon at
the close of the session of Congress, these shall be returned to the Pres. and shall not be
reconsidered again unless resubmitted. Petitioner’s appointment was not acted upon by
respondent CA when the Congress adjourned.

Disposition
DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Separate Opinions
N/A