Manalo v. Sistoza, G.R. No.

107369, 11 August 1999

Facts:

On December 13, 1990, former President Corazon C. Aquino signed into law
Republic Act 6975, creating the Department of Interior and Local Government. The
said Act states that the PNP Chief, Chief Superintendent and Director General shall
be appointed by the President subject to confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments. Pursuant thereto, Pres. Aquino, through Executive Secretary Franklin
S. Drilon, promoted 15 police officers to permanent positions in the Philippine National
Police with the rank of Chief Superintendent to Director. The said police officers took
their oath of office and assumed their respective positions. Thereafter, the
Department of Budget and Management, under the then Secretary Salvador M.
Enriquez III, authorized disbursements for their salaries and other emoluments.

Issue:

Whether or not the appointment PNP officers need Commission on Appointments’

confirmation.

Held:

Under Section 16, Article VII, of the Constitution, there are four groups of officers of
the government to be appointed by the President:
First, the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers
and consuls, 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;
Second, all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise
provided for by law;
Third, those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint;
Fourth, officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in
the President alone.
It is well-settled that only presidential appointments belonging to the first group require
the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. The appointments of
respondent officers who are not within the first category, need not be confirmed by the
Commission on Appointments. As held in the case of Tarrosa vs. Singson, Congress
cannot by law expand the power of confirmation of the Commission on Appointments
and require confirmation of appointments of other government officials not mentioned
in the first sentence of Section 16 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.

Rufino v. Endriga, G.R. No. 113956, 21 July 2006

Facts:

On 25 June 1966, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Executive Order

No. 30 creating the Cultural Center of the Philippines as a trust governed by a Board
of Trustees of seven members to preserve and promote Philippine culture.

On 5 October 1972, or soon after the declaration of Martial Law, President

Marcos issued PD 15, the CCP’s charter, which converted the CCP under EO 30 into
a non-municipal public corporation free from the “pressure or influence of
politics.” Later, Executive Order No. 1058, issued on 10 October 1985, increased
further the trustees to 11.

After the People Power Revolution in 1986, then President Corazon C. Aquino
asked for the courtesy resignations of the then incumbent CCP trustees and
appointed new trustees to the Board. Eventually, during the term of President Fidel V.
Ramos, the CCP Board included Endriga, Lagdameo,
Sison, Potenciano, Fernandez, Lenora A. Cabili (“Cabili”), and Manuel T. Mañosa
(“Mañosa”).

On 6 January 1999, the Endriga group filed a petition for quo warranto before this
Court questioning President Estrada’s appointment of seven new members to the
CCP Board. The Endriga group alleged that under Section 6(b) of PD 15, vacancies
in the CCP Board “shall be filled by election by a vote of a majority of the trustees held
at the next regular meeting.

The Endriga group asserted that when former President Estrada appointed the
Rufino group, only one seat was vacant due to the expiration of Mañosa’s term. The
CCP Board then had 10 incumbent trustees.
In their motion for reconsideration, the Rufino group asserted that the law could only
delegate to the CCP Board the power to appoint officers lower in rank than the
trustees of the Board.
 On 3 August 1999, the Court of Appeals denied the Rufino group’s motion for
reconsideration. The Court of Appeals also denied the Endriga group’s motion for
immediate execution of the 14 May 1999 Decision.

Issue:

Whether or not Sec. 6 (b) of PD 15 is constitutional and CCP trustees have the
authority to appoint and elect their fellow trustees when there is vacancy.

Held:

NO. The SC ruled that Sec. 6 (b) and (c) of PD 15 as amended which authorizes
the remaining trustees to fill by election vacancies in the Board of Trustees of CCP is
unconstitutional. The intent of Section 6(b) and (c) of PD 15 is to insulate the CCP
from political influence and pressure, specifically from the President. Section 6(b) and
(c) of PD 15 makes the CCP a self-perpetuating entity, virtually outside the control of
the President. Such a public office or board cannot legally exist under the 1987
Constitution.

Lacson v. Romero, G.R. No. L- 3081, 14 October 1949.

Facts:

In July 25, 1946, The President appointed the petitioner, Antonio Lacson, as
provincial fiscal of Negros Oriental which was affirmed by Commission on
Appointment. He took the office and, thereafter, performed his duties. In May 17, 1949,
upon recommendation by Secretary of Justice, the President nominated him to the
post of provincial fiscal in Tarlac and, simultaneously, the President nominated the
Respondent, Honorio Romero, to his position as provincial fiscal of Negros Oriental.
Both of them were confirmed by the Commission on Appointment. The petitioner did
not accept the appointment nor assumed the office of fiscal of Tarlac but respondent
Romero took his oath of office of the post of fiscal of Negros Oriental. Commotion
started between the parties as both of them appeared in the court and the judges
favored the respondent. When the petitioner requested payment for his salary as
provincial fiscal of Negros Oriental, it was turned down and instead paid the
respondent Romero.
Issue:

Whether or not the confirmation Commission on Appointment alone can create a

vacancy in the post of provincial fiscal of Negro Oriental.

Held:

No, the appointment to a government post like that of provincial fiscal to be

complete involves several steps. First, comes the nomination by the President. Then
to make that nomination valid and permanent, the Commission on Appointments of
the Legislature has to confirm said nomination. The last step is the acceptance
thereof by the appointee by his assumption of office. The first two steps, nomination
and confirmation, constitute a mere offer of a post. They are acts of the Executive and
Legislative departments of the Government. But the last necessary step to make the
appointment complete and effective rests solely with the appointee himself. He may or
he may not accept the appointment or nomination.

As held in the case of Borromeo vs. Mariano, “there is no Power in this country
which can compel a man to accept an office.” Consequently, since Lacson has
declined to accept his appointment as provincial fiscal of Tarlac and no one can
compel him to do so, then he continues as provincial fiscal of Negros Oriental and no
vacancy in said office was created, unless Lacson had been lawfully removed as such
fiscal of Negros Oriental.