Matibag v.

Benipayo (2002)

Summary Cases:

● Matibag vs Benipayo 380 SCRA 49

Subject:

Ad interim appointment, Commission on Elections, Commission on Appointments

Facts:

President Arroyo appointed, ad interim, Benipayo as COMELEC Chairman, and Borra and Tuason as
COMELEC Commissioners, each for a term of seven years and all expiring on February 2, 2008. The
President submitted the ad interim appointments to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation;
however, the latter did not act on the appointments. Subsequently, the President renewed the ad interim
appointments of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason two more times to the same position and the same term of
seven years, with COA still not acting on the appointments.

On February 2, 1999, the COMELEC en banc appointed Matibag as “Acting Director” of the EID in a
“temporary” capacity. On April 16, 2001, in his capacity as COMELEC Chairman, Benipayo reassigned
the latter to a different department and designated a new Director for the EID.

This petition for Prohibition assails the ad interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason as
Chairman and Commissioners of the COMELEC, respectively, as violative of the constitutional
prohibition on temporary appointments. Matibag also questions the legality of Benipayo’s appointment of
Velma J. Cinco as the new Director IV of the Comelec’s EID and her (Matibag) subsequent
reassignment to a different department.

Held:

Nature of Ad Interim Appointment

1. An ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment. It takes effect immediately and can no

longer be withdrawn by the President once the appointee has qualified into office.

| Page 1 of 3
2. The fact that ad interim appointments are subject to confirmation by the COA does not alter its
permanent character. The Constitution itself makes such ad interim appointment permanent by making it
effective until disapproved by the COA or until the next adjournment of Congress.

3. This is in contrast with temporary or acting appointments which are revocable at the will of the
appointing authority and constitutionally prohibited to ensure the independence of the constitutional
commissions.

4. As such, the ad interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason are valid and do not constitute
temporary or acting appointments prohibited by the Constitution.

Constitutionality of Renewals of Appointment

5. An ad interim appointment that is disapproved by COA can no longer be extended a new appointment.
This disapproval is a final decision of the COA in the exercise of its checking power on the appointing
authority of the President.

6. An ad interim appointment that is by-passed because of lack of time or failure of COA to organize is
another matter. The President is free to renew the ad interim appointment of a by-passed appointee.

7. The renewal of the ad interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason, in light of the unacted
nominations, do not violate the constitutional prohibition on reappointments. Furthermore, the
subsequent renewals do not serve to extend their term in office but are for a fixed term expiring on
February 2, 2008.

Benipayo’s Authority to Reassign Petitioner

8. Pursuant to the Revised Administrative Code, the COMELEC Chairman is vested with the power to
reassign and transfer personnel. As Benipayo is the de jure COMELEC Chairman, he possesses full
authority to exercise the powers of the office as long as his ad interim appointment remains effective.

| Page 2 of 3
9. As Matibag held her “Director” position only in an acting or temporary capacity, her appointment can
be withdrawn at will by the appointing authority.

10. Furthermore, Matibag does not enjoy security of tenure as she does not posses the required
qualifications for the position of “Director” as prescribed by the Civil Service Commission.

| Page 3 of 3