X.

Specific Powers of the President

The Appointing Power (Sec. 16); Midnight Appointments (Sec. 15)

Pimentel vs. Ermita

G.R NO. 164978
October 13, 2005

Being an alter ego of the president, a department secretary may be appointed in an

acting capacity even when the congress is in session in line with its purpose as a stop-
gap measure intended to fill an office for a limited time until the appointment of a
permanent occupant to the office.

Facts:

This is a petition to declare unconstitutional the appointments issued by

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to respondents Abad et al as Department
Secretaries in an acting capacity while the Congress adjourned on 22 September 2004.
On 23 September 2004, President Arroyo issued ad interim appointments to
respondents as secretaries of the departments to which they were previously appointed
in an acting capacity.

Issues:

Whether the appointment of respondents Abad et.al as acting secretaries without

the consent of the Commission on Appointments while Congress is in session is
unconstitutional.

Ruling:
NO. The essence of an appointment in an acting capacity is its temporary nature.
It is a stop-gap measure intended to fill an office for a limited time until the appointment
of a permanent occupant to the office. In case of vacancy in an office occupied by an
alter ego of the President, such as the office of a department secretary, the President
must necessarily appoint an alter ego of her choice could assume office. The office of a
department secretary may become vacant while Congress is in session. Since a
department secretary is the alter ego of the President, the acting appointee to the office
must necessarily have the Presidents confidence. Thus, by the very nature of the office
of a department secretary, the President must appoint in an acting capacity a person of
her choice even while Congress is in session. That person may or may not be the
permanent appointee, but practical reasons may make it expedient that the acting
appointee will also be the permanent appointee.

Further, contrary to the claims of petitioner members of congress, we find no

abuse in the present case. In addition to the 1 year limit of effectivity of temporary
appointments the absence of abuse is readily apparent from President Arroyo’s
issuance of ad interim appointments to respondents immediately upon the recess of
Congress, way before the lapse of one year.