CASE NO.

476
Article VII Section 16 – Scope of Commission of Appointments
Sarmiento vs. Mison (471 SCRA 587; 2005)

FACTS: Petitioners seek to enjoin respondent Mison from performing the functions of the Office of the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Customs by reason of it not having been confirmed by the Commission on Appointments CA.

ISSUE: Whether the appointment of the Commissioner of Customs needs the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

RULING: NO. Since the office is not one of those mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII, nor is it specified elsewhere that
such appointment needs the consent of the Commission.

Under Section 6, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, there are four (4) groups of officers whom the President shall appoint:

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.

The first group of officers is clearly appointed with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. The other groups DO NOT require
this confirmation.

Case No. 477

Article VII Section 16 – Scope of Commission of Appointments
Bautista v. Salonga

FACTS: Pres. Aquino appointed petitioner as Chairman of CHR. Commission on Appointments required her to submit certain documents
for her qualification and for confirmation. Bautista contends that her position does not require confirmation by the CA as laid down in
the case of Sarmiento vs Mison.

ISSUE: Whether or not the appointment as Chairman of CHR requires the consent of CA

RULING/MP: No. Since the position of Chairman of the CHR is not among the positions mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16,
Article VII it follows that the appointment by the President of the Chairman of CHR, is to be made without the review or participation of
the Commission. To be more precise, the appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Commission on Human Rights is not
specifically provided for in the Constitution itself, unlike the Chairmen and Members of the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on
Elections and the Commission on Audit, whose appointments are expressly vested by the Constitution in the President with the consent
of the Commission on Appointments.

Case No. 478

Article VII Section 16 – Scope of Commission of Appointments
Quintos-Deles v. CA

FACTS: Petitioners et.al were appointed Sectoral Representatives by the President pursuant to Article VII, Section 16. They were,
however, not able to take their oaths and discharge their duties due to the opposition of some members of the CA, who insisted that
sectoral representatives must first be confirmed by the Commission.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Constitution requires the appointment of sectoral representatives to the House of Representatives to be
confirmed by the Commission on Appointments

RULING/MP: Yes. Since the seats reserved for sectoral representatives in paragraph 2, Section 5, Art. VI may be filled by appointment by
the President by express provision of Section 7, Art. XVIII of the Constitution, it is indubitable that sectoral representatives to the House
of Representatives are among the "other officers whose appointments are vested in the President in this Constitution," referred to in the
first sentence of Section 16, Art. VII whose appointments are subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. The sectoral
representatives fell under the clause “other officers whose appointment are vested in him in this Constitution.

Case No. 479

Article VII Section 16 – Scope of Commission of Appointments
Pobre v. Mendieta
FACTS: Following the expiration of term of the PRC Commissioner, the petitioner, Associate Commissioner, was appointed by Pres.
Aquino for the position. This was contradicted by respondent, who was the Senior Associate Commissioner. Respondent argues that the
“succession clause” in P.D No. 223 does not only apply to the unexpired term.

ISSUE: Whether or not the appointment of petitioner as PRC Chairman is lawful

RULING/MP: Yes. The Court holds that the succession clause operates only when there is an "unexpired term" of the
Chairman/Commissioner to be served. Otherwise, if the Chairman's term had expired or been fully served, the vacancy must be filled by
appointment of a new chairman by the President. The Court finds unacceptable the view that every vacancy in the Commission shall be
filled by "succession" or by "operation of law" for that would deprive the President of his power to appoint a new PRC Commissioner and
Associate Commissioners — "all to be appointed by the President" under P.D. No. 223

Case No. 480

Article VII Section 16 – Scope of Commission of Appointments
Flores v. Drilon

FACTS: A provision under RA 7227, otherwise known as the "Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992, was challenged. Said
provision provides the President the power to appoint an administrator of the SBMA provided that in the first year of its operation the
Olongapo mayor shall be appointed as chairman and chief of executive of the Subic Authority.

ISSUE: Whether or not said provision violates the constitutional prescription against appointment or designation of elective officials to
other government posts

RULING/MP: Yes. The proviso directs the President to appoint an elective official, i.e., the Mayor of Olongapo City, to other government
posts, which is exactly what the law seeks to prevent. Appointment involves an exercise of discretion of whom to appoint; it is not a
ministerial act of issuing appointment papers to the appointee. Hence, when Congress clothes the President with the power to appoint an
officer, it cannot at the same time limit the choice of the President to only one candidate. Such enactment effectively eliminates the
discretion of the appointing power to choose and constitutes an irregular restriction on the power of appointment.