Kristine Zam C.

Reynante
LAWENG K32

Title: Dimaandal et al. v. Executive Secretary et al.

Case Number: G.R. Nos. 203372, 206290, 209138, 212030
Concurring and Dissenting Opinions of Justice Arturo Brion

Facts:
● Before the May 2010 elections, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued over 800
appointments to various government positions. However, Section 15, Article VII of the
1987 Constitution prohibits the President or the acting President from making
appointments two months before the next presidential elections until the end of their
term, except for temporary appointments to executive positions necessary for public
service or safety. March 10, 2010, was set as the cutoff date for the elections, initiating
the ban on midnight appointments.
● The appointments of the petitioners were made between March 1, 2010, and March 5,
2010. These appointments were transmitted to the respective offices after the ban took
effect, with some being received as late as May 13, 2010, by the Malacañang Records
Office. Despite this, the petitioners assumed their positions and performed their duties.
● On July 30, 2010, President Aquino issued EO 2, recalling, withdrawing, and revoking
appointments made by President Macapagal-Arroyo that violated the constitutional ban
on midnight appointments.

Issues:
● Whether or not the President has the authority to issue Executive Order No. 2, which
defines "midnight appointments" as stipulated in Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987
Constitution.
○ The Court often accedes to the President's interpretation of constitutional
provisions granting discretionary authority, especially when the executive branch
is tasked with interpreting and executing laws. Executive interpretation is
acknowledged as a necessary presumption in law application, while the Court
retains the power of judicial review to ensure compliance with the law and
Constitution.
● Whether or not Executive Order No. 2 is constitutional.
○ The dissent contends that Section 1(a) of Executive Order No. 2 should be
partially declared unconstitutional as it excessively broadens the prohibition on
presidential appointments under Article VII, Section 15 of the Constitution. The
dissent argues against the interpretation that appointments encompass the
entire process, including acceptance by the appointee, advocating for a narrower
view focused on the President's appointing authority.
Ruling (Dissent):
Kristine Zam C. Reynante
LAWENG K32

● DISMISS the certiorari petition in G.R. No. 209138 due to technical deficiencies.
● PARTIALLY GRANT the certiorari petition by declaring the phrase "including all
appointments bearing dates before March 11, 2010, where the appointee has accepted,
or taken his oath, or assumed public office on or after March 11, 2010" in Section 1(a) of
Executive Order No. 2 as UNCONSTITUTIONAL for excessively broadening the prohibition
on appointments under Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution.
● DENY the certiorari petitions insofar as they seek (i) to uphold the petitioners' respective
appointments and (ii) their reinstatement to the positions held before the issuance of
Executive Order No. 2.