CALDERON V.

CARALE
Doctrines on presidential appointments (derived from Sarmiento III v.
Mison, Bautista v. Salonga, and Quintos Deles v. Commission on
Constitutional Commissions):
Needs onfirmation by CA
No need for confirmation by CA
1. Presidential
nominees
1. Government officers whose
mentioned in the first sentence
appointments
are
not
of Section 16
otherwise provided for by law
2. Officers whose appointments
2. Officers whom he may be
are expressly vested by the
authorized to appoint
Constitution
itself
to
the
3. When
Congress
creates
President.
inferior officers but omits to
a. Sectoral representatives
provide
for
appointment
to Congress
thereto,
or
provides
an
b. Members of COA, CSC,
unconstitutional manner for
COMELEC
such appointments
Sectoral representatives to congress Commissioner
of
the
BOC
(Quintos-Deles v. CCC).
(Sarmiento v. Mison).
Chairman of the CHR (Bautista v.
Salonga).
FACTS
1. R.A. 6715 or the Herrera-Veloso law was passed amending the Labor
Code (P.D. 442).
2. Section 13 of RA 6715 provided that:
a. The Chairman, the Division Presiding Commissioners and other
Commissioners shall all be appointed by the President, subject to
the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments
3. Cory Aquino appointed the Chairman and Commissioners of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) without submitting them
to the Commission on appointments for confirmation.
4. Petitioners question the validity of the appointments as they did not
comply with Section 13 of R.A. 6715.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Congress may, by law, expand the scope of Commission
on Appointments from those already mentioned in the Constitution.
HELD
NO.
- The NLRC Chairman and Commissioners fall under those whom the
President may be authorized by law to appoint -> THESE DO NOT
REQUIRE CONFIRMATION BY THE CA.
- R.A. 6715 is unconstitutional
o It amends by legislation, the first sentence of Sec 16 by adding
appointments requiring confirmation by the CA

o It amends by legislation the second sentence of Sec 16 by

imposing the confirmation of the CA on appointments which are
otherwise entrusted only with the President
Supreme Court decisions
- SC decisions applying or interpreting the Constitution shall form part of
the legal system of the Philippines. No doctrine or principle of law laid
down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be
modified or reversed except by the Court sitting en banc.
- The rulings in Mison, Bautista and Quintos-Deles have interpreted
Sec 16 consistently in one manner.
- Can legislation expand a constitutional provision after the Supreme
Court has interpreted it?
- NO
o It would be violative of the principle of separation of powers if
the Legislature interprets a law or the Constitution after the
Supreme Court has rendered its interpretation. In the first place,
legislative power is to make and enact laws and not to interpret
them. (Endencia and Jugo v. David).
- If the Congress is discontent with a constitutional provision or how it is
interpreted (especially in this case where the power of the Commission
on Appointments, which was a body born out of the legislature even
though it is technically independent of it, has been limited by judicial
interpretation), the solution is to amend the Constitution.
- Until such constitutional convention, it is the duty of the Court to apply
the 1987 Constitution in accordance to what it says and not with how
the legislature or executive would want it interpreted.