37. Bautista vs. Salonga [172 SCRA 169, G.R. No.

86439 April 13, 1989]

DOCTRINE: Sec. 16, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the
executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or 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. He
shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and
those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint.
The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts,
or in the heads of the departments, agencies, commissions or boards. The President shall have the power to make
appointments during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be
effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.
FACTS: On August 27, 1987, President Cory Aquino appointed petitioner Bautista as acting chairman and on
December 17, 1988 petitioner was appointed as permanent Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR).
Bautista took her oath of office on December 22, 1988 to Chief Justice Marcelo Fernan and immediately acted as
such.
On January 9, 1989, the Secretary of the Commission on Appointments (CoA) wrote a letter to Bautista requesting for
her presence along with several documents at the office of CoA on January 19. Bautista refused to be placed under
CoA's review. Consequently, CoA disapproved petitioner Bautista's "ad interim appointment" as Chairperson of the
CHR, likewise CoA denied the motion for reconsideration on the matter.
Bautista filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari with a prayer for the immediate issuance of a restraining
order, to declare "as unlawful and unconstitutional and without any legal force and effect any action of the
Commission on Appointments as well as of the Committee on Justice, Judicial and Bar Council and Human Rights,
on the lawfully extended appointment of the petitioner as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, on the
ground that they have no lawful and constitutional authority to confirm and to review her appointment.
While waiting for the progress of the case, President Aquino appointed Hesiquio R. Mallillin as "Acting Chairman of
the Commission on Human Rights" but he was not able to sit in his appointive office because of Bautista's refusal to
surrender her post. Malilin invoked EO 163-A which provides "The Chairman and Members of the Commission on
Human Rights shall be appointed by the President. Their tenure in office shall be at the pleasure of the President"
Thus, Bautista may be subsequently removed as well.
ISSUES:
1. W/N Bautista's appointment is subject to COA's confirmation
2. W/N Bautista's appointment is an ad interim appointment
3. W/N EO- 163A is valid
HELD:
1. No. The position of Chairman of CHR is not among the positions mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. 16 Art 7 of
the Constitution, which provides that the appointments which are to be made with the confirmation of CoA. Rather, it
is within the authority of President, vested upon her by Constitution (2nd sentence of Sec. 16 Art 7), that she appoint
executive officials without confirmation of COA.
Ex gratia argumenti, that the Executive MAY VOLUNTARILY allow the CoA to exercise the power of review over an
appointment otherwise solely vested by the Constitution in the President. Yet, when the President appointed
petitioner Bautista on December 17, 1988 to the position of Chairman of the CHR with the advice to her that by virtue
of such appointment (not, until confirmed by the Commission on Appointments), she could qualify and enter upon the
performance of her duties after taking her oath of office - the presidential act of appointment to the position, was then
and there, under the Constitution, a complete and finished act.
The Commission on Appointments, by the actual exercise of its constitutionally delimited power to review presidential
appointments, cannot create power to confirm appointments that the Constitution has reserved to the President
alone.
2. No. Under the Constitutional design, ad interim appointments do not apply to appointments solely for the President
to make. Ad interim appointments, by their very nature under the 1987 Constitution, extend only to appointments
where the review of the Commission on Appointments is needed. That is why ad interim appointments are to remain
valid until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress; but
appointments that are for the President solely to make, that is, without the participation of the COA, cannot be ad
interim appointments.

3. No. The Court found it extremely difficult to conceptualize how an office conceived and created by the Constitution
to be independent as the Commission on Human Rights-and vested with the delicate and vital functions of
investigating violations of human rights, pinpointing responsibility and recommending sanctions as well as remedial
measures therefor, can truly function with independence and effectiveness, when the tenure in office of its Chairman
and Members is made dependent on the pleasure of the President. Executive Order No. 163-A, being antithetical to
the constitutional mandate of independence for the Commission on Human Rights has to be declared
unconstitutional.
Petitioner Bautista is declared to be, as she is, the duly appointed Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights
and the lawful incumbent thereof, entitled to all the benefits, privileges and emoluments of said office.