MATIBAG vs BENIPAYOG

GR. No: 14936

April 2, 2002

Carpio, J:

FACTS:

On February 2, 1999, the COMELEC en banc appointed petitioner as Acting Director IV

of the COMELEC Education and Information Department. On March 22, 2001, the President
Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo appointed, ad interim, Alfredo Benipayo as COMELEC Chairman,
Ressurecion Borra and Florentino Tuason Jr as COMELEC Commissioners, each for a term of
seven years. Their terms were subsequently renewed by the President. The Office of the
President transmitted their appointments to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation
however the Congress adjourned before the Commission on Appointments could act of their
appointments. Benipayo, in his capacity as the COMELEC Chairman issued a memorandum
addressed to the petitioner reassigning her to the Law Department of the COMELEC. The
petitioner now prays for the reconsideration of her relief and reassignment but was denied by
Benipayo on the basis of COMELEC resolution No. 3300. Petitioner now questions the validity
of the ad interim appointments of the President to Benipayo, Borra and Tuason as Section 1
Article IX of the 1987 Constitution prohibits temporary appointment.

ISSUE:

Whether or not appointments made by the President in ad interim amounts to temporary

appointment which is prohibited by the Constitution.

HELD:

No. The ad interim appointments made by the President are considered a permanent
appointment once the appointee has been qualified to office.

Section 16, paragraph 2 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution states that the President
shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress whether
voluntary or compulsory, but such appointment shall be effective only until the disapproval of the
Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.

In this case, the ad interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason are considered
as permanent appointment. The fact that their appointment is subject to confirmation by the
Commission of Appointments does not alter their permanent nature. The Constitution itself
makes an ad interim appointment permanent in character by making it effective until
disapproved by the Commission of Appointments. The petitioner’s contention that ad interim
appointments are only for the time being is untenable since its literal meaning is not what is
intended in the context of Philippine Law, rather, the meaning it has acquired through Philippine
jurisprudence.
 GUEVARA vs. INOCENTES
GR No. L25577
MARCH 15, 1966

Bautista Angelo, J:

FACTS:

On November 18, 1965, Onofre P. Guevara, herein petitioner took his oath of office as
Undersecretary of Labor after his appointment was extended, ad interim by the incumbent
executive. At about midnight of January 22, 1966, the special session of Congress lapsed.
Consequently, on January 23, 1966, the incumbent executive issued a memorandum declaring
all ad interim appointments made by the former executive to have lapsed with the adjournment
of the special session of Congress. The petitioner’s appointment was assailed by the
respondent on the basis that his ad interim appointment has lapsed when the Congress
adjourned its last special session called under Proclamation 2 of President Marcos. The
petitioner brought before court the instant petition for quo warranto seeking to be declared the
person legally entitled to the said office as Undersecretary of Labor.

ISSUE:

Whether or not an ad interim appointment granted after the adjournment of the

Congress’ special session valid, considering that the Senate was the only one to adjourn sine
die.

HELD:

No. Ad interim appointments extended when the special session of the Congress
adjourned sine die are considered to have lapsed.

The important provision to be considered is Section 10, Art VII of the 1935 Constitution
which provides for the President the power to make appointments during the recess of the
Congress, but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on
Appointments or until the adjournment the Congress.

In this case, the extension of the ad interim appointment given to the petitioner was
granted through the memorandum issued by the President when the Senate adjourned sine die
and the House suspended its session. In as much as the House of Representatives is only part
of the Congress, not the Congress itself, it follows necessarily that “Congress” cannot be said to
have been in session on January 23, 1966. Therefore, the appointment of petitioner Guevara is
rendered ineffective.
 PACETE vs SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS
GR. No. L25897
July 23, 1971

Fernando, J:

FACTS:
On April 4, 1966, petitioner Felizardo S. Pacete was appointed by the then President of
the Philippines as Municipal Judge of Pigcawayan, Cotabato. He assumed office on September
11, 1964 and discharged his duties as such. His appointment was submitted to the Commission
on Appointments in its next session in 1965. As his appointment was made during the recess of
Congress and was later unanimously confirmed. He was sent a congratulatory message by the
Senate President Ferdinand Marcos who was also the chairman of the Commission on
Appointments. However, more than nine months after his confirmation, the Secretary of Justice
advised the petitioner to vacate his position as Municipal Judge on the ground that his
appointment had been by-passed. He was informed further that a motion for reconsideration
was filed by a member of the Commission on Appointments for his confirmation in view of the
derogatory records that the commission have received. Aside from vacating his office, the
salaries of the petitioner were also withheld by the Disbursing Officer of the Department of
Justice. Petitioner now asserts that his confirmation is indeed, valid.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a motion for reconsideration could have force and effect on an ad interim
appointment that has already been unanimously confirmed.

HELD:

No. The mere filing of a motion for reconsideration to a confirmation duly made which is
not approved cannot have the effect of setting aside such confirmation.

Section 10, Article VII of the 1935 Constitution provides that the President has the power
to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, but such appointments shall be
effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the adjournment the
Congress.

In this case, the constitutional requirement is clear; there must be a rejection of the
Commission on Appointments or non-action on its part. No such thing happened in this case.
The petitioner could invoke constitutional protection as he was granted a unanimous vote for his
confirmation. To grant a motion for reconsideration is to lose sight of what is provided in the
Constitution. Granting such motion would mean imparting to a move of a single member over a
collective body a decisive weight. Petitioner in this case shall be granted the right to perform his
functions as Municipal Judge of Pigcawayan, Cotabato and shall be free from any force and
effect to vacate his position from the Secretary of The Department of Justice.