CASE KEY ISSUE HELD/ANSWER

Topacio v Ong Is the appointment of a Justice of the YES. Ong was subsequently declared a Natural-born
Sandiganbayan valid? citizen in a separate RTC decision. (see footnote 3)

Funa v Agra Is the appointment of an acting Secretary of Justice
who is also concurrently holding another position in
government valid?
No. To hold an office means to possess or to
occupy the office, or to be in possession and
administration of the office, which implies nothing
less than the actual discharge of the functions and
duties of the office. It is of no moment that the
designation was in an acting or temporary
capacity.

Re: Nomination The appointment of Atty. Chaguile as IBP Governor Accordingly, Supreme Court hold that all official actions
Atty. Lynda for Northern Luzon was not in accord with the IBP of Atty. Chaguile as de facto IBP Governor for Northern
Chaguile by-laws. How does this affect her powers and Luzon must be deemed valid, binding, and effective,
authority? as though she were the officer validly appointed
and qualified for the office. It follows that her
participation and vote in the election for IBP EVP held
on May 22, 2013 are in order.

Monroy v CA What is the extent of the right to compensation of a Rightful incumbent of a public office may recover from
de facto officer? an officer de facto the salary received by the latter
during the time of his wrongful tenure, even though he
entered into the office in good faith and under the color
of title. A de facto officer, not having good title,
takes the salaries at his risk and must therefore
account to the de jure officer for whatever amount
of salary he received during the period of his
wrongful retention of the public office

Corpuz v CA “last act” of appointment The case focused on the validity of one’s appointment
when it lacks the last act which is the approval by
MTRCB.

Ruling: A public official or employee who assumed

office under an incomplete appointment is merely a de
facto officer for the duration of his occupancy of the
office for the reason that he assumed office under color
of a known appointment which is void by reason of
some defect or irregularity in its exercise.Undeniably,
under the facts here, CORPUZ was such a de facto
officer

Castaneda v Yap Non-eligibility based on age G The age requirement is based on public policy(not
mentioned why) and is important in determining if he
has the right to an elective office. The person should get
the age required when elected (current jurisprudence
says at the time the officer took office unless specifically
stated otherwise)

Maquera v Borra Is a surety bond qualification requirement valid? No. RA 4421 requiring a candidate to post surety bond
equivalent to one year salary of position to which he is a
candidate, and shall be forfeited in favor of the
government if the candidate, except the winner, fails to
obtain at least 10% of the vote cast for the office is
unconstitutional. The effect is to impose property
qualifications in order that a person could run for a
public office, which property qualifications are
inconsistent with the nature and essence of the
Republican system ordained in the Constitution and
the principle of social justice underlying the same.

Aguila v Genato Nature of eligibility Eligibility to an office should be construed as of a

continuing nature and must exist at the commencement
of the term and during occupancy of the office.

1
Velicaria-Garafil Nature of appointment Nature of appointment
v Office of the Process of appointment
President Possession of appointment paper The Constitution allows the President to exercise the
Validity of EO2 power of appointment during the period not covered by
the appointment ban, and disallows (subject to an
exception) the President from exercising the power of
appointment during the period covered by the
appointment ban.

Process of appointment

The following elements should always concur in the

making of a valid (which should be understood as both
complete and effective) appointment: (1) authority to
appoint and evidence of the exercise of the authority;
(2) transmittal of the appointment paper and evidence of
the transmittal; (3) a vacant position at the time of
appointment; and (4) receipt of the appointment paper
and acceptance of the appointment by the appointee
who possesses all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications.

Possession of appointment paper

It is not enough that the President signs the

appointment paper. There should be evidence that the
appointment paper to be issued. Release of the
appointment paper through MRO is an unequivocal act
that signifies the President’s intent of its issuance.

The possession of the original appointment paper is not

indispensable to authorize an appointee to assume
office. If it were indispensable, then a loss of the original
appointment paper, which could be brought about by
negligence, accident, fraud, fire or theft, corresponds to
a loss of the office. However, in case of loss of the
original appointment paper, the appointment must be
evidenced by a certified true copy issued by the proper
office, in this case the MRO.

Torres v Borja Discretionary nature of an appointment Discretion if not plenary, at least sufficient, should thus
be granted to those entrusted with the responsibility of
administering the officers concerned, primarily the
department heads. They are in the most favorable
position to determine who can best fulfill the functions of
the office thus vacated. Unless, therefore, the law
speaks in the most mandatory and peremptory tone,
considering all the circumstances, there should be, as
there has been, full recognition of the wide scope of
such discretionary authority.

Rimonte v Civil Role of CSC but to attest to and respect the appointment even if it be
Service proved that there are others with superior credentials.
Commission The law limits the Commission’s authority only to
(CSC) whether or not the appointees possess the legal
qualifications and the appropriate civil service eligibility,
nothing else. If they do then the appointments are
approved because the Commission cannot exceed its
power by substituting its will for that of the appointing
authority . Neither can we.
Aytona v Castillo Ad-interim appointment; Midnight appointment Normally, when the President makes appointments the
consent of the Commission on Appointments, he has
benefit of their advice. When he makes ad interim
appointments, he exercises a special prerogative and is
bound to be prudent to insure approval of his selection
either previous consultation with the members of the
2
 Commission or by thereafter explaining to them the
reason such selection. Where, however, as in this case,
the Commission on Appointments that will consider the
appointees is different from that existing at the time of
the appointment and where the names are to be
submitted by successor, who may not wholly approve of
the selections, the President should be doubly careful in
extending such appointments. Now, it is hard to believe
that in signing 350 appointments in one night, President
Garcia exercised such "double care" which was
required and expected of him; and therefore, there
seems to be force to the contention that these
appointments fall beyond the intent and spirit of the
constitutional provision granting to the Executive
authority to issue ad interim appointments.

Matibag v Nature of ad-interim appointment; renewal of Nature of ad-interim appointment;

Benipayo bypassed ad interim appointees
Permanence
An ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment
because it takes effect immediately and can no longer
be withdrawn by the President once the appointee has
qualified into office.

Effectivity
The Constitution imposes no condition on the effectivity
of an ad interim appointment, and thus an ad interim
appointment takes effect immediately. The appointee
can at once assume office and exercise, as a de jure
officer, all the powers pertaining to the office.

The ad interim appointment remains effective until such

disapproval or next adjournment, signifying that it can
no longer be withdrawn or revoked by the President.

Distinction: Exercise of presidential prerogative when

Congress is in session and when Congress is in recess.
In Pacete vs. Secretary of the Commission on
Appointments, we ruled the the difference between
appointment when Congress is in session and
appointment when Congress is in recess. In the former,
the President nominates, and only upon the consent of
the Commission on Appointments may the person thus
named assume office. It is not so with reference to ad
interim appointments. It takes effect at once. The
individual chosen may thus qualify and perform his
function without loss of time. His title to such office is
complete. In the language of the Constitution, the
appointment is effective ‘until disapproval by the
Commission on Appointments or until the next
adjournment of the Congress.’

Ad interim appointment vs. an appointment in temporary

or acting capacity

While an ad interim appointment is permanent and

irrevocable except as provided by law, an appointment
or designation in a temporary or acting capacity can be
withdrawn or revoked at the pleasure of the appointing
power. A temporary or acting appointee does not enjoy
any security of tenure, no matter how briefly.

Renewal of by-passed ad interim appointees

A by-passed appointment is one that has not been

finally acted upon on the merits by the Commission on
Appointments at the close of the session of Congress.
There is no final decision by the Commission on
3
 Appointments to give or withhold its consent to the
appointment as required by the Constitution. Absent
such decision, the President is free to renew the ad
interim appointment of a by-passed appointee.

Sarmiento v Presidential appointment power Doctrine: Except as to those officers whose

Mison appointments require the consent of the Commission on
Appointments by express mandate of the first sentence
in Sec. 16 Article VII, appointments of other officers are
left to the President without need of confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments.

The power to appoint is generally executive or

presidential in character

Calderon v Presidential appointment power 1.) Confirmation by the Commission on

Carale Appointments is required only for
presidential appointees mentioned in the
first sentence of Section 16, Article VII,
including, those officers whose
appointments are expressly vested by the
Constitution itself in the president (like
sectoral representatives to Congress and
members of the constitutional commissions of
Audit, Civil Service and Election).
2.) Confirmation is not required when the
President appoints other government
officers whose appointments are not
otherwise provided for by law or those
officers whom he may be authorized by law
to appoint (like the Chairman and Members of
the Commission on Human Rights). Also, as
observed in Mison, when Congress creates
inferior offices but omits to provide for
appointment thereto, or provides in an
unconstitutional manner for such
appointments, the officers are considered
as among those whose appointments are
not otherwise provided for by law.