Sarmiento vs Mison (Dec 17, 1987) Petitioner: Ulpiano Sarmiento and Juanito Arcilla Respondent/s: Salvador Mison (Commissioner

of Bureau of Customs) and Guillermo Carague (Sec. of Dept of Budget) Ponente: Padilla Petition for prohibition seeking to enjoin Mison from performing functions of the Office of the Commission of the Bureau of Customs Facts: Petitioners filed this motion for prohibition to bar Mison from performing the duties of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and to enjoin Carague as Sec of Budget from effecting the disbursement of Misons salary and emoluments on the ground that Misons appointment is unconstitutional by reason of its being not confirmed by the Commission on Appointment. Because public interest demands, the Court will set aside technicalities like petitioners lack of standing and whether prohibition is the proper remedy. Commission on Appointment filed a motion for intervention. Issue: Is the appointment of Mison to his position constitutional? Held: Yes. Petitions for prohibition and intervention are DISMISSED. Constitution Construction: Abad Santos (in Gold Creek Mining Corp vs. Rodriguez)- Fundamental principle of constitutional construction is to give effect to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it.---in other words, provisions must be construed not in accordance with how the executive or legislative wants but in accordance with what they say. Sec 16, Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Section 16. 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 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 disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.

Presidential Appointees are divided into 4: 1. Heads of executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls or officers of AFP from the rank of colonel and naval captain and others whose appointment are vested in him by the Constitution 2. All other officers of the Govt whose appointment are not otherwise provided for by law 3. Those whom the president may be authorized by law to appoint 4. Officers lower in rank whose appointment the Congress may by law vest in the President alone First category needs confirmation of the Commission on Appointments. What about the other three categories?

J Abad Santos (in Gold Creek) In deciding this point, it should be borne in mind that a constitutional provision must be presumed to have been framed and adopted in the light and understanding of prior and existing laws and with reference to them. 1935 Constitution says ALL presidential appointments are subject to the approval of the Commission on Appointments. 1973 Constitution says President may appoint officers, without a conditional approval from Commission on Appointments. 1987 seeks a middle ground because 1935 Consti turned commission into a venue of horse-trading and malpractices while 1973 Consti was formed in the authoritarian pattern. Court says 1 st group requires approval of commission while the latter three do not need approval. (this is supported by the quoted proceedings of the ConCom of 1986 where it proposed to delete the words and bureaus after departments among other revisions) Senator Neptali Gonzales contend that the word also in the second sentence of Section 16 Article 7 implied that President shall in like manner appoint officers mentioned in 2nd sentence. In other words, President shall also appoint officers with approval of Commission. ----Court said the fact that only 1st sentence spoke of appointment with approval of commission while 2nd sentence spoke only of appointment meant that approval only applied to 1 st category. Power to appoint is fundamentally executive or presidential in character so limitations and qualifications on such power should be strictly construed against them. Limitations should be clearly stated to be recognized. Word alone in power may be vested in the President alone, is slip in draftsmanship and does not mean that otherwise the power is vested in President and another body otherwise. Third sentence could have dropped the word alone. 11 concur. 2 dissent, voting to grant petition. Cruz, dissenting: 2nd sentence should be interpreted as continuation of 1st sentence and so also requiring confirmation by commission. If we follow logic of main opinion, the ridiculous result would be such that Foreign Affairs Undersecretary will not require confirmation but the consuls, under the office of undersecretary, will need confirmation.