G.R. No. 83216. September 04, 1989
TERESITA QUINTOS-DELES, GLORIA T. ARAGON (M.D.), LOURDES V. MASTURA, TRINIDAD A. GOMEZ, ADUL DE LEON, JOSEFINA AZARCON-DELA CRUZ, TRINIDAD M. DOMINGO, MARIA MAYET T. LEDANO, LOL…
BIDIN, J.:
This is a special civil action for prohibition and mandamus
with injunction seeking to compel respondent Commission on Appointments to
allow petitioner Teresita Quintos-Deles
to perform and discharge her duties as a member of the House of Representatives
representing the Women’s Sector and to restrain respondents from subjecting
petitioner’s appointment to the confirmation process.
The antecedent facts which gave rise to this petition are as
follows:
On April 6, 1988,
petitioner and three others were appointed Sectoral
Representatives by the President pursuant to Article VII, Section 16, paragraph
2 and Article XVIII, Section 7 of the Constitution. Executive Secretary Catalino
Macaraig, Jr. transmitted by letter, also dated April 6, 1988 (Annex L) the appointment
of the said sectoral representatives to Speaker Ramon
Mitra, Jr. as follows:
“April 6, 1988
Hon. Ramon V. Mitra, Jr.
Speaker, House of Representatives
Quezon City
S i r :
Pursuant to Article VII, Section 16, paragraph 2 and Article XVIII,
Section 7, of the Constitution, the President has appointed the following
persons to the seats reserved for sectoral
representatives in paragraph (1), Section 5 of Article VI of the Constitution:
1. Teresita Quintos-Deles –
Women
2. Al
Ignatius G. Lopez – Youth
3. Bartolome Arteche – Peasant
4. Rey Magno Teves – Urban Poor
Copies of their appointments are enclosed.
With best wishes.
Very truly yours,
(SGD) CATALINO
MACARAIG, JR.
Executive Secretary”
On April 18, 1988,
the above-mentioned sectoral representatives were
scheduled to take their oaths before Speaker Ramon V. Mitra,
Jr. at the Session Hall of Congress after the Order of Business. However, petitioner and the three other sectoral representatives-appointees were not able to take
their oaths and discharge their duties as members of Congress due to the
opposition of some congressmen-members of the Commission on Appointments, who
insisted that sectoral representatives must first be
confirmed by the respondent Commission before they could take their oaths
and/or assume office as members of the House of Representatives. This opposition compelled Speaker Ramon V. Mitra, Jr. to suspend the oathtaking
of the four sectoral representatives.
In view of this development, Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig, Jr.
transmitted on April 25, 1988,
a letter dated April 11, 1988
of the President addressed to the Commission on Appointments submitting for
confirmation the appointments of the four sectoral
representatives as follows:
“11 April 1988
The Honorable
Jovito R. Salonga
The Senate President and
The Members of the Commission on Appointments
Congress of the Philippines
M a n i l a
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to Article VII, Section 16, paragraph 2, and Article
XVIII, Section 7, of the Constitution. I
hereby submit, for confirmation, the appointments of the following persons as
Members of the House of Representatives representing the sectors indicated
opposite their respective names:
TERESITA QUINTOS-DELES – Women
AL IGNATIUS G. LOPEZ –
Youth
BARTOLOME ARTECHE –
Peasant
REY MAGNO TEVES –
Urban Poor
An early confirmation of their appointments will be appreciated.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd) Corazon
C. Aquino“
Meanwhile, petitioner in a letter dated April 22, 1988 addressed
to Speaker Ramon V. Mitra, Jr. (Annex V) appealed to
the House of Representatives alleging, among others, that since “no
attempt was made to subject the sectoral
representatives*
already sitting to the confirmation process, there is no necessity for such confirmation and subjection
thereto of the present batch would certainly be discriminatory.”
In reply, Speaker Mitra in a letter
dated May 2, 1988 (Annex BB) informed petitioner that since “President
Corazon C. Aquino
has submitted your appointment to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation
in a letter dated April 11, 1988, x x x the Commission on Appointments now has sole jurisdiction
over the matter.”
On May 10, 1988, petitioner Deles received an invitation dated
May 6, 1988 to attend a Commission on Appointments Committee Meeting scheduled
for May 12, 1988 for the deliberation of her appointment as sectoral
representative for women (Annex DD).
Petitioner sent a reply dated May
11, 1988 explaining her position and questioning the jurisdiction
of the Commission on Appointments over the appointment of sectoral
representatives (Annex EE).
In the May 12, 1988 meeting of the Committee of the
Constitutional Commissions and Offices of the Commission on Appointments,
chaired by Sen. Edgardo J. Angara,
the Committee ruled against the position of petitioner Deles.
Hence, this petition for prohibition and mandamus praying
that respondent Commission on Appointments be enjoined from subjecting to
confirmation process the petitioner’s appointment as sectoral
representative for the women’s sector and as member of Congress.
Petitions in intervention were likewise filed by Estefania Aldaba Lim, et al. (Rollo, p.
147); Ma. Iris Melizza, et al. (Rollo,
p. 172); Margarita Gomez, et al. (Rollo, p. 186); Hernani Panganiban, et al. (Rollo, p. 208); Presentacion
Castro, et al. (Rollo, p. 215); Sr. Teresa Dagdag, et al. (Rollo, p. 251);
and Civil Liberties Union (Rollo, p. 274).
Petitioner Teresita Quintos-Deles
contends that her appointment as Sectoral
Representative for Women by the President pursuant to Section 7, Article XVIII
of the Constitution, does not require confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments to qualify her to take her seat in the House of Representatives.
The opposite view is taken by the Solicitor General in his
Statement of Position (In lieu of Comment), dated July 15, 1988 (Rollo, p. 206) in this wise: “In view of the President’s submission
of the four sectoral representatives, the petitioner
included, to the Commission on Appointments by letter dated April 11, 1988,
then confirmation by the Commission on Appointments is required.”
On August 15, 1988, respondent Commission on Appointments, in
addition to adopting the Statement of Position (in lieu of Comment) submitted
by the Solicitor General, likewise submitted its own Statement of Position (in
lieu of Comment) and further manifested that (1) the appointment of petitioner
Deles was not acted upon by the Commission on Appointments when Congress went
into recess as required by the Constitution:
(2) the case of petitioner Deles for appointment as sectoral
representative to the House of Representative has become moot and academic not
having been finally acted upon at the close of the session of Congress pursuant
to Sec. 23 of the Rules of the Commission (Rollo, pp.
233-234) which reads as follows:
“Section 23. Suspension
of Consideration of Nomination or Appointments to be Returned to the President. Nominations or appointments submitted by the
President of the Philippines
which are not finally acted upon at the close of the session of Congress shall be returned to the President, and unless resubmitted, shall not again be considered by the Commission.”
On January 31, 1989,
the Court after noting the reply filed by the petitioner and the rejoinder filed
by respondents, resolved to give due course to the petition and the parties
were required to submit their respective memoranda (Rollo,
p. 309). By way of manifestation and
motion dated March 9, 1989 (Rollo, p. 311), the Office of the Solicitor General adopted
its statement of position (in lieu of comment) and rejoinder as its
memorandum. Petitioners and intervenor Civil Liberties Union submitted their memoranda
on March 22, 1989 and March 30, 1989, respectively. A supplemental statement of position (in lieu
of memorandum) dated March 31, 1989
was filed by respondent Commission.
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall
be composed of not more than two hundred fifty (250) members, unless otherwise
fixed by law, who shall be elected from the legislative districts and those who
as provided by law, shall be elected thru a party-list system. The party-list representatives shall
constitute 20% of the total number of representatives or fifty (50) seats. One-half or twenty-five (25) of the seats
allocated to party-list representatives is reserved for sectoral
representatives. The reservation is
limited to three consecutive terms after ratification of the 1987
Constitution. Thus, Section 5 (1) and
(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides:
“SEC. 5. (1) The House
of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty
members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative
districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila
area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and
those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of
registered national, regional, and sectoral parties
or organizations.
“(2) The party-list
representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of
representatives including those under the party-list. For three consecutive terms after the
ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as
provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be
provided by law, except the religious sector.”
Under Section 7, Article XVIII of the Constitution, the
appointment of sectoral representatives is vested
upon the President until otherwise provided by law, as follows:
“SEC. 7. Until a law is
passed, the President may fill by appointment from a list of nominees by the
respective sectors the seats reserved for sectoral
representation in paragraph (1), Section 5 of Article VI of this
Constitution.”
The issue is, whether the Constitution requires the appointment
of sectoral representatives to the House of
Representatives to be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.
Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution enumerates, among
others, the officers who may be appointed by the President with the consent of
the Commission on Appointments, as follows:
“SEC. 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
disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of
the Congress.”
In Sarmiento vs. Mison, et al. (156 SCRA 549 [1987]), we construed
Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution to mean that only appointments to
offices mentioned in the first sentence of the said Section 16, Article VII
require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, as follows:
“It is readily apparent that under the provisions of the 1987
Constitution, just quoted, there are four (4) groups of officers whom the President shall appoint. These four (4) groups, to which we will
hereafter refer from time to time, are:
First, the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors,
other public ministers and consuls, 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;
Second, all other officers of the Government whose
appointments are not otherwise provided for by law;
Third, those whom the President may be authorized by law to
appoint;
Fourth, officers lower in rank whose appointments the
Congress may by law vest in the President
alone.
The first group of officers is clearly appointed with the consent
of the Commission on Appointments.
Appointments of such officers are initiated by nomination and, if the
nomination is confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, the President appoints.
x x x x x x
(T)he purposive intention and deliberate judgment of the framers of
the 1987 Constitution (is) that, except as to those officers whose appointments
require the consent of the Commission on Appointments by express mandate of the first sentence in Sec. 16, Art. VII,
appointments of other officers are left to the President without need of
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
This conclusion is inevitable, if we are to presume, as we must, that
the framers of the 1987 Constitution were knowledgeable of what they were doing
and of the foreseeable effects
thereof.
Besides, the power to appoint is fundamentally executive or
presidential in character. Limitations
on or qualifications of such power should be strictly construed against them.
Such limitations or qualifications must be clearly stated in order to be
recognized. But, it is only in the first
sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII where it is clearly stated that appointments
by the President to the positions therein enumerated require the consent of the
Commission on Appointments.”
Our ruling in Mison was
reiterated in the recent case of Mary Concepcion
Bautista vs. Sen. Jovito Salonga,
et al. (G.R. No. 86439,
promulgated on April 13, 1989) wherein the Court held:
“The Mison case was the first major
case under the 1987 Constitution and in construing Sec. 16, Art. VII of the
1987 Constitution, x x x x x x x x x this Court, drawing extensively from the proceedings of the 1986
Constitutional Commission and the country’s experience under the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions, held that only those appointments expressly mentioned in the
first sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII are to be reviewed by the Commission on
Appointments, namely, ‘the heads of the executive department,
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.’ All other appointments by
the President are to be made without the participation of the Commission on
Appointments.”
Since the seats reserved for sectoral
representatives in paragraph 2, Section 5, Art. VI may be filled by appointment
by the President by express provision of Section 7, Art. XVIII of the Constitution,
it is indubitable that sectoral representatives to
the House of Representatives are among the “other officers whose
appointments are vested in the President in this Constitution,” referred
to in the first sentence of Section 16, Art. VII whose appointments are subject
to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments (Sarmiento
v. Mison, supra).
Nevertheless, there are appointments vested in the President in
the Constitution which, by express mandate of the Constitution, require no
confirmation such as appointments of members of the Supreme Court and judges of
lower courts (Sec. 9, Art. VIII) and the Ombudsman and his deputies (Sec. 9,
Art. XI). No such exemption from
confirmation had been extended to appointments of sectoral
representatives in the Constitution.
Petitioner was appointed on April 6, 1988 pursuant to Art. XVIII, Section 7 and Art. VII, Section 16, paragraph 2 of
the Constitution, to wit:
“6 April 1988
Madam:
Pursuant to Article VII, Section 16, paragraph 2 and Article XVIII,
Section 7, of the Constitution, you are hereby appointed MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
By virtue hereof, you may qualify to said position furnishing this
office with copies of your oath of office.
Very truly yours,
Sgd.)
CORAZON C. AQUINO
Hon. TERESITA
QUINTOS-DELES”
(Annex “M”, Petition, Rollo, p. 108.)
The invocation of Art. XVIII,
Section 7 of the Constitution as authority for the appointment of
petitioner places said appointment within the ambit of the first sentence of
Section 16, Art. VII; hence, subject to confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments under the Mison doctrine. Petitioner’s appointment was furthermore made pursuant to Art.
VII, Section 16, paragraph 2 which
provides:
“SEC. 16. x x x
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.”
The reference to paragraph 2,
Section 16 of Article VII as additional authority for the appointment of
petitioner is of vital significance to the
case at bar. The records show that petitioner’s appointment was made on April 6,
1988 or while
Congress was in recess (March
26, 1988 to April 17, 1988);
hence, the reference to the said paragraph 2 of Section 16, Art. VII in the
appointment extended to her.
Implicit in the invocation of paragraph 2, Section 16, Art. VII
as authority for the appointment of petitioner is, the recognition by the
President as appointing authority that petitioner’s appointment requires
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
Under paragraph 2, Section 16, Art. VII, appointments made by the President pursuant thereto
“shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on
Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.” If indeed
appointments of sectoral representatives need no
confirmation, the President need not
make any reference to the
constitutional provisions above-quoted in appointing the
petitioner. As a matter of fact, the
President in a letter dated April 11,
1989 had expressly submitted petitioner’s appointment for
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
Considering that Congress had adjourned without respondent Commission on
Appointments having acted on petitioner’s appointment, said
appointment/nomination had become moot and academic pursuant to Section 23 of
the Rules of respondent Commission and “unless resubmitted shall not again
be considered by the Commission.”
Petitioners further contend that nowhere in the Constitution nor
in Executive Order No. 198 is mention made of the need for petitioner’s
appointment to be submitted to the Commission on Appointments for
confirmation. Executive Order No. 198
promulgated on June 18, 1987
before the convening of Congress, is denominated: “Providing for the Manner of Nomination
and Appointment of Sectoral Representatives to the
House of Representatives.” We agree with the submission of respondent Commission that the
provisions of Executive Order No. 198 do not
deal with the manner of appointment of sectoral
representatives. Executive Order No. 198
confines itself to specifying the sectors to be represented, their number, and
the nomination of such sectoral representatives.
The power of the President to appoint sectoral
representatives remains directly derived from Section 7, Article XVIII of the
Constitution which is quoted in the second “Whereas” clause of
Executive Order No. 198. Thus,
appointments by the President of sectoral
representatives require the consent of the Commission on Appointments in
accordance with the first sentence of Section 16, Art. VII of the
Constitution. More to the point,
petitioner Deles’ appointment was issued not by virtue of Executive Order No. 198
but pursuant to Art. VII, Section 16, paragraph 2 and Art. XVIII, Section 7 of
the Constitution which require submission to the confirmation process.
WHEREFORE, the petition for prohibition and mandamus
with preliminary injunction is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco,
Padilla, Sarmiento, Cortes, Grino-Aquino,
Medialdea, and
Regalado, JJ., concur.
*
It appears that on August 4, 1987,
President Aquino initially appointed four sectoral representatives, namely: Romeo Angeles, Ramon Jabar, Estelita Juco and Dionisio S. Ojeda to represent the Peasants, Labor, Disabled and Women
and Veterans and Elders sectors, respectively.
Said sectoral representatives, after taking
their oaths of office, assumed the functions and duties of their offices
without having been required to undergo confirmation process by the Commission
on Appointments.