Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 239 views

    Sarmiento v. Mison

    Uploaded by

    M
    The petitioners sought to prohibit the respondent Salvador Mison from serving as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs on the basis that his appointment was unconstitutional since it was not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. However, the Court held that under the 1987 Constitution, only the appointments of heads of executive departments and other positions in the first group require confirmation. As the Commissioner of Customs is a bureau head and not in the first group, the President's appointment of Mison without Commission confirmation was valid. Therefore, Mison's appointment and service as Commissioner were constitutional.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sarmiento v. Mison

    Uploaded by

    M
    239 views2 pages
    The petitioners sought to prohibit the respondent Salvador Mison from serving as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs on the basis that his appointment was unconstitutional since it was not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. However, the Court held that under the 1987 Constitution, only the appointments of heads of executive departments and other positions in the first group require confirmation. As the Commissioner of Customs is a bureau head and not in the first group, the President's appointment of Mison without Commission confirmation was valid. Therefore, Mison's appointment and service as Commissioner were constitutional.

    Original Description:

    Power of the President to appoint without the consent of Commission of Appointments

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners sought to prohibit the respondent Salvador Mison from serving as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs on the basis that his appointment was unconstitutional since it was not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. However, the Court held that under the 1987 Constitution, only the appointments of heads of executive departments and other positions in the first group require confirmation. As the Commissioner of Customs is a bureau head and not in the first group, the President's appointment of Mison without Commission confirmation was valid. Therefore, Mison's appointment and service as Commissioner were constitutional.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    239 views2 pages

    Sarmiento v. Mison

    Uploaded by

    M
    The petitioners sought to prohibit the respondent Salvador Mison from serving as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs on the basis that his appointment was unconstitutional since it was not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. However, the Court held that under the 1987 Constitution, only the appointments of heads of executive departments and other positions in the first group require confirmation. As the Commissioner of Customs is a bureau head and not in the first group, the President's appointment of Mison without Commission confirmation was valid. Therefore, Mison's appointment and service as Commissioner were constitutional.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Topic: APPOINTMENTS SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATION OF COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS

    ULPIANO P. SARMIENTO III AND JUANITO G. ARCILLA, petitioners, vs. SALVADOR MISON, in his capacity as COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, AND GUILLERMO CARAGUE, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET, respondents, COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, intervenor.

    FACTS: In this petition for prohibition, the petitioners, who are taxpayers, lawyers, members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and professors of Constitutional Law, seek to enjoin the respondent Salvador Mison from performing the functions of the Office of Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and the respondent Guillermo Carague, as Secretary of the Department of Budget, from effecting disbursements in payment of Misons salaries and emoluments, on the ground that Misons appointment as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs is unconstitutional by reason of its not having been confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. The respondents, on the other hand, maintain the constitutionality of respondent Misons appointment without the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments. ISSUE: Whether or not the appointment is valid.

    HELD: Under Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, there are four groups of officers who are to be appointed by the President: (1) 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; (2) all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law; (3) (4) those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint; and officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the President alone.

    The first group is clearly appointed with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Because of the rule that an express enumeration of subjects excludes others not enumerated, it follows that only those appointments to positions in the first group require the conformation of the Commission of Appointments. The original text of Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution copied Section 10, Article VII of the 1935 Constitution. In the course of the debates, it was amended by excluding the appointments of heads of bureaus and the second and third groups of officers from the requirement of confirmation by the Commission of Appointments. When the second sentence of section 16, Article VII of the Constitution provides that the President shall also approve all other officers whose appointments are not otherwise provided by law and those whom he may be authorized to appoint, the word also does not imply that their appointment must also be subject to confirmation by the Commission of Appointments. The word also means in addition. Confirmation by the Commission of Appointments is not necessary, because while the first sentence speaks of confirmation by the Commission of Appointments, the second sentence speaks only of appointment by the President. This use of a different language underscores the difference in the meaning. Besides, the power to appoint is fundamentally exclusive in character. Limitation of such power should be strictly construed. Such limitations must be clearly stated to be recognized. The argument that since a law is needed to vest in the President alone the appointment of the fourth group of officers, high-ranked officers should be confirmed by the Commission of Appointments is unmeritorious. This is a lapse in drafting. Under the 1935 Constitution, presidential appointments as a general rule were subject to confirmation by the Commission of Appointments. However, in the 1987 Constitution, only the appointments of the first group of officers are subject to confirmation by the Commission of Appointments. Hence, there was no reason to use the word alone in the third sentence of Section 16, Article VII, because the power to appoint the officers whom the President may by law be authorized to appoint is already vested in the President without the need of confirmation of the Commission of Appointments. The word alone is a redundancy which cannot prevail over the intent of the Constitution except for the first group of officers, presidential appointments are not subject to confirmation by the Commission of Appointments. The position of Commissioner of Customs, who is a bureau head, is not one of those within the first group of appointments which require confirmation by the Commission of Appointments. Consequently, the President of the Philippines acted within her constitutional authority and power in appointing respondent Salvador Mison, Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs, without submitting his nomination to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation.

    You might also like