Velicaria-Garafil v. OP

Velicaria-Garafil v.
OP
Velicaria-Garafil v Office of the President
FACTS:
Prior to the conduct of the May 2010 elections, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
(President Macapagal-Arroyo) issued more than 800 appointments to various positions in several
government offices.
The ban on midnight appointments in Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution reads:
“Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and
up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except
temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice
public service or endanger public safety.”

Thus, for purposes of the 2010 elections, 10 March 2010 was the cutoff date for valid
appointments and the next day, 11 March 2010, was the start of the ban on midnight
appointments. Section 15, Article VII of the 1987Constitution recognizes as an exception to the
ban on midnight appointments only "temporary appointments to executive positions when
continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety." None of the
petitioners claim that their appointments fall under this exception.
Issuance of EO 2
On 30 June 2010, President Benigno S. Aquino III (President Aquino) took his oath of office as
President of the Republic of the Philippines. On 30 July 2010, President Aquino issued EO 2
recalling, withdrawing, and revoking appointments issued by President Macapagal-Arroyo
which violated the constitutional ban on midnight appointments.
ISSUES:
1.

Whether or not petitioners' appointments violate Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution,
and2.

whether or not EO 2 is constitutional.
RULING/HELD:
1.
YES
. Petitioner’s appointments violate Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. This ponencia
and the dissent both agree that the facts in all these cases show that "none of the petitioners have
shown that their appointment papers (and transmittal letters) have been issued (and released)
before the ban."
The dates of receipt by the MRO (malacanang record office), which in these cases are the only reliable
evidence of actual transmittal of the appointment papers by President Macapagal-Arroyo, are dates
clearly falling during the appointment ban.
Thus, this ponencia and the dissent both agree that all the appointments in these cases are
midnightappointments in violation of Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.2.
YES.
EO 2 is constitutional. Based on prevailing jurisprudence, appointment to a government post is a
process that takes several steps to complete. Any valid appointment, including one made under
the exception provided in Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, must consist of
the President signing an appointee's appointment paper to a vacant office, the official transmittal
of the appointment paper (preferably through the MRO), receipt of theappointment paper by the
appointee, and acceptance of the appointment by the appointee evidenced by his orher oath of
office or his or her assumption to office
The following elements should always concur in the making of a valid (which should be
understood as bothcomplete 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.
The concurrence of all these elements should always apply, regardless of when the
appointment is made,whether outside, just before, or during the appointment ban. These steps
in the appointment process shouldalways concur and operate as a single process. There is no
valid appointment if the process lacks even one step.And, unlike the dissent's proposal, there is
no need to further distinguish between an effective and an ineffectiveappointment when an
appointment is valid.
Petitioners have failed to show compliance with all four elements of a valid appointment.
They cannot prove with certainty that their appointment papers were transmitted before the
appointment ban took effect. Onthe other hand, petitioners admit that they took their oaths of
office during the appointment ban.Petitioners have failed to raise any valid ground for the
Court to declare EO 2, or any part of it, unconstitutional.Consequently, EO 2 remains valid and
constitutional.
WHEREFORE, the petitions in G.R. Nos. 203372, 206290, and 212030 are DENIED, and the
petition in G.R. No. 209138 is DISMISSED.
The appointments of petitioners Atty. Cheloy E. Velicaria-Garafil (G.R. No.203372), Atty. Dindo
G. Venturanza (G.R. No. 206290), Irma A. Villanueva, and Francisca B. Rosquita (G.R. No.
209138), and Atty. Eddie U. Tamondong (G.R. No. 212030) are declared VOID.
We DECLARE that Executive Order No. 2 dated 30 July 2010 is VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL.
FACTS: The present consolidated cases involve four petitions: G.R. No. 203372 with
Atty. Cheloy E. Velicaria-Garafil, who was appointed State Solicitor II at the Office of the
Solicitor General, as petitioner; G.R. No. 206290 with Atty. Dindo G. Venturanza, who
was appointed Prosecutor IV of Quezon City, as petitioner; G.R. No. 209138 with Irma
A. Villanueva , who was appointed Administrator for Visayas of the Board of
Administrators of the Cooperative Development Authority, and Francisca B. Rosquita,
who was appointed Commissioner of the National Commission of Indigenous Peoples,
as petitioners; and G.R. No. 212030 with Atty. Eddie U. Tamondong, who was
appointed member of the Board of Directors of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority , as
petitioner. Prior to the conduct of the May 2010 elections, then President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo issued more than 800 appointments to various positions in several
government offices. The ban on midnight appointments in Section 15, Article VII of the
1987 Constitution reads: Two months immediately before the next presidential elections
and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make
appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued
vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety. Thus, for
purposes of the 2010 elections, 10 March 2010 was the cutoff date for valid
appointments and the next day, 11 March 2010, was the start of the ban on midnight
appointments. Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution recognizes as an
exception to the ban on midnight appointments only "temporary appointments to
executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or
endanger public safety." None of the petitioners claim that their appointments fall under
this exception. On 30 June 2010, President Benigno S. Aquino III (President Aquino)
took his oath of office as President of the Republic of the Philippines. On 30 July 2010,
President Aquino issued EO 2 recalling, withdrawing, and revoking appointments issued
by President Macapagal-Arroyo which violated the constitutional ban on midnight
appointments.
ISSUE: Whether petitioners' appointments violate Section 15, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution
DECISION: the petitions in G.R. Nos. 203372, 206290, and 212030 are DENIED, and
the petition in G.R. No. 209138 is DISMISSED. The appointments of petitioners Atty.
Cheloy E. Velicaria-Garafil (G.R. No. 203372), Atty. Dindo G. Venturanza (G.R. No.
206290), Irma A. Villanueva, and Francisca B. Rosquita (G.R. No. 209138), and Atty.
Eddie U. Tamondong (G.R. No. 212030) are declared VOID.
RATIO DECIDENDI: 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; The President's
exercise of his power to appoint officials is provided for in the Constitution and laws.
Discretion is an integral part in the exercise of the power of appointment. Considering
that appointment calls for a selection, the appointing power necessarily exercises a
discretion. (2) transmittal of the appointment paper and evidence of the transmittal; It is
not enough that the President signs the appointment paper. There should be evidence
that the President intended the appointment paper to be issued. It could happen that an
appointment paper may be dated and signed by the President months before the
appointment ban, but never left his locked drawer for the entirety of his term. Release of
the appointment paper through the MRO is an unequivocal act that signifies the
President's intent of its issuance. (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.
Acceptance is indispensable to complete an appointment. Assuming office and taking
the oath amount to acceptance of the appointment. An oath of office is a qualifying
requirement for a public office, a prerequisite to the full investiture of the office.
Petitioners have failed to show compliance with all four elements of a valid appointment.
They cannot prove with certainty that their appointment papers were transmitted before
the appointment ban took effect. On the other hand, petitioners admit that they took
their oaths of office during the appointment ban.

Velicaria-Garafil v. OP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Velicaria-Garafil v. OP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Velicaria-Garafil v.

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

RATIO DECIDENDI: The following elements should always concur in the making of a

You might also like