Velicaria v. OP
Velicaria v. OP
Velicaria v. OP
APPOINTMENTS o NOTE: all these elements should always apply, regardless of when the
Atty. Velicaria-Garafil’s appointment as State Solicitor II appointment is made, whether outside, just before, or during the appointment
o Paper was dated 5 March 2010 ban
o transmittal letter dated 8 March 2010 but was received by the Malacañang o steps in the appointment process should always concur and operate as a single
Records Office (MRO) only on 13 May 2010 process.
o Atty. Velicaria-Garafil took her oath of office as State Solicitor II on 22 March no valid appointment if the process lacks even one step
2010
Atty. Venturanza’s appointment as Prosecutor IV of QC APPOINTING AUTHORITY
o only on 12 March 2010 that the OP transmitted Atty. Venturanza’s Discretion is an integral part in the exercise of the power of appointment
appointment paper to DOJ o The power to appoint is, in essence, discretionary.
o Venturanza took his oath of office on 15 March 2010 The appointing power has the right of choice which he may exercise
Villanueva’s appointment as Administrator for Visayas of the Board of Administrators of freely according to his judgment, deciding for himself who is best
the CDA qualified among those who have the necessary qualifications and
o dated 3 March 2010 eligibilities
o took her oath of office on 13 April 2010 when Congress clothes the President with the power to appoint an officer, it (Congress)
Atty. Tamondong’s appointment as member of SBMA Board of Directors cannot at the same time limit the choice of the President to only one candidate.
o dated 1 March 2010
o received by the Office of the SBMA Chair on 25 March 2010 TRANSMITTAL
o took oath of office on 6 July 2010 not enough that the President signs the appointment paper
Release of the appointment paper through the MRO is an unequivocal act that signifies
ISSUANCE OF EO 2, BY PRES. AQUINO the President’s intent of its issuance
recalling, withdrawing, and revoking appointments issued by President Macapagal- o Malacanang Records Office (MRO) as administrative unit of Executive office
Arroyo which violated the constitutional ban on midnight appointments. assigned to receive, record and screen all document, ; release of papers; among
others
ISSUE: WON the said APPOINTMENTS of the Petitioners were MIDNIGHT APPOINTMENTS in The MRO’s exercise of its mandate does not prohibit the President or the Executive
violation of Sec. 15, Art. 7 of the Constitution- YES Secretary from giving the appointment paper directly to the appointee
o However, a problem may arise if an appointment paper is not coursed through
WON EO 2 is constitutional- YES the MRO and the appointment paper is lost or the appointment is questioned.
o The appointee would then have to prove that the appointment paper was
HELD: ALL OF PETITIONERS’ APPOINTMENTS ARE MIDNIGHT APPOINTMENTS AND ARE directly given to him
VOID FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 15, ARTICLE VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION. In this case, appointment papers were not released thru MRO
EO 2 IS CONSTITUTIONAL
actual transmittal of the appointment papers by President Macapagal-Arroyo, are dates VACANT POSITION
clearly falling during the appointment ban appointment can be made only to a vacant office
o cannot be made to an occupied office
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF EO 2 The incumbent must first be legally removed, or his appointment validly terminated,
Any Valid Appointment must consist: before one could be validly installed to succeed him
o President signing an appointee’s appointment paper to a vacant office;
EO 2 considered as midnight appointments those appointments to offices that will only be
vacant on or after 11 March 2010 even though the appointments are made prior to 11
March 2010
o In light of Sec. 15, Art 7, the outgoing President is prevented from continuing to
rule the country indirectly after the end of his term.
IN THIS CASE: 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