Velicaria v. OP

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

VELICARIA- GARAFIL v.

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT o official transmittal of the appointment paper;


G.R. No. 203372 o receipt of the appointment paper by the appointee; and
June 16, 2015 o acceptance of the appointment by the appointee evidenced by his or her oath/
assumption of office
DOCTRINE:  MIDNIGHT or LAST MINUTE APPOINTMENT
o Aytona v. Castillo: issuance of 350 appointments in one night and the planned
induction of almost all of them a few hours before the inauguration of the new
President may be regarded as an abuse of Presidential Prerogative
FACTS: Prior to the conduct of the May 2010 elections, then President Macapagal-Arroyo issued  apparently a mere partisan effort to fill all vacant positions
more than 800 appointments to various positions in several government offices. irrespective of fitness and other conditions
 thereby to deprive the new administration of an opportunity to
The ban on midnight appointments in Section 15, Article VII provides: 2 months immediately make the corresponding appointments
before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting  Elements of VALID APPOINTMENT
President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions 1. authority to appoint and evidence of the exercise of the authority;
when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety 2. transmittal of the appointment paper and evidence of the transmittal;
3. a vacant position at the time of appointment; and
For this purposes of the 2010 elections, 10 March 2010 was the cut-off date for valid appointments 4. receipt of the appointment paper and acceptance of the appointment by the
and the next day, 11 March 2010, was the start of the ban on midnight appointments. appointee who possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications

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.

ACCEPTANCE BY THE QUALIFIED APPOINTEE


 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.
 Excluding the act of acceptance from the appointment process leads us to the very evil
which we seek to avoid
 Inclusion of acceptance in the process prevents the abuse of the Presidential power to
appoint

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

DISPOSITION: DISMISSED, appointments are VOID; EO 2 Constitutional

You might also like