A. Matibag v. Benipayo G.R. No. 149036 LACUNA

Lacuna
G.R. No. 149036

April 2, 2002
MA. J. ANGELINA G. MATIBAG - Petitioner

vs.
ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO, RESURRECCION Z. BORRA, FLORENTINO A. TUASON,
JR., VELMA J. CINCO, and GIDEON C. DE GUZMAN in his capacity as Officer-In-
Charge, Finance Services Department of the Commission on Elections
– Respondents
Facts:
1. COMELEC en banc appointed petitioner as the “Acting Director IV” of the EID.
2. On March 22, 2001, President Arroyo appointed “ad interim” the respondents of
this case as Comelec Chairman and Comelec Commissioners. Subsequently,
respondents with their new appointments took their oath. The Office of the
President submitted to the Commission of Appointments the respondents for
their confirmation. The commissions did not act on the said appointments.
3. On June 1, 2001, President Arroyo renewed the ad interim of the respondents

giving them another term for the same appointments.
4. Again on June 8, 2001, President Arroyo renewed the ad interim of the same
respondents on the same position with the same term.
5. A year after, on February 15, 2000, the then Chairperson Harriet O. Demetriou
renewed the appointment of the petitioner as the Director IV of EID in a
Temporary capacity.
6. On the following year, February 15, 2001, Commissioner Rufino S.B. Javier
renewed the appointment of the petitioner again to the same position in a
Temporary capacity.
7. BENIPAYO, the respondent, acting as COMELEC Chairman issued a

memorandum and the said memo is to remove petitioner, MATIBAG, as Acting
Director IV and re-assigning her to the Law Department.
8. Said petitioner asked for reconsideration but she was denied. Which in turn
petitioner filed a petition questioning the appointment and the right to remain
office towards the respondents.
9. Petitioner claimed that respondents ad interim appointments violate the
constitutional provisions on the independence of the COMELECT, the
prohibitions on temporary appointments, and reappointments for both its
Chairman and members.
Issue:
(1) Whether the ad interim appointments made by PGMA were prohibited under the
Constitution
(2) Whether the ad interim appointments made by PGMA were temporary in

character
Held:
NO.
1. The Constitution clearly mandates that the COMELEC is ‘independent’ but the
provision must be in harmony with the President’s power to extend ad interim
appointments. The framers of the Constitution wants to “do away” from ad interim
appointments but in order to avoid disruptions while government is providing
service, essentially, the framers of the present Constitution reinstated the ad
interim appointing power of the President.
Cleary stated in the second paragraph of Section 16, Article VII of the
Constitution;
“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 disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the
next adjournment of the Congress.”
Such statement, clear of any doubts, resounds the President in exercising her
constitutional power. Choosing and appointing officials in office is within her
prerogative since the Constitution grants her that power.
2. An ad interim appointment is permanent. Its effectivity is immediate and can no

longer be withdrawn once there is an appointee and he or she is qualified into
office. This is stated clearly again under the second paragraph of Section 16,
Article VII of the Constitution;
“…such appointments shall be effective only until disapproved by the

Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.”
Signifying that such appointments are effective unless disapproved or “until the
next adjournment of the Congress.”
By filling in vacancies in COMELEC, President Arroyo appointed the

respondents, given extended permanent appointments. They were not appointed
in temporary capacity.
Ruling:
Thus, the ad interim appointments set by the Presidents to respondents are not
prohibited under the Constitution. Petition dismissed. Costs against petitioner.

A. Matibag v. Benipayo G.R. No. 149036 LACUNA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A. Matibag v. Benipayo G.R. No. 149036 LACUNA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A. Matibag v. Benipayo G.R. No. 149036 LACUNA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lacuna

G.R. No. 149036

MA. J. ANGELINA G. MATIBAG - Petitioner

3. On June 1, 2001, President Arroyo renewed the ad interim of the respondents

7. BENIPAYO, the respondent, acting as COMELEC Chairman issued a

(2) Whether the ad interim appointments made by PGMA were temporary in

2. An ad interim appointment is permanent. Its effectivity is immediate and can no

“…such appointments shall be effective only until disapproved by the

By filling in vacancies in COMELEC, President Arroyo appointed the

You might also like