Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Bautista Vs Salonga

    Uploaded by

    Loren Manda
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Bautista's appointment as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights by the President did not require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, as the Constitution reserves such appointments solely to the President. 2) Bautista's appointment was not an ad interim appointment as such appointments only apply when Commission on Appointments confirmation is required. 3) Executive Order 163-A, which made the tenure of the Commission on Human Rights Chairman and members dependent on the President's pleasure, was unconstitutional as it undermined the independence mandated for the Commission by the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bautista Vs Salonga

    Uploaded by

    Loren Manda
    1K views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Bautista's appointment as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights by the President did not require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, as the Constitution reserves such appointments solely to the President. 2) Bautista's appointment was not an ad interim appointment as such appointments only apply when Commission on Appointments confirmation is required. 3) Executive Order 163-A, which made the tenure of the Commission on Human Rights Chairman and members dependent on the President's pleasure, was unconstitutional as it undermined the independence mandated for the Commission by the Constitution.

    Original Description:

    ggiiu

    Original Title

    Bautista vs Salonga

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Bautista's appointment as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights by the President did not require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, as the Constitution reserves such appointments solely to the President. 2) Bautista's appointment was not an ad interim appointment as such appointments only apply when Commission on Appointments confirmation is required. 3) Executive Order 163-A, which made the tenure of the Commission on Human Rights Chairman and members dependent on the President's pleasure, was unconstitutional as it undermined the independence mandated for the Commission by the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Bautista Vs Salonga

    Uploaded by

    Loren Manda
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Bautista's appointment as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights by the President did not require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, as the Constitution reserves such appointments solely to the President. 2) Bautista's appointment was not an ad interim appointment as such appointments only apply when Commission on Appointments confirmation is required. 3) Executive Order 163-A, which made the tenure of the Commission on Human Rights Chairman and members dependent on the President's pleasure, was unconstitutional as it undermined the independence mandated for the Commission by the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    37. Bautista vs. Salonga [172 SCRA 169, G.R. No.

    86439 April 13, 1989]


    DOCTRINE: Sec. 16, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
    The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the
    executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or 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. He
    shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and
    those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint.
    The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts,
    or in the heads of the departments, agencies, commissions or boards. 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 disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.
    FACTS: On August 27, 1987, President Cory Aquino appointed petitioner Bautista as acting chairman and on
    December 17, 1988 petitioner was appointed as permanent Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR).
    Bautista took her oath of office on December 22, 1988 to Chief Justice Marcelo Fernan and immediately acted as
    such.
    On January 9, 1989, the Secretary of the Commission on Appointments (CoA) wrote a letter to Bautista requesting for
    her presence along with several documents at the office of CoA on January 19. Bautista refused to be placed under
    CoA's review. Consequently, CoA disapproved petitioner Bautista's "ad interim appointment" as Chairperson of the
    CHR, likewise CoA denied the motion for reconsideration on the matter.
    Bautista filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari with a prayer for the immediate issuance of a restraining
    order, to declare "as unlawful and unconstitutional and without any legal force and effect any action of the
    Commission on Appointments as well as of the Committee on Justice, Judicial and Bar Council and Human Rights,
    on the lawfully extended appointment of the petitioner as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, on the
    ground that they have no lawful and constitutional authority to confirm and to review her appointment.
    While waiting for the progress of the case, President Aquino appointed Hesiquio R. Mallillin as "Acting Chairman of
    the Commission on Human Rights" but he was not able to sit in his appointive office because of Bautista's refusal to
    surrender her post. Malilin invoked EO 163-A which provides "The Chairman and Members of the Commission on
    Human Rights shall be appointed by the President. Their tenure in office shall be at the pleasure of the President"
    Thus, Bautista may be subsequently removed as well.
    ISSUES:
    1. W/N Bautista's appointment is subject to COA's confirmation
    2. W/N Bautista's appointment is an ad interim appointment
    3. W/N EO- 163A is valid
    HELD:
    1. No. The position of Chairman of CHR is not among the positions mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. 16 Art 7 of
    the Constitution, which provides that the appointments which are to be made with the confirmation of CoA. Rather, it
    is within the authority of President, vested upon her by Constitution (2nd sentence of Sec. 16 Art 7), that she appoint
    executive officials without confirmation of COA.
    Ex gratia argumenti, that the Executive MAY VOLUNTARILY allow the CoA to exercise the power of review over an
    appointment otherwise solely vested by the Constitution in the President. Yet, when the President appointed
    petitioner Bautista on December 17, 1988 to the position of Chairman of the CHR with the advice to her that by virtue
    of such appointment (not, until confirmed by the Commission on Appointments), she could qualify and enter upon the
    performance of her duties after taking her oath of office - the presidential act of appointment to the position, was then
    and there, under the Constitution, a complete and finished act.
    The Commission on Appointments, by the actual exercise of its constitutionally delimited power to review presidential
    appointments, cannot create power to confirm appointments that the Constitution has reserved to the President
    alone.
    2. No. Under the Constitutional design, ad interim appointments do not apply to appointments solely for the President
    to make. Ad interim appointments, by their very nature under the 1987 Constitution, extend only to appointments
    where the review of the Commission on Appointments is needed. That is why ad interim appointments are to remain
    valid until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress; but
    appointments that are for the President solely to make, that is, without the participation of the COA, cannot be ad
    interim appointments.

    3. No. The Court found it extremely difficult to conceptualize how an office conceived and created by the Constitution
    to be independent as the Commission on Human Rights-and vested with the delicate and vital functions of
    investigating violations of human rights, pinpointing responsibility and recommending sanctions as well as remedial
    measures therefor, can truly function with independence and effectiveness, when the tenure in office of its Chairman
    and Members is made dependent on the pleasure of the President. Executive Order No. 163-A, being antithetical to
    the constitutional mandate of independence for the Commission on Human Rights has to be declared
    unconstitutional.
    Petitioner Bautista is declared to be, as she is, the duly appointed Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights
    and the lawful incumbent thereof, entitled to all the benefits, privileges and emoluments of said office.

    You might also like