Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-19721             May 10, 1962

CARLOS CUNANAN, petitioner, 
vs.
JORGE TAN, JR., respondents.

PER CURIAM:

Gentlemen:

For your information and guidance, the resolution of this Court on even date is quoted below:

In Civil Case G.R. No. L-19721 "Carlos Cunanan vs. Jorge Tan, Jr." the 
facts are:

Petitioner Carlos Cunanan — who claims to be a career employee, with more than thirty
(30) years in the government service — was, on June 6 or 8, 1961, appointed by the
President of the Philippines as acting Deputy Administrator of the Reforestation
Administration, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Thereupon, he qualified
and assumed the duties and functions of said office. On November 6, 1961, the President
extended to him an ad interim appointment as Deputy Administrator of the Reforestation
Administration, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources. On April 3, 1962, six (6)
Senators and seven (7) members of the House of Representatives, purporting to act as the
Commission on Appointments, rejected said ad interim appointment. On April 11, 1962,
respondent Jorge Tan, Jr. was designated by the President as Acting Deputy Administrator
of the Reforestation Administration, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and
performed the function of said office, without the consent of petitioner herein. Hence, soon
thereafter, or on April 27, 1962, petitioner commenced the present quo warranto proceeding
against respondent, contending that the latter's designation is invalid, the office of Deputy
Administrator of the Reforestation Administration, Department of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, not being vacant when he was designated thereto, because the aforesaid
rejection of petitioner's ad interim appointment is invalid for several reasons.

When the first session of the Fifth Congress of the Philippines opened on January 22, 1962,
the members of the Senate were evenly divided into two (2) groups: there were twelve (12)
Senators affiliated with the Liberal Party, on the one hand, and on the other were twelve
(12) Senators affiliated with the Nacionalista Party and Nationalist-Citizens' Party. Hence,
the Senate has been unable to elect a new Senate President, and Senator Eulogio
Rodriguez, Sr., who was President of the Senate during the immediately preceding
Congress, continued to hold said office in an acting capacity. The House of
Representatives, consisting of seventy-two (72) members affiliated with the Nacionalista
Party, twenty-nine (29) affiliated with the Liberal Party and one (1) not affiliated with any
political party, elected Congressman Daniel F. Romualdez as Speaker of said chamber.

In due course, the Commission on Appointments was constituted pursuant to the

Constitution, on the basis of proportional representation of the political parties in each
House of Congress, as follows:

On the Part of the Senate

 Nacionalista Party Liberal Party
Hon. Alejandro Almendras Hon. Eulogio Balao
Hon. Fernando Lopez Hon. Mariano J. Cuenco
Hon. Genaro Magsaysay Hon. Ferdinand Marcos
Hon. Cipriano Primicias Hon. Camilo Osias
Hon. Francisco (Soc)
Hon. Jose Roy
Rodrigo
Hon. Gil J. Puyat Hon. Rogelio de la Rosa

On the Part of the House of Representatives

Nacionalista Party Liberal Party

Hon. Jose M. Aldeguer Hon. Eladio T. Balite
Hon. Wenceslao R. Lagumbay Hon. Manuel T. Cases
Hon. Felix A. Fuentebella Hon. Floro Crisologo
Hon. Gerardo M.
Hon. Rodolfo Ganzon
Roxas
Hon. Agustin Gatuslao
Hon. Rasid Lucman
Hon. Apolonio V. Marasigan
Hon. Maximo Noel

On March 21, 1962, by the vote of twenty-nine (29) Congressmen affiliated with the Liberal Party
and twenty-five (25) Congressmen affiliated with the Nacionalista Party, forming what is commonly
known as the "Allied Majority," declared vacant the seats of the twelve (12) members of the House
of Representatives in the Commission of Appointments and re-elected, as members thereof for
said Chamber, its former representatives in said Commission, except Congressmen Ganzon,
Lucman and Lagumbay, in lieu of whom said "Allied Majority" elected Congressmen Jose Alberto,
Reynaldo Honrado and Jose Cojuangco, Jr. although still affiliated with the Nacionalista Party,
these three (3) Congressmen form part of the "Allied Majority". The members of Congress who
took part in the alleged session of the Commission on Appointments on April 3, 1962, and rejected
the ad interim appointment of petitioner herein were:

(a) Six (6) Senators affiliated with the Liberal Party, namely: Hon. Eulogio Balao, Hon.
Mariano J. Cuenco, Hon. Ferdinand Marcos, Hon. Camilo Osias, Hon. Francisco (Soc)
Rodrigo, Hon. Rogelio de la Rosa;

(b) Four (4) Congressmen affiliated with the same party, to wit: Hon. Eladio T. Balite, Hon.
Manuel T. Cases, Hon. Floro Crisologo, and Hon. Gerardo M. Roxas; and

(c) Three (3) Congressmen affiliated with the Nacionalista Party, but identified with the
'Allied Majority': Hon. Jose Alberto, Hon. Reynaldo Honrado and Hon. Jose Cojuangco Jr.

Was the rejection of petitioner's ad interim appointment by the aforementioned thirteen (13)

members of Congress, purporting to act as the Commission on Appointments, valid or not? The
determination of this issue depends upon: (1) the legality of the resolution of the House of
Representatives of March 21, 1962, declaring the seats of its twelve (12) members in the
Commission on Appointments vacant; and (2) the legality of the action of the House of
Representatives in reconstituting the membership of the Commission on Appointments for said
House. In view of the conclusion we have reached with respect to the first question, we deem it
unnecessary to pass upon the second question.

With respect to the first question, we hold that the same should be resolved in the negative. The
Commission on Appointments is it creature of the Constitution. Although its membership is
confined to members of Congress, said Commission is independent of Congress. The powers of
the Commission do not come from Congress, but emanate directly from the Constitution. Hence, it
is not an agent of Congress. In fact, the functions of the Commissioner are purely executive in
nature. In order that the members of the Commission could properly discharge their duties as
such, it is essential that their tenure therein be provided with a certain measure of stability to
insure the necessary freedom of action. 1äwphï1.ñët

Upon the other hand, the constitutional provision to the effect that "there shall be a Commission on
Appointments consisting of twelve (12) Senators and twelve (12) members of the House of
Representatives elected by each House, respectively, on the basis of proportional
REPRESENTATION OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES THEREIN", necessarily connotes the
authority of each House of Congress to see to it that this requirement is duly complied with. As a
consequence, it may take appropriate measures, not only upon the initial organization of the
Commission, but, also, subsequently thereto. If by reason of successful election protests against
members of a House, or of their expulsion from the political party to which they belonged and/or of
their affiliation with another political party, the ratio in the representation of the political parties in
the House is materially changed, the House is clothed with authority to declare vacant the
necessary number of seats in the Commission on Appointments held by members of said House
belonging to the political party adversely affected by the change and then fill said vacancies in
conformity with the Constitution.

One thing, however, is to take these measures owing to changes of permanent character in the
representation of the political parties in the House, and another thing for some members thereof
affiliated with a political party to make common cause in certain matters with members of the
House belonging to another political party. In other words, a shifting of votes at a given time, even
if due to arrangements of a more or less temporary nature, like the one that has led to the
formation of the so-called "Allied Majority", does not suffice to authorize a reorganization of the
membership of the Commission for said House. Otherwise, the Commission on Appointments may
have to be reorganized as often as votes shift from one side to another in the House. The framers
of our Constitution could not have intended to thus place a constitutional organ, like the
Commission on Appointments, at the mercy of each House of Congress.

We are aware of the statements made on the floor of our Constitutional Convention indicating the
opinion of some officers thereof or delegates thereto that members of the Commission on
Appointments were to serve at the pleasure of the legislature. It should be noted, however, that
said statements were made with reference to the Commission on Appointments of the National
Assembly, the unicameral legislature under our original Constitution. The statements did not refer
and do not necessarily apply to the Commission on Appointments under the present Constitution,
as amended, for we now have a bicameral Congress, both Houses of which are represented in the
Commission on Appointments. If a House of Congress were free, at any time, to declare vacant
the position of its members in the Commission on Appointments, such House could, in effect,
paralyze the entire Commission, without the consent of the other House. Such possibility could not
have been countenanced by the Constitutional Convention.

In his amended petition petitioner alleges that on April 27, 1962, his ad interim appointment was
confirmed by the "legitimate" Commission on Appointments, in a meeting said to have been
presided over by its chairman ex oficio, Hon. Eulogio Rodriguez, Sr., and attended by six (6)
Senators — namely. Senators Almendras, Lopez, Magsaysay, Primicias, Roy and Puyat — and
eight (8) Congressmen — namely, Congressmen Aldeguer, Lagumbay, Fuentebella, Ganzon,
Gatuslao, Lucman, Marasigan and Noel. Respondent has denied such allegation, but this cannot
affect our foregoing view.

Without prejudice to an extended decision later on, the Court holds, therefore, that the resolution
of the House of Representatives of March 21, 1962, declining vacant the seats of the twelve (12)
members of the House of Representatives in the Commission on Appointments and appointing
others in lieu of some of them, as well as the rejection of the ad interim appointment of petitioner
by thirteen (13) alleged members of the Commission on Appointments as thus reorganized, and
the designation of respondent Jorge Tan, Jr., as Acting Deputy Administrator of the Reforestation
Administration, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, on April 16, 1962, when said
office was not vacant, are null and void; that petitioner is entitled to hold said office; and that
respondent should vacate the same and turn it over to petitioner, with costs against said
respondent.

Mr. Justice Padilla voted to dismiss the petition, upon the ground that the effectivity of
petitioner's ad interim appointment expired on December 30, 1961, for the reasons given in his
concurring opinion in Aytona vs. Castillo, G.R. No. L-18313 (January 19, 1962).

Yours truly,

(SGD.) PAULINO S. MARQUEZ

Clerk of Court