Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 66 views

    Calderon Vs Carale 208 SCRA 254

    Uploaded by

    Wren
    The Supreme Court ruled that Congress does not have the power to require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments for appointments made by the President that are not included in the Constitution. Specifically, the case involved a challenge to a law requiring confirmation for appointments to the National Labor Relations Commission. The Court found that the NLRC positions fell under the President's power to appoint officers authorized by law, which does not require confirmation. By imposing confirmation, the law improperly amended the Constitution. The petition challenging the appointments was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Calderon Vs Carale 208 SCRA 254

    Uploaded by

    Wren
    66 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Congress does not have the power to require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments for appointments made by the President that are not included in the Constitution. Specifically, the case involved a challenge to a law requiring confirmation for appointments to the National Labor Relations Commission. The Court found that the NLRC positions fell under the President's power to appoint officers authorized by law, which does not require confirmation. By imposing confirmation, the law improperly amended the Constitution. The petition challenging the appointments was dismissed.

    Original Title

    8. Calderon vs Carale 208 SCRA 254

    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 Congress does not have the power to require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments for appointments made by the President that are not included in the Constitution. Specifically, the case involved a challenge to a law requiring confirmation for appointments to the National Labor Relations Commission. The Court found that the NLRC positions fell under the President's power to appoint officers authorized by law, which does not require confirmation. By imposing confirmation, the law improperly amended the Constitution. The petition challenging the appointments was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Calderon Vs Carale 208 SCRA 254

    Uploaded by

    Wren
    The Supreme Court ruled that Congress does not have the power to require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments for appointments made by the President that are not included in the Constitution. Specifically, the case involved a challenge to a law requiring confirmation for appointments to the National Labor Relations Commission. The Court found that the NLRC positions fell under the President's power to appoint officers authorized by law, which does not require confirmation. By imposing confirmation, the law improperly amended the Constitution. The petition challenging the appointments was dismissed.

    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

    8.

    Calderon vs Carale 208 SCRA 254

    FACTS: In March 1989, RA 6715 (Herrera-Veloso Law), amending the Labor Code (PD 442) was approved.
    Pursuant to RA 6715, President Aquino appointed the Chairman and Commissioners of the NLRC
    representing the public, workers and employers’ sectors. The appointments stated that the appointees
    may qualify and enter upon the performance of the duties of the office. 
    Carale filed a petition for prohibition questioning the constitutionality and legality of the permanent
    appointments extended by the President of the Philippines to the respondents Chairman and Members
    of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), without the confirmation of Commission on
    Appointments. According to Carale, RA 6715 is not an encroachment on the appointing power of the
    executive contained in Section 16, Art. VII, of the Constitution, as Congress may, by law, require
    confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of other officers appointed by the President
    additional to those mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16 of Article VII of the Constitution. 
    The Solicitor General, on the other hand, contends that RA 6715 which amended the Labor Code
    transgresses Section 16, Article VII by expanding the confirmation powers of the Commission on
    Appointments without constitutional basis.

    ISSUE: Whether or not Congress may, by law, require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments
    of appointments extended by the president to government officers additional to those expressly
    mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII of the Constitution whose appointments require
    confirmation by the Commission on Appointments

    HELD: No. In Sarmiento III vs. Mison, there are four (4) groups of officers whom the President shall
    appoint. These four (4) groups are 
    First, the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, 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;
    Second, all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by
    law;
    Third, those whom the president may be authorized by law to appoint;
    Fourth, officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the President alone.
    The second sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII refers to all other officers of the government whose
    appointments are not otherwise provided for by law and those whom the President may be authorized
    by law to appoint.
    Indubitably, the NLRC Chairman and Commissioners fall within the second sentence of Section 16,
    Article VII of the Constitution, more specifically under the "third groups" of appointees referred to in
    Mison, i.e. those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint. Undeniably, the Chairman
    and Members of the NLRC are not among the officers mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16,
    Article VII whose appointments requires confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. To the
    extent that RA 6715 requires confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of the appointments of
    respondents Chairman and Members of the National Labor Relations Commission, it is unconstitutional
    because:
    1) it amends by legislation, the first sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII of the Constitution by adding thereto
    appointments requiring confirmation by the Commission on Appointments; and
    2) it amends by legislation the second sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII of the Constitution, by imposing the
    confirmation of the Commission on Appointments on appointments which are otherwise entrusted only
    with the President.
    Petition is Dismissed

    You might also like