Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 34 views

    Sarmiento Vs Mison

    Uploaded by

    Joyce Salalima Beira
    This case involved the appointment of Salvador Mison as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs by then President Corazon Aquino without submitting his nomination to the Commission on Appointments. Petitioners argued this violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that under Section 16 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, the President has the authority to appoint bureau heads without Commission on Appointments approval. The Constitution aimed to strike a balance between the 1935 Constitution, which heavily involved the Commission, and the 1973 Constitution, which gave the President absolute appointment power.

    Copyright:

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

    Sarmiento Vs Mison

    Uploaded by

    Joyce Salalima Beira
    34 views2 pages
    This case involved the appointment of Salvador Mison as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs by then President Corazon Aquino without submitting his nomination to the Commission on Appointments. Petitioners argued this violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that under Section 16 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, the President has the authority to appoint bureau heads without Commission on Appointments approval. The Constitution aimed to strike a balance between the 1935 Constitution, which heavily involved the Commission, and the 1973 Constitution, which gave the President absolute appointment power.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    Sarmiento vs Mison

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved the appointment of Salvador Mison as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs by then President Corazon Aquino without submitting his nomination to the Commission on Appointments. Petitioners argued this violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that under Section 16 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, the President has the authority to appoint bureau heads without Commission on Appointments approval. The Constitution aimed to strike a balance between the 1935 Constitution, which heavily involved the Commission, and the 1973 Constitution, which gave the President absolute appointment power.

    Copyright:

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

    Sarmiento Vs Mison

    Uploaded by

    Joyce Salalima Beira
    This case involved the appointment of Salvador Mison as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs by then President Corazon Aquino without submitting his nomination to the Commission on Appointments. Petitioners argued this violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that under Section 16 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, the President has the authority to appoint bureau heads without Commission on Appointments approval. The Constitution aimed to strike a balance between the 1935 Constitution, which heavily involved the Commission, and the 1973 Constitution, which gave the President absolute appointment power.

    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

    Sarmiento vs Mison (214 SCRA 789)

    FACTS: 

    In 1987, then President Corazon Aquino appointed Salvador


    Mison as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs without
    submitting his nomination to the Commission on
    Appointments. Herein petitioners, both of whom happened
    to be lawyers and professors of constitutional law, filed the
    instant petition for prohibition on the ground that the
    aforementioned appointment violated Section 16, Art. VII of
    the1987 Constitution. Petitioners argued that the
    appointment of a bureau head should be subject to the
    approval of the Commission on Appointments. 

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the appointment of bureau heads should be


    subject to the approval of the Commission on
    Appointments. 

    HELD: 

    No, construing Section 16, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution


    would show that the President is well within her authority to
    appoint bureau heads without submitting such nominations
    before the Commission on Appointments. In its ruling, the
    SC traced the history of the confirmatory powers of the
    Commission on Appointments (which is part of the
    legislative department) vis-a-vis the appointment powers of
    the President. 

     Under Section 10, Art. VII of the 1935 Constitution, almost


    all presidential appointments required the consent or
    confirmation of the Commission on Appointments. As a
    result, the Commission became very powerful, eventually
    transforming into a venue for horse-trading and similar
    malpractices.
     On the other hand, consistent with the authoritarian
    pattern in which it was molded and remolded by successive
    amendments, the 1973 Constitution placed the absolute
    power of appointment in the President with hardly any check
    on the part of the legislature.

    Under the current constitution, the Court held that the


    framers intended to strike a "middle ground" in order to
    reconcile the extreme set-ups in both the 1935 and 1973
    Constitutions. As such, while the President may make
    appointments to positions that require confirmation by the
    Commission on Appointments, the 1987 Constitution also
    grants her the power to make appointments on her own
    without the need for confirmation by the legislature. 

    Section 16, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution enumerates


    four groups of public officers: 

     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;
     all other officers of the Government whose appointments
    are not otherwise provided for by law;
     those whom the President may be authorized by law to
    appoint; and
     officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress
    may by law vest in the President alone. 

    You might also like