Matibag Vs Benipayo

Constitutional Law; Ad Interim Appointment
Same; COMELEC; Prohibition on Appointment
Matibag vs Benipayo
G.R. No. 149036
April 2, 2002
Facts:
The COMELEC en banc appointed Ma. J. Angelina G. Matibag as Acting Director IV of

the EID and renewed the appointment of Matibag as Director IV of EID in a
Temporary capacity and a second time to the same position in a Temporary capacity
on the years 1999, 2000 and 2001. President Arroyo appointed, ad interim, Benipayo
as COMELEC Chairman, and Borra and Tuason as COMELEC Commissioners, each for
a term of seven years and all expiring on February 2, 2008. The Office of the
President submitted to the Commission on Appointments on May 22, 2001 the ad
interim appointments of the respondents for confirmation. Commission on
Appointments did not act on said appointments therefore, President Arroyo renewed
the ad interim appointments of the Respondents to the same positions and for the
same term of seven years. They took their oaths of office for a second time. The
Office of the President transmitted their appointments to the Commission on
Appointments for confirmation. President Arroyo renewed the ad interim
appointments of the respondents to the same positions and for the same term of
seven years, expiring on February 2, 2008. In his capacity as COMELEC Chairman,
Respondent issued a Memorandum addressed to petitioner reassigning petitioner to
the Legal Department. COMELEC EID Commissioner-in-Charge Mehol K. Sadain
objected to petitioners reassignment in a Memorandum and questioned the failure to
consult the petitioner. Petitioner requested Respondent to reconsider her relief as
Director IV of the EID and her reassignment to the Law Department. Petitioner cited
Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 7, reminding heads of
government offices that transfer and detail of employees are prohibited during the
election period. Respondent denied her request for reconsideration. During the
pendency of her complaint before the Law Department, petitioner filed the instant
petition questioning the appointment and the right to remain in office of the
Respondents, as Chairman and Commissioners of the COMELEC, respectively.
Petitioner claims that the ad interim appointments of the respondents violate the
constitutional provisions on the independence of the COMELEC, as well as on the
prohibitions on temporary appointments and reappointments of its Chairman and
members.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the instant petition satisfies all the requirements before this Court
may exercise its power of judicial review in constitutional cases.
2. Whether or not the assumption of office by Benipayo, Borra and Tuason on the
basis of the ad interim appointments issued by the President amounts to a
temporary appointment prohibited by Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the Constitution.
3. Whether or not the renewal of their ad interim appointments and subsequent

assumption of office to the same positions violate the prohibition on reappointment
under Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the Constitution.
Ruling:
1. Respondents claim that the reassignment was pursuant to x x x Benipayos
authority as Chairman of the Commission on Elections, and as the Commissions
Chief Executive Officer. Evidently, respondents anchor the legality of petitioners
reassignment on Benipayos authority as Chairman of the COMELEC. The real issue
then turns on whether or not Benipayo is the lawful Chairman of the COMELEC. Even
if petitioner is only an Acting Director of the EID, her reassignment is without legal
basis if Benipayo is not the lawful COMELEC Chairman, an office created by the
Constitution.
2. An ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment because it takes effect

immediately and can no longer be withdrawn by the President once the appointee
has qualified into office. The fact that it is subject to confirmation by the Commission
on Appointments does not alter its permanent character. The Constitution itself
makes an ad interim appointment permanent in character by making it effective until
disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of
Congress. The second paragraph of Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution
provides as follows:
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. (Emphasis supplied) Thus, the ad interim appointment
remains effective until such disapproval or next adjournment, signifying that it can
no longer be withdrawn or revoked by the President. The fear that the President can
withdraw or revoke at any time and for any reason an ad interim appointment is
utterly without basis. x x x A distinction is thus made between the exercise of such
presidential prerogative requiring confirmation by the Commission on Appointments
when Congress is in session and when it is in recess. In the former, the President
nominates, and only upon the consent of the Commission on Appointments may the
person thus named assume office. It is not so with reference to ad interim
appointments. It takes effect at once. The individual chosen may thus qualify and
perform his function without loss of time. His title to such office is complete. In the
language of the Constitution, the appointment is effective until disapproval by the
Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.
3. The ad interim appointments and subsequent renewals of appointments of
Benipayo, Borra and Tuason do not violate the prohibition on reappointments
because there were no previous appointments that were confirmed by the
Commission on Appointments. A reappointment presupposes a previous confirmed
appointment. The same ad interim appointments and renewals of appointments will
also not breach the seven-year term limit because all the appointments and
renewals of appointments of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason are for a fixed term
expiring on February 2, 2008.[63] Any delay in their confirmation will not extend the
expiry date of their terms of office. Consequently, there is no danger whatsoever
that the renewal of the ad interim appointments of these three respondents will
result in any of the evils intended to be exorcised by the twin prohibitions in the
Constitution. The continuing renewal of the ad interim appointment of these three
respondents, for so long as their terms of office expire on February 2, 2008, does
not violate the prohibition on reappointments in Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the
Constitution.

Matibag Vs Benipayo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Matibag Vs Benipayo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Matibag Vs Benipayo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitutional Law; Ad Interim Appointment

Same; COMELEC; Prohibition on Appointment

The COMELEC en banc appointed Ma. J. Angelina G. Matibag as Acting Director IV of

3. Whether or not the renewal of their ad interim appointments and subsequent

2. An ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment because it takes effect

You might also like