Sarmiento v. Mison
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the constitutionality of Salvador Mison's appointment as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs. Petitioners, who are taxpayers, lawyers, and law professors, argue that Mison's appointment is unconstitutional because it was not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, as they contend is required by the 1987 Constitution. Respondents, including Commissioner Mison and Secretary Carague, maintain the validity of the appointment without such confirmation. The case also highlights a potential conflict between the Executive and Legislative branches regarding appointment powers. 2. Procedural History: The case originated as a petition for prohibition filed by Ulpiano P. Sarmiento III and Juanito G. Arcilla. They sought to prevent Salvador Mison from performing his duties as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and to stop Guillermo Carague, Secretary of the Department of Budget, from disbursing Mison's salary. The Commission on Appointments intervened in the case. The Supreme Court, recognizing the public interest and the need for stability, decided to give due course to the petition and resolve the core constitutional question, setting aside procedural issues like the propriety of prohibition and the petitioners' standing. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, through a petition for prohibition, asked the Supreme Court to declare Salvador Mison's appointment as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs unconstitutional for lack of confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. They argued that Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution mandates such confirmation for heads of executive departments and bureaus. The intervenor, the Commission on Appointments, supported this view. The respondents, however, contended that the 1987 Constitution, as amended, limits the requirement of confirmation to specific high-ranking positions, excluding bureau heads like the Commissioner of Customs. The core of the petition is the interpretation of Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution and its application to the appointment of bureau chiefs.
Issue(s)
Whether the appointment of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs requires confirmation by the Commission on Appointments under the 1987 Constitution. Whether the word "also" in the second sentence of Article VII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution implies that appointments mentioned therein require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Whether the word "alone" in the third sentence of Article VII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution has legal import regarding the confirmation of appointments of lower-ranked officers.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The President of the Philippines acted within her constitutional authority and power in appointing respondent Salvador Mison as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs without submitting his nomination to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation. He is entitled to exercise the full authority and functions of the office and to receive all the salaries and emoluments pertaining thereto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the requirement of confirmation for the appointment of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs: The Court held that the 1987 Constitution, specifically Article VII, Section 16, enumerates four groups of officers whom the President appoints. The first group, which requires the consent of the Commission on Appointments, includes heads of executive departments, ambassadors, 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 the President by the Constitution. The second sentence of the same section covers "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 position of Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs is a bureau head. Unlike the 1935 Constitution, the 1987 Constitution deliberately excluded "heads of bureaus" from the list requiring confirmation. Therefore, the appointment of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs does not require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. On the interpretation of the word "also" in Article VII, Section 16: The Court rejected the argument that the word "also" in the second sentence of Article VII, Section 16 implies that appointments mentioned therein must be made "in like manner" as those in the first sentence, meaning with confirmation. The Court reasoned that "also" can mean "in addition," suggesting that the President, in addition to appointing officers requiring confirmation, can also appoint other officers without such confirmation. The Court emphasized the difference in language between the first sentence (nomination and appointment with consent) and the second sentence (appointment alone), which, coupled with the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, indicates a deliberate distinction. On the interpretation of the word "alone" in Article VII, Section 16: The Court found the argument that the word "alone" in the third sentence of Article VII, Section 16 implies that without a law vesting appointment in the President alone, lower-ranked officers require confirmation to be unimpressive. The Court concluded that the use of "alone" was a "slip or lapsus" in draftsmanship, carried over from the 1935 Constitution. In the context of the 1987 Constitution, where the clear intent was to limit confirmation requirements, the word "alone" is redundant because the second sentence already grants the President the power to appoint officers authorized by law without need for confirmation. The framers' intent to exclude most presidential appointments from confirmation overrides the literal import of "alone" in this context.
Main Doctrine
The appointment of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs does not require the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments under the 1987 Constitution, as this position falls outside the specific enumeration in the first sentence of Article VII, Section 16, which requires such confirmation.