Bautista v. Salonga
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the appointment of Mary Concepcion Bautista as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). The core issue is whether this appointment requires confirmation by the Commission on Appointments (CA), a body established to review certain presidential appointments. The case arises in the context of a prior Supreme Court decision, Sarmiento III vs. Mison, which interpreted the scope of the CA's confirmation powers under the 1987 Constitution. The CHR, an independent office created by the Constitution, is tasked with investigating human rights violations and monitoring government compliance with human rights treaties. 2. Procedural History: Mary Concepcion Bautista was initially designated as Acting Chairman of the CHR on August 27, 1987. On December 17, 1988, she received a permanent appointment as Chairman. She took her oath of office on December 22, 1988, and began discharging her duties. Subsequently, on January 9, 1989, the CA requested her to submit documents for confirmation. Bautista refused, asserting the CA had no jurisdiction over her appointment. On January 14, 1989, the President issued an ad interim appointment to Bautista, which the CA subsequently disapproved on February 1, 1989, after denying a motion for reconsideration. Meanwhile, Hesiquio R. Mallillin was designated Acting Chairman. Bautista filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court on January 20, 1989, seeking to nullify any action by the CA regarding her appointment. 3. The Petition: Filed under Rule 45, the petition seeks a declaration that the Commission on Appointments has no lawful or constitutional authority to confirm or review Bautista's appointment as Chairman of the CHR. Bautista argues that her permanent appointment on December 17, 1988, was a completed act by the President, not requiring CA confirmation, based on the interpretation of Article VII, Section 16 of the Constitution and the Mison doctrine. She contends that the subsequent ad interim appointment on January 14, 1989, was invalid as there was no vacancy, and that Executive Order No. 163-A, which made the tenure of CHR officials subject to the President's pleasure, is unconstitutional as it undermines the independence of the CHR. The petition prays for the nullification of the CA's actions and Mallillin's designation.
Issue(s)
Whether the appointment of the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights is subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Whether the President can voluntarily submit an appointment, which under the Constitution is solely hers to make, to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation. Whether an "ad interim appointment" could be validly made on January 14, 1989, for an office already filled by a previously completed permanent appointment. Whether Executive Order No. 163-A, which provides that the tenure of the Chairman and Members of the Commission on Human Rights shall be at the pleasure of the President, is constitutional.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. Petitioner Mary Concepcion Bautista is declared the duly appointed Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights and the lawful incumbent thereof. The temporary restraining order against respondent Mallillin enjoining him from dismissing or terminating personnel of the Commission on Human Rights is made permanent.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine established in Sarmiento III v. Mison, holding that only those appointments expressly mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution require the consent of the Commission on Appointments (CA). These positions include heads of 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 the President in this Constitution. Since the Chairman and Members of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) are not among these explicitly enumerated positions, their appointment by the President does not require the review or participation of the CA. The Court emphasized that the CHR is an "independent office" established by the Constitution, implying a certain insulation from political branches. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that neither the Executive nor the Legislative (through the Commission on Appointments) can unilaterally expand or restrict the constitutional boundaries of power concerning appointments. The President cannot voluntarily submit an appointment to the CA for confirmation if the Constitution does not mandate such confirmation. Such an act, even if agreed upon by both branches, would be done without or in excess of jurisdiction, as it would disrupt the careful and delicate balance of power intended by the Constitution regarding appointments to public office. The Constitution explicitly reserves certain appointments for the President alone, and these cannot be subjected to CA review through presidential prerogative or legislative agreement, as constitutional law is concerned with power, not political convenience. On Issue 3: The Supreme Court held that the President's appointment of Bautista on December 17, 1988, as Chairman of the CHR was a completed act. Upon Bautista's acceptance, evidenced by her taking the oath of office before the Chief Justice and immediately assuming the duties, she became the lawful incumbent for a term of seven years. Consequently, there was no vacancy in the office on January 14, 1989, for which a new "ad interim appointment" could be validly made. The Court further clarified that "ad interim appointments," by their very nature under the 1987 Constitution, apply only to appointments where the CA's review is needed, remaining valid until disapproved by the CA or until the next adjournment of Congress. Appointments that are solely for the President to make, without CA participation, cannot be ad interim appointments. On Issue 4: The Supreme Court declared Executive Order No. 163-A, which provided that the tenure of the Chairman and Members of the Commission on Human Rights shall be "at the pleasure of the President," as unconstitutional. The Court emphasized the crucial distinction between "term of office" and "tenure in office," noting that Executive Order No. 163 (the earlier order) had set a fixed term of seven years for CHR members, consistent with the constitutional design of CHR independence. Making the tenure dependent on the President's pleasure directly contravenes the constitutional mandate for an independent CHR, which is essential for its vital functions of investigating human rights violations without political interference. Therefore, removal of the Chairman and Members of the CHR must be for cause and with proper due process, not at the President's mere pleasure.
Main Doctrine
The appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Commission on Human Rights does not require the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments, as it falls under the category of officers whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint without such confirmation. Furthermore, Executive Order No. 163-A, which made the tenure of the Chairman and Members of the Commission on Human Rights dependent on the pleasure of the President, is unconstitutional as it undermines the independence mandated for the Commission.