Calderon v. Carale
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns the constitutionality of Section 13 of Republic Act No. 6715, which amended the Labor Code by requiring the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments for the President's appointments of the Chairman and Commissioners of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The core of the dispute lies in interpreting Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, which outlines the President's appointment powers and the extent to which such appointments require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Procedural History: The petitioner, Peter John D. Calderon, challenges the permanent appointments made by the President to the NLRC Chairman and Commissioners without submitting these appointments for confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, as mandated by RA 6715. The Solicitor General, representing the respondents, contends that RA 6715 unconstitutionally expands the confirmation powers of the Commission on Appointments beyond what is permitted by the Constitution. Previous Supreme Court rulings in Sarmiento III v. Mison and Bautista v. Salonga are central to the arguments presented by both sides, with the petitioner arguing these cases do not definitively resolve the current issue due to the specific legislative mandate in RA 6715, while the respondents argue these cases have already settled the matter. The Petition: The petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to declare the permanent appointments of the NLRC Chairman and Commissioners unconstitutional and illegal for lack of confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, as required by RA 6715. The petitioner argues that RA 6715, being a valid law, must be complied with, and it does not encroach upon the President's appointing power but rather specifies additional appointments requiring confirmation. Conversely, the respondents assert that RA 6715 transgresses Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution by expanding the Commission on Appointments' confirmation powers beyond the explicit categories enumerated in the Constitution, citing Mison and Bautista as precedent that such legislative expansion is unconstitutional.
Issue(s)
Whether 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 Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution. Whether Article 215 of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 6715, insofar as it requires confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of appointments of the Chairman and Members of the NLRC, is constitutional.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. Article 215 of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 6715, insofar as it requires the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of appointments of the Chairman and Members of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), is declared unconstitutional and of no legal force and effect.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Congress can expand the confirmation powers of the CA: The Court held that Congress cannot, by legislation, expand the list of positions requiring confirmation by the Commission on Appointments beyond those expressly enumerated in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution. To do so would be to amend the Constitution by legislation, which is impermissible. RA 6715, by requiring confirmation for NLRC Chairman and Commissioners, effectively amended the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII by adding thereto appointments requiring confirmation, and amended the second sentence by imposing confirmation on appointments that are otherwise entrusted only to the President. This legislative expansion of the CA's confirmation power infringes upon the President's appointing authority as defined by the Constitution. The Court emphasized that its interpretation of the Constitution forms part of the legal system. Legislation cannot alter or override a settled judicial interpretation of a constitutional provision. The Court cited Endencia and Jugo v. David to illustrate that the legislature cannot pass a declaratory act defining the meaning of a constitutional provision, as this would usurp a judicial function and lead to confusion and instability. The intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution was to limit the confirmation powers of the Commission on Appointments compared to the 1935 Constitution, and this intent must be respected. On the constitutionality of RA 6715 requiring confirmation for NLRC appointments: The Court reiterated its rulings in Sarmiento III v. Mison and Bautista v. Salonga. Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution enumerates specific positions whose appointments require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. These include 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 in the Constitution. The second sentence of the same provision states that Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, or in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards. The Court clarified that the framers of the 1987 Constitution deliberately excluded positions like "heads of bureaus" and "other officers whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law" or "whom he may be authorized by law to appoint" from the list requiring confirmation. The Chairman and Commissioners of the NLRC fall under the category of "other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law" or "those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint," as contemplated in the second sentence of Section 16, Article VII. Therefore, their appointments do not require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. RA 6715's requirement for such confirmation is unconstitutional because it attempts to legislate beyond the constitutional limits set for the CA's confirmation powers. While acknowledging the dissenting opinions and the perceived absurdity by some justices, the majority upheld the doctrine established in Sarmiento III v. Mison and Bautista v. Salonga. The Court stressed that settled interpretations of the Constitution should be respected to maintain stability in the legal system, even if a future constitutional amendment might be considered to address perceived shortcomings.
Main Doctrine
Republic Act No. 6715, insofar as it requires the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of appointments to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), is unconstitutional as it expands the confirmation powers of the Commission on Appointments beyond what is provided in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution, and imposes confirmation requirements on appointments not otherwise provided for by law or authorized by law, which are vested in the President alone under the second sentence of the same constitutional provision.