G.R. No. 79974 – ULPIANO P. SARMIENTO III AND JUANITO G. ARCILLA, petitioners, vs. SALVADOR MISON, in his capacity as COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, AND GUILLERMO CARAGUE, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET, respondents, COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, intervenor.
PADILLA, J.
Facts
In 1987, Salvador Mison was appointed as the Commissioner of the BOC. The respondents questioned the appointment as it appears not to have been submitted to the Commission on Appointments (COA) for approval. Sarmiento insists that under the new Constitution, heads of bureaus require the confirmation of the COA. Sarmiento also sought to enjoin Carague, the then Secretary of the Department of Budget, from disbursing the salary payments of Mison due to the unconstitutionality of the latter’s appointment.
Issue
Does Mison’s appointment as Commissioner of Bureau of Customs require the confirmation/approval of the COA?
Ruling and Discussion
No. Mison’s appointment as Commissioner of Bureau of Customs does not require the confirmation/approval of the COA.
Under Sec. 16, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution, there are 4 groups of officers whom the President shall appoint:
- The 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;
- Oofficers lower in rank 4 whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the President alone.
Only those appointments to positions expressly stated in the first group require the consent (confirmation) of the Commission on Appointments. Appointments made by the President for the second, third and fourth groups do not require the consent of the COA.
The position of BOC Commissioner is not included in those positions requiring prior consent of the COA by statutory construction. An express enumeration of subjects excludes others not enumerated, it follows then that only those appointments to positions expressly stated in the first group require the consent of the COA.
It is the intent of the Framers of the 1987 Constitution to exclude the second, third and fourth groups of Presidential appointments from requiring the consent of the COA. The 1935 Constitution required the consent of COA for all Presidential appointments, which rule has transformed the commission into a venue of “horsetrading” and similar malpractices. Under the 1973 Constitution, the absolute power of appointment is vested in the President without hardly any check from the legislature. The 1987 Constitution tried to strike a balance between the two extremes by requiring COA’s consent on appointments for the first group and dispensing it for the appointments in the other groups. The use of the word ‘also’ in the second sentence does not mean ‘in the same manner’. The appointments for the second group need not be done in the same manner as the first group. So, consent is not required.
The power to appoint is fundamentally executive or presidential in character. Limitations on or qualifications of such power should be strictly construed against them. Such limitations or qualifications must be clearly stated in order to be recognized. It is only in the first sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII where it is clearly stated that appointments by the President to the positions therein enumerated require the consent of the COA. The effect is to exclude from the requirement of consent, other appointments not within the scope of the first sentence. The word ‘alone’ in the third sentence is a mere redundancy which should not defeat the evident intent of the Framers.
Dispositive
Petitions dismissed.