SARMIENTO III VS MISON AND CARAGUE

Posted by kaye lee on 11:13 PM

156 SCRA 549 G.R. No. 79974 December 17 1987 [Appointing Power]

FACTS:
Mison was appointed as the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and Carague
as the Secretary of the Department of Budget, without the confirmation of the
Commission on Appointments. Sarmiento assailed the appointments as
unconstitutional by reason of its not having been confirmed by CoA.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the appointment is valid.

RULING:
Yes. The President acted within her constitutional authority and power in appointing
Salvador Mison, without submitting his nomination to the CoA for confirmation. He is
thus entitled to exercise the full authority and functions of the office and to receive
all the salaries and emoluments pertaining thereto.

Under Sec 16 Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution, there are 4 groups of officers whom
the President shall appoint:
1st, appointment of executive departments and bureaus heads, ambassadors, other
public ministers, consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or
naval captain, and other officers with the consent and confirmation of the CoA.
2nd, all other Government officers whose appointments are not otherwise provided
by law;
3rd those whom the President may be authorized by the law to appoint;
4th, low-ranking officers whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the
President alone.
First group of officers is clearly appointed with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments. Appointments of such officers are initiated by nomination and, if the
nomination is confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, the President
appoints.

2nd, 3rd and 4th group of officers are the present bone of contention. By following
the accepted rule in constitutional and statutory construction that an express
enumeration of subjects excludes others not enumerated, it would follow that only
those appointments to positions expressly stated in the first group require the
consent (confirmation) of the Commission on Appointments.

It is evident that the position of Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs (a bureau

head) is not one of those within the first group of appointments where the consent
of the Commission on Appointments is required. The 1987 Constitution deliberately
excluded the position of "heads of bureaus" from appointments that need the
consent (confirmation) of the Commission on Appointments.

Luego vs CSC, 143 SCRA 327

Posted by Pius Morados on November 7, 2011

(Public Officer, Appointments, CSC)

Facts: Petitioner was appointed Admin Officer II, Office of the City Mayor, Cebu City,
by Mayor Solon. The appointment was described as permanent but the CSC
approved it as temporary, subject to the final action taken in the protest filed by
the private respondent and another employee.

Subsequently, the CSC found the private respondent better qualified than the
petitioner for the contested position and, accordingly directed that the latter be
appointed to said position in place of the petitioner whose appointment is revoked.
Hence, the private respondent was so appointed to the position by Mayor Duterte,
the new mayor.

The petitioner, invoking his earlier permanent appointment, questions the order and
the validity of the respondents appointment.

Issue: WON the CSC is authorized to disapprove a permanent appointment on the

ground that another person is better qualified than the appointee and, on the basis
of this finding, order his replacement.

Held: No. The appointment of the petitioner was not temporary but permanent and
was therefore protected by Constitution. The appointing authority indicated that it

was permanent, as he had the right to do so, and it was not for the respondent CSC
to reverse him and call it temporary.

Section 9(h), Art V of the Civil Service Decree provides that the Commission shall
have inter alia the power to approve all appointments, whether original or
promotional, to positions in the civil service .and disapprove those where the
appointees do not possess appropriate eligibility or required qualifications.

The CSC is not empowered to determine the kind or nature of the appointment
extended by the appointing officer, its authority being limited to approving or
reviewing the appointment in the light of the requirements of the CSC Law. When
the appointee is qualified and all the other legal requirements are satisfied, the
Commission has no choice but to attest to the appointment in accordance with the
CSC Laws.

CSC is without authority to revoke an appointment because of its belief that another
person was better qualified, which is an encroachment on the discretion vested
solely in the city mayor.