ernst salaveria

G.R. No. 180055 July 31, 2009

FRANKLIN M. DRILON as President and in representation of the LIBERAL PARTY OF THE PHILIPPINES (LP), AND HON. JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA, HON. WAHAB M. AKBAR, HON. MARIA EVITA R. ARAGO, HON. PROCESSO J. ALCALA, HON. ROZZANO RUFINO BIAZON, HON. MARY MITZI CAJAYON, HON. FREDENIL H. CASTRO, HON. GLENN ANG CHONG, HON. SOLOMON R. CHUNGALAO, HON. PAUL RUIZ DAZA, HON. ANTONIO A. DEL ROSARIO, HON. CECILIA S. LUNA, HON. MANUEL M. MAMBA, HON. HERMILANDO I. MANDANAS, HON. ALVIN SANDOVAL, HON. LORENZO R. TAÑADA III, HON. REYNALDO S. UY, HON. ALFONSO V. UMALI JR., HON. LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO, Petitioners,
vs.
HON. JOSE DE VENECIA JR. in his official capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives; HON. ARTHUR D. DEFENSOR, SR., in his official capacity as Majority Floor Leader of the House of Representatives, HON. MANUEL B. VILLAR, in his official capacity as ex-officio Chairman of the Commission on Appointments, ATTY. MA. GEMMA D. ASPIRAS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Commission on Appointments, HON. PROSPERO C. NOGRALES, HON. EDGARDO C. ZIALCITA, HON. ABDULLAH D. DIMAPORO, HON. JOSE CARLOS V. LACSON, HON. EILEEN R. ERMITA-BUHAIN, HON. JOSE V. YAP, HON. RODOLFO T. ALBANO III, HON. EDUARDO R. GULLAS, HON. CONRADO M. ESTRELLA III, HON. RODOLFO "OMPONG" PLAZA, HON. EMMYLOU J. TALIÑO-MENDOZA and HON. EMMANUEL JOEL J. VILLANUEVA, in their individual official capacities as "elected" members of the Commission on Appointments, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

G.R. No. 183055 July 31, 2009

SENATOR MA. ANA CONSUELO A.S. MADRIGAL, Petitioner,
vs. SENATOR MANUEL VILLAR in his capacity as Senate President and Ex-Officio Chairman of the Commission on Appointments, REPRESENTATIVE PROSPERO NOGRALES in his capacity as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, Respondents.

____________________________________________________________________________________

FACTS:         The first petition, G.R. No. 180055, has thus indeed been rendered moot with the designation of a Liberal Party member of the House contingent to the CA, hence, as prayed for, the petition is withdrawn.

                        As for the second petition, G.R. No. 183055, it fails.

                        The second petition filed by Senator Jamby Madrigal in a summary tackle about the  reorganization of the membership of the CA and that, in the meantime, "all actions of  CA be held in abeyance as the same may be construed as illegal and unconstitutional.

                        Senator Jamby Madrigal petitions to REORGANIZE the membership of the CA is based upon the OBSERVATIONS that she herself observe in the list of  COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS membership that there are certain POLITICAL PARTIES acquire  a seat of membership in CA held  a position which supposedly are not allowed in the provision of the constitution , moreover, she added to estopped the  intention of the committee  request that "all actions of the Commission be held in ABEYANCE" .

ISSUE:           Whether or not the petitioner is the proper party concerned.

HELD:           Senator Madrigal contention has been dismissed due to the guidelines she ignored.Petitioner has no standing to file the  petition .Petitioner failed to observe the doctrine of primary jurisdiction or prior resort. Each House of Congress has the sole function of reconstituting or changing the composition of its own contingent to the CA.The extraordinary remedies of Prohibition and Mandamus and the relief of a TRO are not available to the Petitioner.

At the core of this controversy is Article VI, Section 18, of the Constitution providing as follows:

Sec. 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators and twelve Members of the House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The Chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their submission. The Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members.       

            Wherefore,the Motion with Leave of Court to Withdraw the Petition in G.R. No. 180055 is Granted. The Petition is Withdrawn. The Petition in G.R. No. 183055 is Dismissed.

 G.R. No. 86344 December 21, 1989

REP. RAUL A. DAZA, petitioner,
vs.
REP. LUIS C. SINGSON and HON. RAOUL V. VICTORINO IN THE LATTER'S CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, respondent.

CRUZ, J.:

FACTS:         After the congressional elections of May 11, 1987, the House of Representatives proportionally apportioned its twelve seats in the Commission on Appointments among the several political parties represented in the chamber, including the LakasngBansa, the PDP-Laban, the NP-Unido, the Liberal Party, and the KBL,.Petitioner Raul A. Daza was among those chosen and was listed as a representative of the Liberal Party.

                        On September 16, 1988, the Laban ngDemokratikong Pilipino was reorganized, resulting in a political realignment in the House of Representatives. Twenty four members of the Liberal Party formally resigned from that party and joined the LDP, thereby swelling its number to 159 and correspondingly reducing their former party to only 17 members.

                        The House of Representatives revised its representation in the Commission onAppointments by withdrawing the seat occupied by the petitioner and giving this to the newly-formed LDP. On December 5, 1988, the chamber elected a new set of representatives consisting of the original members except the petitioner and including therein respondent Luis C. Singson as the additional member from the LDP.

The petitioner came to the Court on January 13, 1989, to challenge his removal from the Commission on Appointments and the assumption of his seat by the respondent.

ISSUE:           Whether or not  that the contention of the petitioner  that he cannot be removed from the Commission on Appointments and  invoking the doctrine of Cunanan v. Tan is  valid.

HELD:            Yes, petitioner’s plea is valid. While he may be technically correct in arguing that it is not he who caused the petitioner's removal, The feel that this objection is also not an insuperable obstacle to the resolution of this controversy. For one thing, the Court treat this proceeding as a petition for quo warranto as the petitioner is actually questioning the respondent's right to sit as a member of the Commission on Appointments. For another, the Justices  held as early as in the Emergency Powers Cases  that where serious constitutional questions are involved.

            The Court would have preferred not to intervene in this matter, leaving it to be settled by the House of Representatives or the Commission on Appointments as the bodies directly involved

            At the core of this controversy is Article VI, Section 18, of the Constitution providing as follows:

Sec. 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators and twelve Members of the House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The Chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their submission. The Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members.

            Wherefore, the petition is Dismissed. The temporary restraining order dated January 13, 1989, isLifted. The Court holds that the respondent has been validly elected as a member of the Commission on Appointments and is entitled to assume his seat in that body pursuant to Article VI, Section 18, of the Constitution. No pronouncement as to costs.

 G.R. No. 79974 December 17, 1987

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:         The petitioners, who are taxpayers, lawyers, members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and professors of Constitutional Law, seek to enjoin the respondent Salvador Mison from performing the functions of the Office of Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and the respondent Guillermo Carague, as Secretary of the Department of Budget, from effecting disbursements in payment of Mison's salaries and emoluments, on the ground that Mison's appointment as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs is unconstitutional by reason of its not having been confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.

ISSUE:           Whether or notthat the appointment of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs  needs the CONFIRMATION coming from the COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENT.

HELD:           No, there is no need for the respondent to be recognized or confirmed by the Commission on Appointment regarding of his capacity as Commissioners of the Bureau of Customs, while Guillermo Carague, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Budgetwill profoundly needed the confirmation coming from the CA.

                        The respondents are allowed to hold public office is allowed as the  provision of the Constitution clearly stated that,

                        “ The President shall nominate and with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, shall appoint the heads of the executive departments and bureaus, officers of the army from the rank of colonel, of the Navy and Air Forces from the rank of captain or commander, and all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint; but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of inferior officers, in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments.”

                        Furthermore,as a result of the innovations introduced in Sec. 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, there are officers whose appointments require no confirmation of the Commission on Appointments.

                        Thus, to illustrate, the appointment of the Central Bank Governor requires no confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, even if he is higher in rank than a colonel in the Armed Forces of the Philippines or a consul in the Consular Service.

                        Wherefore, the petition and petition in intervention should be, as they are, hereby Dismissed. Without costs.