saldariega

Francisco S. Tatad vs. Commission on Appointments [G.R. No. 183171] August 14, 2008

ISSUE:

                On May 4, 2005, respondent Commission on Appointments (Commission) issued a Certification of Consent and confirmed the appointment of former Vice President Teofisto Guingona, Jr. as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the People’s Republic of China with concurrent jurisdiction over the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Mongolia.

                Petitioner Tatad challenged the consent before the RTC in Quezon City via a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity. He contended that the appointment of former Vice President Teofisto Guingona as Ambassador had violated the law and public policy because Teofisto was already beyond the age of 70.

                On August 30, 2006, the RTC issued its Order dismissing the complaint. The RTC declared the case moot because of the resignation of Vice President Teofisto Guingona in the position.

                The petitioner had elevated the case on the Court of Appeal and he argued, in his appeal, that Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7157, otherwise known as the Philippine Foreign Service Act of 1991, prohibits appointments of those beyond seventy (70) years old to ambassadorial posts; that Ambassador Guingona’s resignation did not render the case moot because there must be a continuing determination of those responsible for the illegal act.

                On March 17, 2008, the CA dismissed the appeal. 

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the resignation of former Vice President Teofisto Guingona in the position had rendered the case moot?

RULING:

                The Supreme Court agrees with both the trial and appellate courts. The resignation of former Vice President Guingona as Ambassador rendered the issues raised in this petition moot.  It has become a non-issue such that a resolution either way would be of no practical effect.  In essence, there is no more illegal appointment to speak of because the appointee ceased to occupy the subject position.

                An issue becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justifiable controversy.  In such a case, there is no actual substantial relief which a petitioner would be entitled to and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. We have consistently held that courts will not determine a moot question in a case in which no practical relief will be granted.

Jesus Armando A.R. Tarrosa vs. Gabriel C. Singson, et al. [G.R. No. 111243] May 25, 1994

FACTS:

                On July 2, 1993, President Fidel V. Ramos appointed the respondent Gabriel C. Singson as Governor of the Bangko Sentral.

                The petitioner Tarrosa filed a petition for prohibition questioning the appointment of the respondent Gabriel Singson as Governor of the Bangko Sentral Ng Pilipinas for not having been confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.

                The petitioner seeks to enjoin respondent Singson from the performance of his functions as such official until his appointment is confirmed by the Commission on Appointments and respondent Salvador M. Enriquez, Secretary of Budget and Management, from disbursing public funds in payment of the salaries and emoluments of respondent Singson.

                Respondents had made their comment and claimed that the Congress had exceeded its legislative powers in requiring the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of the appointment of the Governor of the Bangko Sentral. They contended that an appointment to the said position is not among the appointments which have to be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, citing Article VII, Section 16 of the Constitution.

ISSUES:

                Did Congress exceed its legislative powers in requiring the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of the appointment of the Governor of the Bangko Sentral?

HELD:

                The petition is dismissed. The instant petition is in the nature of a quo warranto proceeding as it seeks the ouster of respondent Singson and alleges that the latter is unlawfully holding or exercising the powers of Governor of the Bangko Sentral, a special civil action can only be commenced by the Solicitor General or by a “person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position unlawfully held or exercised by another”.

               

                It is obvious that the instant action was improvidently brought by petitioner. To uphold the action would encourage every disgruntled citizen to resort to the courts, thereby causing incalculable mischief and hindrance to the efficient operation of the governmental machinery.

Its capstone having been removed, the whole case of petitioner collapses. Hence, there is no need to resolve the question of whether the disbursement of public funds to pay the salaries and emoluments of respondent Singson can be enjoined. Likewise, the Court refrains from passing upon the constitutionality of Section 6, R.A. No. 7653 in deference to the principle that bars a judicial inquiry into a constitutional question unless the resolution thereof is indispensable for the determination of the case.

Teofisto T. Guingona, et al. vs. Neptali A. Gonzales, et al. [G.R. No. 106971] March 1, 1993

FACTS OF THE CASE:

                After the May 11, 1992 elections, the senate was composed of 15 LDP senators, 5 NPC senators, 3 LAKAS-NUCD senators, and 1 LP-PDP-LABAN senator.

                To suffice the requirement that each house must have 12 representatives in the CoA, the parties agreed to use the traditional formula: (No. of Senators of a political party) x 12 seats) ÷ Total No. of Senators elected. The results of such a formula would produce 7.5 members for LDP, 2.5 members for NPC, 1.5 members for LAKAS-NUCD, and 0.5 member for LP-PDP-LABAN.

                Romulo, as the majority floor leader, nominated 8 senators from their party because he rounded off 7.5 to 8 and that Taňada from LP-PDP-LABAN should represent the same party to the CoA. This is also pursuant to the proposition compromise by Sen Tolentino who proposed that the elected members of the CoA should consist of eight LDP, one LP-PDP-LABAN, two NPC and one LAKAS-NUCD. Guingona, a member of LAKAS-NUCD, opposed the said compromise.  He alleged that the compromise is against proportional representation.

ISSUE:

                 Whether or not rounding off is allowed in determining a party’s representation in the CoA.

HELD: 

                It is a fact accepted by all such parties that each of them is entitled to a fractional membership on the basis of the rule on proportional representation of each of the political parties. A literal interpretation of Section 18 of Article VI of the Constitution leads to no other manner of application.

                The problem is what to do with the fraction of .5 or 1/2 to which each of the parties is entitled. The LDP majority in the Senate converted a fractional half membership into a whole membership of one senator by adding one half or .5 to 7.5 to be able to elect Romulo. In so doing one other party’s fractional membership was correspondingly reduced leaving the latter’s representation in the Commission on Appointments to less than their proportional representation in the Senate. This is clearly a violation of Section 18 because it is no longer in compliance with its mandate that membership in the Commission be based on the proportional representation of the political parties. The election of Senator Romulo gave more representation to the LDP and reduced the representation of one political party    either the LAKAS    NUCD or the NPC. A party should have at least 1 seat for every 2 duly elected senators-members in the CoA. Where there are more than 2 parties in Senate, a party which has only one member senator cannot constitutionally claim a seat. In order to resolve such, the parties may coalesce with each other in order to come up with proportional representation especially since one party may have affiliations with the other party.