Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Ab o u t U b er D i g es ts
S CRA
Au di o C o da l s
Leg a l E n g l i s h
F i l i p i n o l o s o p hy
F or um
2 0 11 B a r Q u es ti o n s
Q u i z z es An d E x a m s
LAW M E M E S
Search
Calderon vs Carale
Karen
Kate
G abrielle
Jam aica
S p o n s o rs
S p o n s o re d Ad s
Your Ad Here
In s id e Ub e r D ige s ts
S p o n s o rs
Therefore, the 3rd sentence of Sec. 16, Article 7 could have stated merely that, in the case of lower-ranked officers, the Congress may by law vest their appointment in the President, in the courts, or in the heads of various departments of the government. In short, the word alone in the third sentence of Sec. 16, Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution, as a literal import from the 1935 Constitution, appears to be redundant in the light of the second sentence of Sec. 16, Article 7. And, this redundancy cannot prevail over the clear and positive intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution that presidential appointments, except those mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. 16, Article 7, are not subject to confirmation by the CoA. Misons and Caragues appointments are affirmed affirmed.
Tagged with: appointments case brief case digest constitutional law G.R. No. 79974 Jurisprudence political law S armiento vs Mison Ulpiano S armiento III et al vs S alvador Mison & Carague
Tag Cloud
Booking Make money blogging Affiliate program commission Government Jobs Vest