116. CUNANAN VS.

TAN s16 appointing power

EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-19721. May 10, 1962.]
CARLOS CUNANAN, petitioner, vs. JORGE TAN, JR., respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
Gentlemen: May 10, 1962
For your information and guidance, the resolution of this Court on even date is quoted below:
"In Civil Case G.R. No. L-19721 'Carlos Cunanan vs. Jorge Tan, Jr.' the facts are:
Petitioner Carlos Cunanan who claims to be a career employee, with more than thirty (30) years in the government
service was, on June 6 or 8, 1961, appointed by the President of the Philippines as acting Deputy Administrator of the
Reforestation Administration, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Thereupon, he qualified and assumed the
duties and functions of said office. On November 6, 1961, the President extended to him an ad interim appointment as Deputy
Administrator of the Reforestation Administration, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources. On April 3, 1962, six (6)
Senators and seven (7) members of the House of Representatives, purporting to act as the Commission on Appointments,
rejected said ad interim appointment. On April 11, 1962, respondent Jorge Tan, Jr. was designated by the President as Acting
Deputy Administrator of the Reforestation Administration, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and performed
the function of said office, without the consent of petitioner herein. Hence, soon thereafter, or on April 27, 1962, petitioner
commenced the present quo warranto proceeding against respondent, contending that the latter's designation is invalid, the
office of Deputy Administrator of the Reforestation Administration, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, not
being vacant when he was designated thereto, because the aforesaid rejection of petitioner's ad interim appointment is invalid
for several reasons.
When the first session of the Fifth Congress of the Philippines opened on January 22, 1962, the members of the Senate
were evenly divided into two (2) groups: there were twelve (12) Senators affiliated with the Liberal Party, on the one hand,
and on the other were twelve (12) Senators affiliated with the Nacionalista Party and Nationalist-Citizens' Party. Hence, the
Senate has been unable to elect a new Senate President, and Senator Eulogio Rodriguez, Sr., who was President of the Senate
during the immediately preceding Congress, continued to hold said office in an acting capacity. The House of Representatives,
consisting of seventy-two (72) members affiliated with the Nacionalista Party, twenty-nine (29) affiliated with the Liberal
Party and one (1) not affiliated with any political party, elected Congressman Daniel F. Romualdez as Speaker of said chamber.
In due course, the Commission on Appointments was constituted pursuant to the Constitution, on the basis of
proportional representation of the political parties in each House of Congress, as follows:
On the Part of the Senate

Nacionalista Party Liberal Party
Hon. Alejandro Almendras Hon. Eulogio Balao
Hon. Fernando Lopez Hon. Mariano J. Cuenco
Hon. Genaro Magsaysay Hon. Ferdinand Marcos
Hon. Cipriano Primicias Hon. Camilo Osias
Hon. Jose Roy Hon. Francisco (Soc) Rodrigo
Hon. Gil J. Puyat Hon. Rogelio de la Rosa

On the Part of the House of Representatives

Nacionalista Party Liberal Party
Hon. Jose M. Aldeguer Hon. Eladio T. Balite
Hon. Wenceslao R. Lagumbay Hon. Manuel T. Cases
Hon. Felix A. Fuentebella Hon. Floro Crisologo
Hon. Rodolfo Ganzon Hon. Gerardo M. Roxas
Hon. Agustin Gatuslao
Hon. Rasid Lucman
Hon. Apolonio V. Marasigan
Hon. Maximo Noel

On March 21, 1962, by the vote of twenty-nine (29) Congressmen affiliated with the Liberal Party and twenty-five
(25) Congressmen affiliated with the Nacionalista Party, forming what is commonly known as the 'Allied Majority,' declared
vacant the seats of the twelve (12) members of the House of Representatives in the Commission on Appointments and re-
elected, as members thereof for said Chamber, its former representatives in said Commission except Congressman Ganzon,
Lucman and Lagumbay, in lieu of whom said 'Allied Majority' elected Congressmen Jose Alberto, Reynaldo Honrado and Jose
Cojuangco, Jr. although still affiliated with the Nacionalista Party, these three (3) Congressmen form part of the 'Allied
Majority'. The members of Congress who took part in the alleged session of the Commission on Appointments on April 3, 1962,
and rejected the ad interim appointment of petitioner herein were:
(a) Six (6) Senators affiliated with the Liberal Party, namely: Hon. Eulogio Balao, Hon. Mariano J. Cuenco, Hon.
Ferdinand Marcos, Hon. Camilo Osias, Hon. Francisco (Soc) Rodrigo, Hon. Rogelio de la Rosa;
(b) Four (4) Congressmen affiliated with the same party, to wit: Hon. Eladio T. Balite, Hon. Manuel T. Cases, Hon.
Floro Crisologo and Hon. Gerardo M. Roxas; and
(c) Three (3) Congressmen affiliated with the Nacionalista Party, but identified with the 'Allied Majority': Hon.
Jose Alberto, Hon. Reynaldo Honrado and Hon. Jose Conjuangco, Jr.
Was the rejection of petitioner's ad interim appointment by the aforementioned thirteen (13) members of Congress,
purporting to act as the Commission on Appointments, valid or not? The determination of this issue depends upon: (1) the
legality of the resolution of the House of Representatives of March 21, 1962, declaring the seats of its twelve (12) members in
the Commission on Appointments vacant; and (2) the legality of the action of the House of Representatives in reconstituting
the membership of the Commission on Appointments for said House. In view of the conclusion we have reached with respect
to the first question, we deem it unnecessary to pass upon the second question.
With respect to the first question, we hold that the same should be resolved in the negative. The Commission on
Appointments is a creature of the Constitution. Although its membership is confined to members of Congress, said Commission
is independent of Congress. The powers of the Commission do not come from Congress, but emanate directly from the
Constitution. Hence, it is not an agent of Congress. In fact, the functions of the Commissioner are purely executive in nature. In
order that the members of the Commission could properly discharge their duties as such, it is essential that their tenure
therein be provided with a certain measure of stability to insure the necessary freedom of action.
Upon the other hand, the constitutional provision to the effect that 'there shall be a Commission on Appointments
consisting of twelve (12) Senators and twelve (12) members of the House of Representatives elected by each House,
respectively, on the basis of proportional REPRESENTATION OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES THEREIN', necessarily connotes the
authority of each House of Congress to see to it that this requirement is duly complied with. As a consequence, it may take
appropriate measures, not only upon the initial organization of the Commission, but, also, subsequently thereto. If by reason of
successful election protests against members of a House, or of their expulsion from the political party to which they belonged
and/or of their affiliation with another political party, the ratio in the representation of the political parties in the House is
materially changed, the House is clothed with authority to declare vacant the necessary number of seats in the Commission on
Appointments held by members of said House belonging to the political party adversely affected by the change and then fill
said vacancies in conformity with the Constitution.
One thing, however, is to take these measures owing to changes of permanent character in the representation of the
political parties in the House, and another thing for some members thereof affiliated with a political party to make common
cause in certain matters with members of the House belonging to another political party. In other words, a shifting of votes at a
given time, even if due to arrangements of a more or less temporary nature, like the one that has led to the formation of the so-
called 'Allied Majority', does not suffice to authorize a reorganization of the membership of the Commission for said House.
Otherwise, the Commission on Appointments may have to be reorganized as often as votes shift from one side to another in
the House. The framers of our Constitution could not have intended to thus place a constitutional organ, like the Commission
on Appointments, at the mercy of each House of Congress.
We are aware of the statements made on the floor of our Constitutional Convention indicating the opinion of some
officers thereof or delegates thereto that members of the Commission on Appointments were to serve at the pleasure of the
legislature. It should be noted, however, that said statements were made with reference to the Commission on Appointments
of the National Assembly, the unicameral legislature under our original Constitution. The statements did not refer and do not
necessarily apply to the Commission on Appointments under the present Constitution, as amended, for we now have a
bicameral congress, both Houses of which are represented in the Commission on Appointments. If a House of Congress were
free, at any time, to declare vacant position of its members in the Commission on Appointments, such House could, in effect
paralyze the entire Commission, without the consent of the other House. Such possibility could not have been countenanced by
the Constitutional Convention.
In his amended petition petitioner alleges that on April 27, 1962, his ad interim appointment was confirmed by the
'legitimate' Commission on Appointments, in a meeting said to have been presided over by its chairman ex oficio, Hon. Eulogio
Rodriguez, Sr., and attended by six (6) Senators namely, Senators Almendras, Lopez, Magsaysay, Primicas, Roy and Puyat
and eight (8) Congressmen namely, Congressmen Aldeguer, Lagumbay, Fuentebella, Ganzon, Gatuslao, Lucman, Marasigan
and Noel. Respondent has denied such allegation, but this cannot affect our foregoing view.
Without prejudice to an extended decision later on, the Court holds, therefore, that the resolution of the House of
Representatives of March 21, 1962, declaring vacant the seats of the twelve (12) members of the House of Representatives in
the Commission on Appointments and appointing others in lieu of some of them, as well as the rejection of the ad interim
appointment of petitioner by thirteen (13) alleged members of the Commission on Appointments as thus reorganized, and the
designation of respondent Jorge Tan, Jr., as Acting Deputy Administrator of the Reforestation Administration, Department of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, on April 16, 1962, when said office was not vacant, are null and void; that petitioner is
entitled to hold said office; and that respondent should vacate the same and turn it over to petitioner, with costs against said
respondent.
Mr. Justice Padilla voted to dismiss the petition, upon the ground that the effectivity of petitioner's ad interim
appointment expired on December 30, 1961, for the reasons given in his concurring opinion in Aytona vs. Castillo, G.R. No. L-
18313 (January 19, 1962)."
Yours truly,
(SGD.) PAULINO S. MARQUEZ
Clerk of Court