CASE KEY ISSUE HELD/ANSWER

Topacio v Ong Is the appointment of a Justice of the YES. Ong was subsequently declared a Natural-born citizen in a separate RTC
Sandiganbayan valid? decision.

Funa v Agra Is the appointment of an acting
Secretary of Justice who is also
concurrently holding another position in
government valid?
No. To hold an office means to possess or to occupy the office, or to be
in possession and administration of the office, which implies nothing less
than the actual discharge of the functions and duties of the office. It is
of no moment that the designation was in an acting or temporary
capacity.

Re: Nomination The appointment of Atty. Chaguile as IBP Accordingly, Supreme Court hold that all official actions of Atty. Chaguile as de
Atty. Lynda Governor for Northern Luzon was not in facto IBP Governor for Northern Luzon must be deemed valid, binding, and
Chaguile accord with the IBP by-laws. How does effective, as though she were the officer validly appointed and qualified for
this affect her powers and authority? the office. It follows that her participation and vote in the election for IBP EVP
held on May 22, 2013 are in order.

Monroy v CA What is the extent of the right to
compensation of a de facto officer?
Rightful incumbent of a public office may recover from an officer de facto the
salary received by the latter during the time of his wrongful tenure, even
though he entered into the office in good faith and under the color of title. A
de facto officer, not having good title, takes the salaries at his risk and must
therefore account to the de jure officer for whatever amount of salary he
received during the period of his wrongful retention of the public office

Corpuz v CA “last act” of appointment The case focused on the validity of one’s appointment when it lacks the last
act which is the approval by MTRCB.

Ruling: A public official or employee who assumed office under an incomplete

appointment is merely a de facto officer for the duration of his occupancy of
the office for the reason that he assumed office under color of a known
appointment which is void by reason of some defect or irregularity in its
exercise. Undeniably, under the facts here, CORPUZ was such a de facto
officer

Castaneda v Yap Non-eligibility based on age The age requirement is based on public policy(not mentioned why) and is
important in determining if he has the right to an elective office. The person
should get the age required when elected (current jurisprudence says at the
time the officer took office unless specifically stated otherwise)

Maquera v Borra Is a surety bond
requirement valid?
qualification No. RA 4421 requiring a candidate to post surety bond equivalent to one year
salary of position to which he is a candidate, and shall be forfeited in favor of
the government if the candidate, except the winner, fails to obtain at least
10% of the vote cast for the office is unconstitutional. The effect is to impose
property qualifications in order that a person could run for a public office,
which property qualifications are inconsistent with the nature and essence
of the Republican system ordained in the Constitution and the principle of
social justice underlying the same.

Aguila v Genato Nature of eligibility Eligibility to an office should be construed as of a continuing nature and must
exist at the commencement of the term and during occupancy of the office.
Velicaria-Garafil v Nature of appointment Nature of appointment
Office of the
President Process of appointment The Constitution allows the President to exercise the power of appointment
during the period not covered by the appointment ban, and disallows (subject
Possession of appointment paper to an exception) the President from exercising the power of appointment
Validity of EO2 during the period covered by the appointment ban.

Process of appointment

The following elements should always concur in the making of a valid (which
should be understood as both complete and effective) appointment:

1
 (1) authority to appoint and evidence of the exercise of the authority;
(2) transmittal of the appointment paper and evidence of the transmittal;
(3) a vacant position at the time of appointment; and
(4) receipt of the appointment paper and acceptance of the appointment by
the appointee who possesses all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications.

Possession of appointment paper

It is not enough that the President signs the appointment paper. There should
be evidence that the appointment paper to be issued. Release of the
appointment paper through MRO is an unequivocal act that signifies the
President’s intent of its issuance.

The possession of the original appointment paper is not indispensable to

authorize an appointee to assume office. If it were indispensable, then a loss
of the original appointment paper, which could be brought about by
negligence, accident, fraud, fire or theft, corresponds to a loss of the office.
However, in case of loss of the original appointment paper, the appointment
must be evidenced by a certified true copy issued by the proper office, in this
case the MRO.
Torres v Borja Discretionary nature of an appointment Discretion if not plenary, at least sufficient, should thus be granted to those
entrusted with the responsibility of administering the officers concerned,
primarily the department heads. They are in the most favorable position to
determine who can best fulfill the functions of the office thus vacated. Unless,
therefore, the law speaks in the most mandatory and peremptory tone,
considering all the circumstances, there should be, as there has been, full
recognition of the wide scope of such discretionary authority.
Rimonte v Civil Role of CSC As long as the appointee is qualified the Civil Service Commission has no
Service choice but to attest to and respect the appointment even if it be proved that
Commission there are others with superior credentials. The law limits the Commission’s
(CSC) authority only to whether or not the appointees possess the legal
qualifications and the appropriate civil service eligibility, nothing else. If they
do then the appointments are approved because the Commission cannot
exceed its power by substituting its will for that of the appointing authority .

Aytona v Castillo Ad-interim appointment;
appointment
Midnight Normally, when the President makes appointments the consent of the
Commission on Appointments, he has benefit of their advice. When he makes
ad interim appointments, he exercises a special prerogative and is bound to
be prudent to insure approval of his selection either previous consultation
with the members of the Commission or by thereafter explaining to them the
reason such selection. Where, however, as in this case, the Commission on
Appointments that will consider the appointees is different from that existing
at the time of the appointment and where the names are to be submitted by
successor, who may not wholly approve of the selections, the President
should be doubly careful in extending such appointments. Now, it is hard to
believe that in signing 350 appointments in one night, President Garcia
exercised such "double care" which was required and expected of him; and
therefore, there seems to be force to the contention that these appointments
fall beyond the intent and spirit of the constitutional provision granting to the
Executive authority to issue ad interim appointments.

Matibag v Nature of ad-interim appointment; Nature of ad-interim appointment;

Benipayo renewal of bypassed ad interim
appointees Permanence
An ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment because it takes
effect immediately and can no longer be withdrawn by the President once the
appointee has qualified into office.

Effectivity
The Constitution imposes no condition on the effectivity of an ad interim
appointment, and thus an ad interim appointment takes effect immediately.
The appointee can at once assume office and exercise, as a de jure officer, all
the powers pertaining to the office.
2
 The ad interim appointment remains effective until such disapproval or next
adjournment, signifying that it can no longer be withdrawn or revoked by the
President.

Distinction: Exercise of presidential prerogative when Congress is in session

and when Congress is in recess.
In Pacete vs. Secretary of the Commission on Appointments, we ruled the the
difference between appointment when Congress is in session and
appointment when Congress is in recess. In the former, the President
nominates, and only upon the consent of the Commission on Appointments
may the person thus named assume office. It is not so with reference to ad
interim appointments. It takes effect at once. The individual chosen may thus
qualify and perform his function without loss of time. His title to such office is
complete. In the language of the Constitution, the appointment is effective
‘until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next
adjournment of the Congress.’

Ad interim appointment vs. an appointment in temporary or acting capacity

While an ad interim appointment is permanent and irrevocable except as

provided by law, an appointment or designation in a temporary or acting
capacity can be withdrawn or revoked at the pleasure of the appointing
power. A temporary or acting appointee does not enjoy any security of
tenure, no matter how briefly.

Renewal of by-passed ad interim appointees

A by-passed appointment is one that has not been finally acted upon on the
merits by the Commission on Appointments at the close of the session of
Congress. There is no final decision by the Commission on Appointments to
give or withhold its consent to the appointment as required by the
Constitution. Absent such decision, the President is free to renew the ad
interim appointment of a by-passed appointee.

Sarmiento v Presidential appointment power Except as to those officers whose appointments require the consent of the
Mison Commission on Appointments by express mandate of the first sentence in
Sec. 16 Article VII, appointments of other officers are left to the President
without need of confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

The power to appoint is generally executive or presidential in character

Calderon v Carale Presidential appointment power 1.) Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments is required only
for presidential appointees mentioned in the first sentence of
Section 16, Article VII, including, those officers whose
appointments are expressly vested by the Constitution itself in the
president (like sectoral representatives to Congress and members of
the constitutional commissions of Audit, Civil Service and Election).
2.) Confirmation is not required when the President appoints other
government officers whose appointments are not otherwise
provided for by law or those officers whom he may be authorized
by law to appoint (like the Chairman and Members of the
Commission on Human Rights). Also, as observed in Mison, when
Congress creates inferior offices but omits to provide for
appointment thereto, or provides in an unconstitutional manner
for such appointments, the officers are considered as among those
whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law.