SARMIENTO III vs.

MISON

Facts:

The Petitioners seeks to enjoin the Respondent, Salvador Mison, from

performing the function as the Commissioner of Bureau of Customs and the
other Respondent, Guillermo Carague, as Secretary of the Dept. of Budget,
from effecting disbursements in payments of Mison’s salaries and emoluments,
on the ground that Mison’s appointment is unconstitutional by not having been
confirmed by the Commission on Appointment. The Respondents maintains
that Mison’s appointment is constitutional even without the confirmation of the
Commission on Appointment.

Issue:

Whether the appointment of Salvador Mison needs confirmation from the

Commission on Appointment.

Ruling:

No, the appointment of a commissioner of Bureau of Customs needs no

confirmation from the Commission on Appointment.

The Supreme Court listed the four groups of officers whom the President shall
appoint. It pointed out that the first group of officers is clearly appointed with
the consent of CoA. While the second, third and fourth need no confirmation.

To prove the same, the Supreme Court refers to the historical background as
well as to the records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission to determine the
intentions of the framers of the 1987 Constitution and the people adopting it,
whether the second, third and fourth group, requires the consent of the
Commission on Appointment. They went back first in the 1935 Constitution,
where almost all presidential appointments required the consent of the
Commission on Appointment which resulted to venue of “horse-trading” and
similar malpractices. On the other hand, the 1973 Constitution, placed the
absolute power of appointment in the President with hardly any check on the
part of the legislature. Thus, the framers of the 1987 Constitution and the
people adopting it, struck a “middle ground” by requiring the consent of the
Commission on Appointment for the first group of appointments and leaving to
the President, without such confirmation, the appointment of other officers.
Furthermore, during the debates on the text of Section 16, the one major
change proposed and approved by the Commission was the exclusion of the
appointments of head of bureaus from the requirements of confirmation by the
Commission on Appointment.

Coming now to the immediate question before the Court, it is evident that the
position of Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs (a bureau head) is not one
of those within the first group of appointments where the consent of the
Commission on Appointments is required. Furthermore, in Section 601 of
Republic Act No. 1937 amended by Presidential Decree 34, The Bureau of
Customs Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner of Customs shall be
appointed by the President of the Philippines. Even though, it was approved
during the effectivity of the 1935, after the effectivity of 1987 Constitution,
however, that law must read in harmony with Section 16, Article 7.