POWER OF APPOINTMENTS On the nature of power to appoint, GPI vs.

Springer tells you, because its not legislative neither is it judicial, ergo, it must be executive. You will later on know the importance of knowing that power to appoint is inherent in the executive when you look at the persons whom the persons that the president may appoint. Four classes mentioned in sec. 16: 1. A. heads of the departments B. ambassadors C. Public ministers D. Consuls E. Members of the Armed forces F. And other officers lower from the rank of colonel or naval captain 2. Appointments vested in the President by the Constitution. 3. Appointments not otherwise provided by law. - when congress creates an office but does not provide for an appointing authority, the one who will appoint will be the President because it says, whose appointments otherwise not provided by law. - that has to be so because the appointing authority or appointing power is inherent in the executive and so if there is no provision as to who will appoint then it will be president who will appoint . - that is important because even if, for example the law provide for an appointing authority but later on, that provision is declared unconstitutional, its as if theres no provision as to who will appoint, the youll go back to the default authority which is the President. 4. Appointments that the President is authorized to make.

There appointment by the president that will need confirmation from the Commission on Appointments. There are those appointments by the President that will not need confirmation from the Commission on Appointments. For the first class of officers, that will need confirmation from the Commission on Appointments. There are also appointments vested in the President by the Constitution that will require confirmation from the Commission on Appointments but not all.

For instance: 1. President appoints the judges and justices of the Supreme Court. - Vested by the constitution but the same constitution does not require that those appointments will have to go through Commission on Appointments. - Even if it is appointment within the President by the Constitution it will not require confirmation of Commission on appointments because the Constitution does not say so. 2. Appointment of the Ombudsman and his deputies. - President also appoints but the Constitution does not require the appointment will need confirmation of the Commission on Appointments. **Laws for instance were passed creating the National Labor Relations Commission and then saying that it will be the President will appoint the commissioners subject to confirmation by commission on appointments, youve got Supreme Court being specific; the list of persons appointed by the President that will need confirmation from the Commission on Appointments is exclusive. NO LAW CAN LATER ON BE PASSED REQUIRING CONFIRMATION OF COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS WHERE SUCH IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION. For cases where the President appoints and there is requirement of confirmation of Commission on appointments, two things can happen: 1. Congress is in session 2. Congress is not in session ** During recess, express authority to be able to make appointments even when congress is in recess for positions needing confirmation of Commission on Appointments. ** Except that when congress is in session and the appointment will need confirmation on the Commission on Appointments, what will happen is that: *President nominates and then confirm and the nominee will accept and start performing his function. ** Congress is in recess, confirmation cannot come first. *President will nominate, nominee will accept and start performing the function and when congress resumes session, confirmation will come through the Commission on Appointments.

AD INTERIM APPOINTMENT AD INTERIM APPOINTMENTS How do you consider an ad interim appointment? Temporary appointment or Permanent? Given that such appointment is effective only after its approval by the commission on appointments or until the next approval of the congress. Case of Matibag An ad interim appointment is actually permanent appointment Supreme Court Why? Because it takes effect right then and there and the one appointing cannot anymore take away. The fact that it is subject to the confirmation of the commission on appointment does not alter the pertinent character. **If an ad interim appointment is permanent, until when will it last? Until the disapproval thereof of the Commission on appointments. *what if commission on appointments will not do anything? It automatically ceases upon the next adjournment of Congress. Supreme Court emphasize that if we look at the nature of an ad interim appointment, the term ad interim does not refer to the nature of the appointment but more on the manner, that which that the appointment was made during recess. ** Congress, for instance, passes a law, creates a Subic bay metropolitan authority chair, and says that the who will appoint is the President subject to the following requirements: that the qualification of the appointee will be such that he is 40 years old, Filipino, and must be mayor of Olongapo City, can congress validly pass that law? No, power to appoint, embedded in it is the discretion on who to appoint. It infringes the very authority to appoint.

The constitution has placed several restrictions upon the presidents power to appoint. Sec. 13. Persons whom the president cannot appoint: 1. Spouse or relatives of the consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree of the president. Sec. 15: 1. Two months before the next presidential election and until the end of his term, there is no way that the president can make an appointment unless

its a temporary appointment to an executive position where it is shown that the continued vacancy will endanger public safety or prejudice public service. **to avoid extending influence in the office REMOVAL POWER Along with the power to appoint, comes the power to remove. Not all persons who have been appointed by the president can be removed by the president. Example: Justices and the ombudsman - constitution says that they are to be removed by virtue of impeachment. Judges removable by a majority of the decision of the Justices of the Supreme Court GENERALLY: as a whole, the power to appoint has the power to remove EXCEPT when the power to remove is reserved to some other person or entity by the Constitution. But if the president appoints and it is him who is given the authority to remove, its not also that the removal power is without limitation. He can only remove the person for cause as provided by law and upon compliance with due process.