GR 203372; (June, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 203372, 206290, 209138 & 212030, June 16, 2015
Velicaria-Garafil, et al. v. Office of the President, et al.
FACTS
Prior to the May 2010 elections, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued over 800 appointments. The constitutional ban on midnight appointments under Section 15, Article VII began on March 11, 2010. The petitioners were among those appointed: Atty. Cheloy E. Velicaria-Garafil (State Solicitor II, OSG, appointment dated March 5, 2010, oath on March 22, 2010); Atty. Dindo G. Venturanza (Prosecutor IV, Quezon City, appointment dated February 23, 2010, transmittal letter dated March 9, 2010, oath on March 15, 2010); Irma A. Villanueva (Administrator for Visayas, CDA, appointment dated March 3, 2010, oath on April 13, 2010); Francisca B. Rosquita (Commissioner, NCIP, appointment dated March 5, 2010, oath on March 18, 2010); and Atty. Eddie U. Tamondong (Board Member, SBMA, appointment dated March 1, 2010, oath on March 25, 2010). On July 30, 2010, President Benigno S. Aquino III issued Executive Order No. 2, which recalled, withdrew, and revoked appointments issued by the previous administration in violation of the constitutional ban on midnight appointments. The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of EO 2 before the Court of Appeals, which upheld its validity. They then filed these consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether Executive Order No. 2 is unconstitutional for being inconsistent with Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
RULING
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petitions and upheld the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 2. The Court ruled that EO 2 is a valid exercise of the President’s executive power and power of control over the executive department. The President has the authority to recall the appointments of the petitioners because their appointments were not completed prior to the constitutional ban on March 11, 2010. An appointment is deemed complete only when the appointee has accepted a fully signed, sealed, and delivered appointment letter. For the appointments to be valid against the ban, they must have been completed before the ban started. The evidence showed that the appointments of the petitioners were either transmitted, received, or accepted only after March 10, 2010. Since the appointments were not completed before the ban took effect, they were invalid midnight appointments. EO 2, which recalled these invalid appointments, is constitutional.