G.R. No. L-19721; May 10, 1962
CARLOS CUNANAN, petitioner, vs. JORGE TAN, JR., respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Carlos Cunanan, a career government employee, was extended an ad interim appointment as Deputy Administrator of the Reforestation Administration by the President on November 6, 1961. On April 3, 1962, a group of thirteen members of Congress—six Senators from the Liberal Party and seven House Representatives (four Liberals and three Nacionalistas aligned with an “Allied Majority”)—purporting to act as the Commission on Appointments, rejected this appointment. Subsequently, on April 11, 1962, respondent Jorge Tan, Jr. was designated as Acting Deputy Administrator for the same office.
The composition of the Commission on Appointments became contentious due to political divisions. The House of Representatives, on March 21, 1962, had passed a resolution declaring vacant the seats of its twelve members in the Commission. It then re-elected its representatives, altering the membership by replacing three original members with Congressmen Alberto, Honrado, and Cojuangco, Jr., who were Nacionalistas but part of the “Allied Majority.” This reconstituted group participated in the rejection of Cunanan’s appointment.

ISSUE

Was the rejection of petitioner Carlos Cunanan’s ad interim appointment by the thirteen members of Congress, acting as the Commission on Appointments, valid?

RULING

No, the rejection was invalid. The Supreme Court held that the House resolution of March 21, 1962, which declared vacant the seats of its twelve members in the Commission on Appointments, was unconstitutional. The Commission on Appointments is a constitutional body whose powers emanate directly from the Constitution, not from Congress. While each House of Congress has the authority to elect its representatives to the Commission based on proportional representation of political parties, this authority is limited to ensuring compliance with that constitutional requirement.
The Court ruled that the House of Representatives exceeded its authority by declaring the seats vacant and reconstituting the membership mid-session without any constitutional basis, such as a change in party affiliation or a successful election protest that would alter the proportional representation. This action infringed upon the constitutional mandate for stability and independence of the Commission. Consequently, the members who rejected Cunanan’s appointment were not the lawfully constituted Commission on Appointments at that time. Therefore, their act of rejection was null and void, rendering the office not vacant and respondent Tan’s subsequent designation invalid. The Court emphasized that while a fixed tenure for Commission members is desirable, the House’s action here was a transgression of constitutional provisions, which the judiciary has the power to review and correct.