GR L 3452; (December, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-3452, December 7, 1949
THE NACIONALISTA PARTY, petitioner, vs. FELIX ANGELO BAUTISTA, Solicitor General of the Philippines, respondent.
FACTS
On November 9, 1949, President Elpidio Quirino designated respondent Solicitor General Felix Angelo Bautista as an acting member of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), following the retirement of Commissioner Francisco Enage. Bautista took his oath and assumed the duties of the COMELEC position while concurrently holding and performing the functions of his permanent office as Solicitor General. The Nacionalista Party filed a petition for prohibition, seeking to prevent Bautista from acting as a COMELEC member unless he was legally appointed as a regular member. The petitioner argued that the designation was invalid because no vacancy existed in the COMELEC at the time, alleging that Commissioner Enage’s retirement was granted in bad faith to influence election-related decisions. Alternatively, the petitioner contended that even if a vacancy existed, the designation was unconstitutional because a COMELEC member cannot hold another office, the position is a permanent constitutional office with a fixed tenure that does not allow acting appointments, and the Solicitor General, as part of the executive department, cannot assume powers in an independent constitutional body like the COMELEC.
ISSUE
Whether the designation of the Solicitor General as an acting member of the Commission on Elections, while concurrently holding his permanent office, is valid and constitutional.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the designation. The Court found that a vacancy in the COMELEC legitimately existed due to Commissioner Enage’s valid retirement, and it declined to inquire into the President’s motives for granting the retirement, citing the principle of separation of powers. The Court ruled that the designation was lawful under Commonwealth Act No. 588 , which authorizes the President to designate any officer in the executive department to temporarily perform the duties of a vacant office pending a permanent appointment. The Court emphasized that the prohibition against holding multiple offices under the Constitution does not apply to temporary designations, as they do not constitute a permanent appointment to a second office. Furthermore, the Court noted that the independence of the COMELEC is not compromised by such a temporary designation, as the Solicitor General, in performing COMELEC duties, acts in a capacity separate from his executive role. The petition was dismissed.
AI Generated by Armztrong.