GR L 79974; (December, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-79974 December 17, 1987
Ulpiano P. Sarmiento III and Juanito G. Arcilla, petitioners, vs. Salvador Mison, in his capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs, and Guillermo Carague, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Budget, respondents, Commission on Appointments, intervenor.
FACTS
Petitioners, as taxpayers and members of the bar, sought to enjoin Salvador Mison from performing the functions of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and to prevent the disbursement of his salaries. They contended that Mison’s appointment by President Corazon Aquino was unconstitutional because it lacked the required confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. The respondents maintained the constitutionality of the appointment without such confirmation. The case presented a significant constitutional conflict between the Executive and Legislative departments early under the 1987 Constitution , prompting the Court to set aside procedural issues and allow the Commission on Appointments to intervene.
ISSUE
Whether the appointment of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs requires confirmation by the Commission on Appointments under Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution .
RULING
No. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Mison’s appointment without confirmation. The Court meticulously analyzed Section 16, Article VII, which delineates four groups of presidential appointees. The first group, including heads of executive departments, ambassadors, and officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, explicitly requires nomination and consent of the Commission on Appointments. The second group comprises “all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law.” The Court, applying the rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, held that only the first group mandates Commission confirmation. Since the Commissioner of Customs is not among the positions enumerated in the first group and falls under the second group, the President’s appointment power is plenary and does not require confirmation. The Court reinforced this interpretation by examining the historical shift from the 1935 Constitution, which required confirmation for bureau heads, to the 1987 Constitution ’s deliberate omission of “heads of bureaus” from the first group, indicating the framers’ intent to limit the Commission’s confirmatory power. Therefore, Mison’s appointment was valid.