Article VII, Sec 15

A. VELICARIA-GARAFIL vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT and HON. SOLICITOR

GENERAL , G.R. No. 203372 , June 16, 2015

B. VENTURANZA vs.OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, DE LIMA, in her capacity as the

Secretary of the Department of Justice, et. al, G.R. No. 206290

C. VILLANUEVA, et. al vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
G.R. No. 209138

D. TAMONDONG, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OCHOA, JR., G.R. No. 212030

Facts: On June 2010, President Aquino III took his oath of office as the 15th President of the
Republic of the Philippines. On August 2010, Malacaang issued E.O. No. 2 whose salient portions
are Section 1. Midnight Appointments are defined appointments made by the former President and
other appointing authorities in departments, agencies, offices, and instrumentalities, including
government-owned or -controlled corporations, shall be considered as midnight appointments: (a)
Those made on or after March 11, 2010, including all appointments bearing dates prior to March 11,
2010 where the appointee has accepted, or taken his oath, or assumed public office on or after
March 11, 2010, except temporary appointments in the executive positions when continued
vacancies will prejudice public service or endanger public safety as may be determined by the
appointing authority. (b) Those made prior to March 11, 2010, but to take effect after said date or
appointments to office that would be vacant only after March 11, 2010. (c) Appointments and
promotions made during the period of 45 days prior to the May 10, 2010 elections in violation of
Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Section2. Recall, Withdraw, and Revocation of Midnight Appointments. Midnight

appointments, as defined under Section 1, are hereby recalled, withdrawn, and revoked. The
positions covered or otherwise affected are hereby declared vacant.

SECTION 3. Temporary designations. - When necessary to maintain efficiency in public

service and ensure the continuity of government operations, the Executive Secretary may designate
an officer-in-charge (OIC) to perform the duties and discharge the responsibilities of any of those
whose appointment has been recalled, until the replacement of the OIC has been appointed and
qualified.

The present predicament of Garafil, Venturanza, Villanueva, Rosquita and Tamondong

(petitioners) started with the issuance of E.O. No. 2.

i. G.R. No. 203372 (Atty. Garafil) Then Solicitor General, Anselmo Cadiz, informed all OSG
officers/employees affected by E.O. No. 2 that their appointments had been recalled effective
August 7, 2010. Since Garafil's appointment fell within the definition of midnight appointment under
E.O. No. 2, Garafil was removed from the OSG. On August 2010, upon reporting for work, she was
apprised of the revocation of her appointment as State Solicitor II due to the implementation of E.O.
No. 2.

ii. G.R. No. 206290 (Atty. Venturanza) On September 2010, Venturanza received a copy of
Department Order (D.O.) No. 566 issued by DOJ Secretary de Lima. Q.O. No. 566 designated
Senior Deputy State Prosecutor Fadullon as Officer in Charge in the Office of the City Prosecutor,
Quezon City. On September 2010, Venturanza wrote separate letters to DOJ Sec. de Lima
protesting the designation of Fadullon, and to President Aquino seeking the re-affirmation of his
promotion as City Prosecutor. DOJ Sec. de Lima informed Veturanza that he is covered by E.O. No.
2; thus, he should not further perform his functions as Quezon City Prosecutor. Records fail to show
if the President acted at all on Veturanza's letter.

iii. G.R. No. 209138 (Villanueva and Rosquita) Rosquita's appointment was recalled through the
October 2010 memorandum of Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa. Villanueva's and Rosquita's
salaries had also been withheld starting August 1, 2010. 2

iv. G.R. No. 212030 (Atty. Tamondong) In view of the mounting public interest in PGMA's alleged
midnight appointments, Tamondong took another oath of office on July 6, 2010, as an added
precaution. Notwithstanding this move, Tamondong was removed from his position as a regular
member of the SBMA board of directors effective July 30, 2010.

Issue: Whether the President has the power to issue E.0. No. 2 that defined the "midnight
appointments" contemplated under Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution?

Ruling: In four separate decisions, the CA upheld the constitutionality of E.O. No. 2, ruling that the
E.O. is consistent with the rationale of Section 15, Article VII of preventing the outgoing President
from abusing his appointment prerogative and allowing the incoming President to appoint the people
who will execute his policies. To give meaning to this intent, the CA departed from the literal wording
of the provision by construing the term "appointment" as a process that includes the appointee's
acceptance of the appointment.

YES. The court resolves to dismiss the petition for certiorari in G.R. No. 209138 for technical
deficiencies; partially grant the petition for review on certiorari by declaring the phrase "including all
appointments bearing dates prior to March 11, 2010 where the appointee has accepted, or taken his
oath, or assumed public office on or after March 11, 2010" in Section 1(a) of E.O. No. 2
UNCONSTITUTIONAL for unduly expanding the scope of the prohibition on appointments under
Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution; and deny the petitions for review on certiorari insofar
as they seek (i) to uphold the petitioners' respective appointments and their reinstatement to the
positions they held immediately prior to the issuance of E.O. No. 2.

Source: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jun2015/gr_203372_so_2015.html