View full case

AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL v. EXEC. SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA

FACTS:

This case involves a petition filed by Senators of the Republic of the Philippines questioning the constitutionality of the appointments made by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to Florencio B. Abad, Avelino J. Cruz, Jr., Michael T. Defensor, Joseph H. Durano, Raul M. Gonzalez, Alberto G. Romulo, Rene C. Villa, and Arthur C. Yap as acting secretaries of their respective departments. The petition also seeks to prohibit the respondents from performing their duties as department secretaries.

The regular session of the Senate and the House of Representatives commenced on July 26, 2004, while the Commission on Appointments, composed of Senators and Representatives, was constituted on August 25, 2004. However, prior to the constitution of the Commission, President Arroyo issued appointments to the respondents as acting secretaries of their respective departments.

The appointed dates are as follows: Arthur C. Yap - Agriculture (August 15, 2004), Alberto G. Romulo - Foreign Affairs (August 23, 2004), Raul M. Gonzales - Justice (August 23, 2004), Florencio B. Abad - Education (August 23, 2004), Avelino J. Cruz, Jr. - National Defense (August 23, 2004), Rene C. Villa - Agrarian Reform (August 23, 2004), Joseph H. Durano - Tourism (August 23, 2004), and Michael T. Defensor - Environment and Natural Resources (August 23, 2004).

The appointment papers addressed to each respondent were uniformly worded and authorized them to qualify and enter upon the performance of their duties and functions, as well as to submit copies of their Oath of Office. Respondents took their oath of office and assumed their duties as acting secretaries.

On September 8, 2004, the Senators filed the present petition questioning the constitutionality of President Arroyo's appointment of respondents as acting secretaries without the consent of the Commission on Appointments while Congress was in session. Subsequently, on September 23, 2004, President Arroyo issued ad interim appointments to respondents as secretaries of their respective departments. These ad interim appointments were made after Congress adjourned on September 22, 2004.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether President Arroyo's appointment of respondents as acting secretaries without the consent of the Commission on Appointments, while Congress is in session, is constitutional.

  2. Whether the Senate and specified Senators have standing to file the petition.

  3. Whether the subsequent ad interim appointments render the petition moot.

RULING:

  1. Constitutionality of Acting Appointments: The Supreme Court ruled that the petition has no merit. The President's power to appoint is executive in nature, and the issuance of acting appointments for department secretaries does not require the consent of the Commission on Appointments, even while Congress is in session. The President may temporarily designate any competent person to such positions, as acting appointments are inherently temporary and meant to address vacancies until a permanent appointment is made.

  2. Standing: Among the petitioners, only the Senators who are members of the Commission on Appointments (Senators Enrile, Lacson, Angara, Ejercito-Estrada, and Osmeña) have standing. The other petitioning Senators do not have standing since President Arroyo’s issuance of acting appointments while Congress is in session does not impair the powers of Congress as a body.

  3. Mootness: The issuance of ad interim appointments does not render the petition moot. The Court may decide on the constitutionality of the President's acting appointments because the issue is capable of repetition yet evading review.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Executive Nature of Appointment: The power to appoint is inherently an executive function, with specified limitations by the Constitution and not to be broadly interfered with by the legislature.

  2. Acting Appointments: The President has the authority to make acting appointments, without needing the consent of the Commission on Appointments, to fill temporary vacancies.

  3. Standing Doctrine: Members of the Commission on Appointments can challenge the President's actions if they believe their powers are impaired, but general members of Congress cannot claim such standing based on a perceived impairment of legislative powers.

  4. Mootness Exceptions: Courts may address otherwise moot questions if the act in question is capable of repetition yet evading review.

  5. Duration of Acting Appointments: Acting appointments are temporally limited and cannot exceed one year, aiming to avoid abuse and circumventing the requirement for confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.