Scribd
Upload
37 views1 page

15 - Calderon vs. Carale

This case discusses whether Congress can require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments for appointments beyond those listed in the Constitution. The Court ruled that Congress cannot require confirmation in this case because: 1) The Chairman and Commissioners of the NLRC are not among the positions in the first sentence of Section 16 that explicitly require confirmation. 2) Requiring confirmation here would amend both the first and second sentences of Section 16, which is beyond Congress's power. The Court found that the 1987 Constitution intentionally limited the Commission's confirmation power, so Congress cannot expand that power through legislation. Any change would require amending the Constitution through a constitutional convention.

Uploaded by

Aquiline Reed
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
37 views1 page

15 - Calderon vs. Carale

This case discusses whether Congress can require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments for appointments beyond those listed in the Constitution. The Court ruled that Congress cannot require confirmation in this case because: 1) The Chairman and Commissioners of the NLRC are not among the positions in the first sentence of Section 16 that explicitly require confirmation. 2) Requiring confirmation here would amend both the first and second sentences of Section 16, which is beyond Congress's power. The Court found that the 1987 Constitution intentionally limited the Commission's confirmation power, so Congress cannot expand that power through legislation. Any change would require amending the Constitution through a constitutional convention.

Uploaded by

Aquiline Reed
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

CALDERON VS.

CARALE

FACTS:

Sometime in March 1989, RA 6715 (Herrera-Veloso Law), amending the Labor Code (PD 442) was approved. Section 13
thereof provides that the Chairman, the Division Presiding Commissioners and other Commissioners of NLRC shall all be
appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. President Aquino appointed
respondents as the Chairman and Commissioners of the NLRC. Carale filed a petition for prohibition questioning the
constitutionality and legality of respondents permanent appointments. Calderon insists that the appointments must be
submitted to the CA for confirmation. He also posits that RA 6715 is not an encroachment on the appointing power of the
executive contained in Section 16, Art. VII, of the Constitution, as Congress may, by law, require confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments of other officers appointed by the President additional to those mentioned in the first sentence
of Section 16 of Article VII of the Constitution.The Solicitor General, on the other hand, contends that RA 6715
which amended the Labor Code transgresses Section 16, Article VII by expanding the confirmation powers of the Commission
on Appointments without constitutional basis.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Congress may, by law, require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of appointments extended
by the President to government officers additional to those expressly mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII of the
Constitution whose appointments require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments

RULING:

No. In Sarmiento III vs. Mison case, the Court stated that there are four (4) groups of officers whom the President shall appoint.
These four (4) groups, are: First, the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in
him in this Constitution; Second, all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by
law; Third, those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint; and Fourth, officers lower in rank whose
appointments the Congress may by law vest in the President alone. The second sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII refers to all
other officers of the government whose appointment are not otherwise provided for by law and those whom the President
may be authorized by law to appoint.

Indubitably, the NLRC Chairman and Commissioners fall within the second sentence of Section 16, Article VII of the
Constitution, more specifically under the "third groups" of appointees referred to in Mison, i.e. those whom the President may
be authorized by law to appoint. Undeniably, the Chairman and Members of the NLRC are not among the officers mentioned
in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII whose appointments requires confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
To the extent that RA 6715 requires confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of the appointments of respondents
Chairman and Members of the National Labor Relations Commission, it is unconstitutional because:

1) it amends by legislation, the first sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII of the Constitution by adding thereto appointments requiring
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments; and

2) it amends by legislation the second sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII of the Constitution, by imposing the confirmation of the
Commission on Appointments on appointments which are otherwise entrusted only with the President.

It can not be overlooked that Sec. 16, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution was deliberately, not unconsciously, intended by the
framers of the 1987 Constitution to be a departure from the system embodied in the 1935 Constitution where the Commission
on Appointments exercised the power of confirmation over almost all presidential appointments, leading to may cases of
abuse of such power of confirmation. Subsection 3, Section 10, Art. VII of the 1935 Constitution provided that the President
shall nominate and with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, shall appoint the heads of the executive
departments and bureau, officers of the Army from the rank of the colonel, of the Navy and Air Forces from the rank of captain
or commander, and all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and those
whom he may be authorized by law to appoint.. The deliberate limitation on the power of confirmation of the Commission on
Appointments over presidential appointments, embodied in Sec. 16, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution, has undoubtedly evoked
the displeasure and disapproval of members of the Congress. The solution to the apparent problem, if indeed a problem, is
not judicial or legislative but constitutional. A future constitutional convention or Congress sitting as a constituent (constitutional)
assembly may then consider either a return to the 1935 Constitutional provisions or the adoption of a hybrid system between
the 1935 and 1987 constitutional provisions. Until then, it is the duty of the Court to apply the 1987 Constitution
in accordance with what it says and not in accordance with how the legislature or the executive would want it interpreted.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy