Scribd
Upload
87 views4 pages

Soriano Lista

The petitioner questioned the constitutionality and legality of the permanent appointments made by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of various public respondents to positions in the Philippine Coast Guard without confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner did not have legal standing to file the petition. Furthermore, since the Philippine Coast Guard has been transferred to the Department of Transportation and Communications and is no longer part of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the appointments of officers at the rank of captain and higher do not require confirmation. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition and declared that the assumption of office and receipt of salaries by the respondent officers were valid.

Uploaded by

Dixie Mae Julve
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
87 views4 pages

Soriano Lista

The petitioner questioned the constitutionality and legality of the permanent appointments made by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of various public respondents to positions in the Philippine Coast Guard without confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner did not have legal standing to file the petition. Furthermore, since the Philippine Coast Guard has been transferred to the Department of Transportation and Communications and is no longer part of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the appointments of officers at the rank of captain and higher do not require confirmation. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition and declared that the assumption of office and receipt of salaries by the respondent officers were valid.

Uploaded by

Dixie Mae Julve
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/ 4

ELPIDIO G. SORIANO III, petitioner, vs. REUBEN S.

LISTA, DOMINGO
T. ESTERA, ELPIDIO B. PADAMA, MIGUEL C. TABARES,
ARTHUR N. GOSINGAN, EFREN L. TADURAN, CESAR A.
SARILE, DANILO M. VILDA and HONORABLE EMILIA T.
BONCODIN, in her capacity as Secretary of Budget and
Management, respondents.

DECISION
CORONA, J.:

Before us is a Petition for Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court


questioning the constitutionality and legality of the permanent appointments,
made by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, of public respondents to
different positions in the Philippine Coast Guard and their subsequent
assumption of office without confirmation by the Commission on Appointments
under the 1987 Constitution.
The petition impleads Hon. Emilia T. Boncodin in her capacity as
Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). Petitioner,
Elpidio G. Soriano, filed the instant petition as member of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines and as a taxpayer.
Public respondents were promoted to different ranks in the Philippine
Coast Guard (PCG) on different dates as follows:
Reuben S. Lista Vice Admiral, Philippine Coast Guard
Domingo T. Estera Rear Admiral, Philippine Coast Guard
Miguel C. Tabares Commodore, Philippine Coast Guard
Arthur N. Gosingan Commodore, Philippine Coast Guard
Efren L. Taduran Naval Captain, Philippine Coast Guard
Cesar A. Sarile Naval Captain, Philippine Coast Guard
Danilo M. Vilda Naval Captain, Philippine Coast Guard
Elpidio B. Padama Commodore, Philippine Coast Guard
Petitioner bewails the fact that despite the non-submission of their names
to the Commission on Appointments (CA) for confirmation, all of the said
respondent officers of the PCG had assumed their duties and
functions. According to petitioner, their respective appointments are illegal and
unconstitutional for failure to undergo the confirmation process in the
CA. Thus, they should be prohibited from discharging their duties and
functions as such officers of the PCG.
In the same vein, petitioner opines that there is no legal basis for the DBM
to allow the disbursement of the salaries and emoluments of respondent
officers of the PCG.Accordingly, he prays that respondent Secretary Boncodin
be ordered to desist from allowing such disbursements until the confirmation
of their respective appointments by the CA.
At the outset, the Court finds petitioner to be without any legal personality
to file the instant petition. We have ruled that a private citizen is allowed to
raise constitutional questions only if he can show that he has personally
suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal
conduct of the government, the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged
action and the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action. In the
[1]

case at bar, petitioner has failed to clearly demonstrate that he has personally
suffered actual or threatened injury. It should be emphasized that a party
bringing a suit challenging the constitutionality of an act or statute must show
not only that the law or act is invalid, but also that he has sustained or is in
immediate, or imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of
its enforcement and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite
way.[2]

The instant petition cannot even be classified as a taxpayers suit because


petitioner has no interest as such and this case does not involve the exercise
by Congress of its taxing power.
Assuming arguendo that petitioner has the legal personality to question
the subject appointments, the petition will nevertheless fail. As aptly pointed
out by the Solicitor General, the PCG used to be administered and maintained
as a separate unit of the Philippine Navy under Section 4 of RA 5173. It was
subsequently placed under the direct supervision and control of the Secretary
of the Department of National Defense (DND) pursuant to Section 4 of PD
601. Eventually, it was integrated into the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP) as a major subordinate unit of the Philippine Navy under Section 54 of
Chapter 8, Sub-title II, Title VIII, Book IV of EO 292, as amended.
However, on March 30, 1998, after the aforesaid changes in the charter of
the PCG, then President Fidel V. Ramos, in the exercise of his statutory
authority to reorganize the Office of the President, issued EO 475 transferring
the PCG from the DND to the Office of the President. He later on again
transferred the PCG from the Office of the President to the Department of
Transportation and Communications (DOTC).
Now that the PCG is under the DOTC and no longer part of the Philippine
Navy or the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the promotions and
appointments of respondent officers of the PCG, or any PCG officer from the
rank of captain and higher for that matter, do not require confirmation by the
CA.
Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls, or 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. He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose
appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be
authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of
other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of
departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.

The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the
Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective
only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next
adjournment of the Congress.

It is clear from the foregoing provision of the Constitution that only


appointed officers from the rank of colonel or naval captain in the armed
forces require confirmation by the CA. The rule is that the plain, clear and
unambiguous language of the Constitution should be construed as such and
should not be given a construction that changes its meaning. [3]

The enumeration of appointments subject to confirmation by the CA under


Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution is exclusive. The clause
officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain refers
to military officers alone. This is clear from the deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission on the proposed text of said Section 16, Article VII
of the Constitution. Since the promotions and appointments of respondent
officers are not covered by the above-cited provision of the Constitution, the
same need not be confirmed by the CA. [4]

Accordingly, the Court declares that no grave abuse of discretion


amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction was committed by respondent
officers of the PCG. Their assumption to office as well as the disbursement of
their respective salaries and other emoluments by the respondent Secretary
of the DBM are hereby declared valid and legal.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.

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