Scribd
Upload
146 views2 pages

Consti1 - Soriano Vs Lista

The Supreme Court ruled that the appointments of respondent officers in the Philippine Coast Guard were legal and constitutional, as they did not require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Only appointments of military officers from the rank of colonel or naval captain and above in the armed forces require confirmation according to Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. Since the PCG is now under the Department of Transportation and Communications and no longer part of the Navy or Armed Forces, the promotions and appointments of respondent PCG officers from the rank of captain and higher do not require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

Uploaded by

Erla Elauria
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
146 views2 pages

Consti1 - Soriano Vs Lista

The Supreme Court ruled that the appointments of respondent officers in the Philippine Coast Guard were legal and constitutional, as they did not require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Only appointments of military officers from the rank of colonel or naval captain and above in the armed forces require confirmation according to Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. Since the PCG is now under the Department of Transportation and Communications and no longer part of the Navy or Armed Forces, the promotions and appointments of respondent PCG officers from the rank of captain and higher do not require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

Uploaded by

Erla Elauria
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/ 2

CONSTI 1

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 153881. March 24, 2003

SORIANO vs. LISTA

PONENTE: JUSTICE CORONA

FACTS:

Public respondents were promoted to different ranks in the Philippine Coast Guard
(PCG) on different dates. Petitioner, Elpidio G. Soriano, filed the instant petition as
member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and as a taxpayer. He questioned the
constitutionality and legality of the permanent appointments, made by President 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 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.

ISSUE: W/N the appointments of respondent officers of the PCG are illegal and
unconstitutional for failure to undergo the confirmation process in the CA

HELD:

No, the appointments of respondent officers of the PCG are legal and constitutional

It is clear from the Constitution that only appointed officers from the rank of colonel or
naval captain in the armed forces 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
CONSTI 1

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 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.

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.

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