G.R. No.

91636 April 23, 1992(MEO)

PETER JOHN D. CALDERON, petitioner,vs.BARTOLOME CARALE, in his capacity as Chairman

DOCTRINE:

Sec. 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.

there are four (4) groups of officers whom the President shall appoint. These four (4) groups,
to which we will hereafter refer from time to time, are:

First, the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public

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;

Fourth, officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law
vest in the President alone.

FACTS:

 Pursuant to said law (RA 6715), President Aquino appointed the Chairman and
Commissioners of the NLRC representing the public, workers and employers sectors. The
appointments stated that the appointees may qualify and enter upon the performance of the
duties of the office. After said appointments, then Labor Secretary Franklin Drilon issued
Administrative Order No. 161, series of 1989, designating the places of assignment of the
newly appointed commissioners.
 This petition for prohibition questions the constitutionality and legality of the permanent
appointments extended by the President of the Philippines to the respondents Chairman and
Members of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), without submitting the same
to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation pursuant to Art. 215 of the Labor Code
as amended by said RA 6715.
  Petitioner insists on a mandatory compliance with RA 6715 which has in its favor the
presumption of validity. RA 6715 is not, according to petitioner, 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 only issue to be resolved by the Court in the present case is 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.

ISSUES:

WON Congress may, by law, require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of

HELD:

Yes. If the Legislature may declare what a law means, or what a specific portion of the Constitution
means, especially after the courts have in actual case ascertained its meaning by interpretation and
applied it in a decision, this would surely cause confusion and instability in judicial processes and
court decisions. Under such a system, a final court determination of a case based on a judicial
interpretation of the law or of the Constitution may be undermined or even annulled by a subsequent
and different interpretation of the law or of the Constitution by the Legislative department that would
be neither wise nor desirable, being clearly violative of the fundamental principles of our
constitutional system of government, particularly those governing the separation of
powers. (Emphasis supplied).
14

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 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.