Calderon v.

Carale
Facts:
Who is Calderon? Atty. PETER JOHN D. CALDERON. The case doesnt say anything else about
him.
Who is Carale? - BARTOLOME CARALE, in his capacity as Chairman of the National Labor
Relations Commission

In 1989, Republic Act No. 6715 was passed. This law amended PD 442 or the Labor Code. RA 6715
provides that the Chairman, the Division Presiding Commissioners and other Commissioners [of the
NLRC] shall all be appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments (COA).
Pursuant to the said law, President Corazon Aquino appointed Bartolome Carale et al as the Chairman and
the Commissioners respectively of the NLRC. The appointments were however not submitted to the CoA
for its confirmation. Peter John Calderon questioned the appointment saying that without the confirmation
by the CoA, such an appointment is in violation of RA 6715. Calderon insisted that RA 6715 should be
followed as he asserted that RA 6715 is not an encroachment on the appointing power of the executive
contained in Sec. 16, Art. 7, of the Constitution, as Congress may, by law, require confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments of other officers appointed by the President in addition to those mentioned
in the first sentence of Sec. 16 of Article 7 of the Constitution.
The Court cites three cases, Mison, Bautista, and Quintos-Deles, and summarizes the rulings as follows:
1. Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments is required only for presidential appointees
mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII, including, those officers whose appointments
are expressly vested by the Constitution itself in the president (like sectoral representatives to Congress
and

members

of

the

constitutional

commissions

of Audit,

Civil

Service

and

Election).

2. Confirmation is not required when the President appoints other government officers whose
appointments are not otherwise provided for by law or those officers whom he may be authorized by law
to appoint (like the Chairman and Members of the Commission on Human Rights). Also, as observed in
Mison, when Congress creates inferior offices but omits to provide for appointment thereto, or provides in
an unconstitutional manner for such appointments, the officers are considered as among those whose
appointments are not otherwise provided for by law.
Arguments of Calderon:

1.
2.

Mandatory compliance of RA 6715

Mison and Bautista rulings are not decisive to the issue because President issued permanent
appointments.

Arguments of Carale:
If confirmation is required, three stage process of nomination, confirmation and appointment operates
(Sub section 3 Section 10 of Article VII). The word nominate does not any more appear in 2 nd and
3rd sentences of Section 16 Article VII.
Argument of Solicitor General:
1. RA 6715 transgresses Sec 16 Art VII by expanding the confirmation powers of the Commission on
Appointments without constitutional basis.
1.

Issue:
Whether or not Congress may, by law, expand the list of public officers required to be confirmed by the
Commission on Appointment as listed in the Constitution.
Held:
No. Under the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, 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;
Fourth, officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the President alone.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Solicitor General: confirmation by the CoA is required exclusively
for the heads of executive departments, ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, officers of the armed
forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in the
President by the Constitution, such as the members of the various Constitutional Commissions (first
group). With respect to the other officers (second to fourth group) whose appointments are not otherwise
provided for by the law and to those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint, no
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments is required.
NLRC Chairman falls in the third group.

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.
Deciding on what law to pass is a legislative prerogative. Determining their constitutionality is a judicial
function. The Court respects the laudable intention of the legislature. Regretfully, however, the
constitutional infirmity of Sec. 13 of RA 6715 amending Art. 215 of the Labor Code, insofar as it requires
confirmation of the Commission on Appointments over appointments of the Chairman and Members of
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) is, as we see it, beyond redemption if we are to render
fealty to the mandate of the Constitution in Sec. 16, Art. VII thereof.
Had it been the intention to allow Congress to expand the list of officers whose appointments must be
confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, the Constitution would have said so by adding the
phrase and other officers required by law at the end of the first sentence, or the phrase, with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments at the end of the second sentence. Evidently, our
Constitution has significantly omitted to provide for such additions.