G.R. No.
91636 April 23, 1992 the heads of the
PETER JOHN D.
CALDERON, petitioner,
vs.
BARTOLOME CARALE, in his
capacity as Chairman of the National
Labor Relations Commission, EDNA
BONTO PEREZ, LOURDES C. JAVIER,
ERNESTO G. LADRIDO III, MUSIB M.
BUAT, DOMINGO H. ZAPANTA,
VICENTE S.E. VELOSO III, IRENEO B.
BERNARDO, IRENEA E. CENIZA,
LEON G. GONZAGA, JR., ROMEO B.
PUTONG, ROGELIO I. RAYALA,
RUSTICO L. DIOKNO, BERNABE S.
BATUHAN and OSCAR N. ABELLA, in
their capacity as Commissioners of
the National Labor Relations
Commission, and GUILLERMO
CARAGUE, in his capacity as
Secretary of Budget and
Management, respondents.
PADILLA, J.:
Controversy is focused anew on Sec. 16,
Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution which
provides:
Sec. 16. The President
shall nominate and, with
the consent of the
Commission on
Appointments, appoint
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. 1
The power of the Commission on
Appointments (CA for brevity) to confirm
appointments, contained in the
aforequoted paragraph 1 of Sec. 16, Art.
VII, was first construed in Sarmiento III
vs. Mison 2 as follows:
. . . it is evident that the
position of Commissioner
of the Bureau of Customs
(a bureau head) is not
one of those within the
first group of
appointments where the
consent of the
Commission on
Appointments is required.
As a matter of fact, as
already pointed out, while
the 1935 Constitution
includes "heads of
bureaus" among those
officers whose
appointments need the
consent of the
Commission on
Appointments, the 1987
Constitution, on the other
hand, deliberately
excluded the position of
"heads of bureaus" from
appointments that need
the consent
(confirmation) of the
Commission on
Appointments.
. . . Consequently, we
rule that the President of
the Philippines acted
within her constitutional
authority and power in
appointing respondent
Salvador Mison,
Commissioner of the
Bureau of Customs,
without submitting his
nomination to the
Commission on
Appointments for
confirmation. . . .
. . . In the 1987
Constitution, however, as
already pointed out, the
clear and expressed
intent of its framers was
to exclude presidential
appointments from
confirmation by the
Commission on
Appointments, except
appointments to offices
expressly mentioned in
the first sentence of
Sec. 16,
Art.VII. Consequently,
there was no reason to
use in the third sentence
of Sec. 16, Article VII the
word "alone" after the
word "President" in
providing that Congress
may by law vest the
appointment of lower-
ranked officers in the
President alone, or in the
courts, or in the heads of
departments, because
the power to appoint
officers whom he (the
president) may be
authorized by law to
appoint is already vested
in the President, without
need of confirmation by
the Commission on
Appointments, in the
second sentence of the
same Sec. 16, Article
VII." (emphasis supplied)
Next came Mary Concepcion Bautista
v. Salonga, 3 this time involving the
appointment of the Chairman of the
Commission on Human Rights. Adhering
to the doctrine in Mison, the Court
explained:
. . . Since the position of
Chairman of the
Commission on Human
Rights is not among the
positions mentioned in
the first sentence of Sec.
16, Art. VII of the 1987
Constitution,
appointments to which
are to be made with the
confirmation of the
Commission on
Appointments, it follows
that the appointment by
the President of the
Chairman of the CHR is
to be made without the
review or participation of
the Commission on
Appointments. To be
more precise, the
appointment of the
Chairman and Members
of the Commission on
Human Rights is not
specifically provided for
in the Constitution itself,
unlike the Chairmen and
Members of the Civil
Service Commission, the
Commission on Elections
and the Commission on
Audit, whose
appointments are
expressly vested by the
Constitution in the
president with the
consent of the
Commission on
Appointments. The
president appoints the
Chairman and Members
of The Commission on
Human Rights pursuant
to the second sentence in
Section 16, Art. VII, that
is, without the
confirmation of the
Commission on
 Appointments because among the "other officers thereto, or provides in an
they are among the whose appointments are unconstitutional manner for such
officers of government vested in the President in appointments, the officers are
"whom he (the President) this Constitution," considered as among those whose
may be authorized by law referred to in the first appointments are not otherwise provided
to appoint." And Section sentence of Section 16, for by law.
2(c), Executive Order No. Art. VII whose
163, 5 May 1987, appointments are subject Sometime in March 1989, RA 6715
authorizes the President to confirmation by the (Herrera-Veloso Law), amending the
to appoint the Chairman Commission on Labor Code (PD 442) was approved. It
and Members of the Appointments. provides in Section 13 thereof as follows:
Commission on Human
Rights. From the three (3) cases above- xxx xxx xxx
mentioned, these doctrines are
Consistent with its rulings deducible: The Chairman, the
in Mison and Bautista, in Teresita Division Presiding
Quintos Deles, et al. v. The Commission 1. Confirmation by the Commission on Commissioners and other
on Constitutional Commissions, et Appointments is required only for Commissioners shall all
al.,4 the power of confirmation of the presidential appointees mentioned in the be appointed by the
Commission on Appointments over first sentence of Section 16, Article VII, President, subject to
appointments by the President of including, those officers whose confirmation by the
sectoral representatives in Congress appointments are expressly vested by Commission on
was upheld because: the Constitution itself in the president Appointments.
(like sectoral representatives to Appointments to any
. . . Since the seats Congress and members of the vacancy shall come from
reserved for sectoral constitutional commissions of Audit, Civil the nominees of the
representatives in Service and Election). sector which nominated
paragraph 2, Section 5, the predecessor. The
Art. VI may be filled by 2. Confirmation is not required when the Executive Labor Arbiters
appointment by the President appoints other government and Labor Arbiters shall
President by express officers whose appointments are not also be appointed by the
provision of Section 7, otherwise provided for by law or those President, upon
Art. XVIII of the officers whom he may be authorized by recommendation of the
Constitution, it is law to appoint (like the Chairman and Secretary of Labor and
indubitable that sectoral Members of the Commission on Human Employment, and shall
representatives to the Rights). Also, as observed in Mison, be subject to the Civil
House of when Congress creates inferior offices Service Law, rules and
Representatives are but omits to provide for appointment regulations. 5
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. Petitioner claims that
the Mison and Bautista rulings are not
decisive of the issue in this case for in
the case at bar, the President issued
permanent appointments to the
respondents without submitting them to
the CA for confirmation despite passage
of a law (RA 6715) which requires the
confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments of such appointments.
The Solicitor General, on the other hand,
contends that RA 6715 which amended
the Labor Code transgressesSection 16,
Article VII by expanding the confirmation
powers of the Commission on
Appointments without constitutional
basis. Mison and Bautista laid the issue
to rest, says the Solicitor General, with
the following exposition:
As interpreted by this
Honorable Court in
the Mison case,
confirmation by the
Commission on
Appointments 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. With
respect to the other
officers 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.
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.
The original text of forces heads of
Section 16 of Article VII from the the
of the present rank of departme
Constitution as embodied captain or nt."
in Resolution No. 517 of command
the Constitutional er, and all Three points should be
Commission reads as other noted regarding sub-
follows: officers of section 3 of Section 10 of
the Article VII of the 1935
"The Governm Constitution and in the
President ent whose original text of Section 16
shall appointm of Article VII of the
nominate ents are present Constitution as
and, with not herein proposed in Resolution
the otherwise No. 517.
consent provided
of the for by law, First, in both of them, the
Commissi and those appointments of heads of
on on whom he bureaus were required to
Appointm may be be confirmed by the
ents, shall authorize Commission on
appoint d by law Appointments.
the heads to
of the appoint.
Second, in both of them,
executive The
the appointments of other
departme Congress
officers, "whose
nts and may by
appointments are not
bureaus, law vest
otherwise provided for by
ambassa the
law to appoint" are
dors, appointm
expressly made subject
other ent of
to confirmation by the
public inferior
Commission on
ministers officers in
Appointments. However,
and the
in the final version of
consuls, President
Resolution No. 517, as
or officers alone, in
embodied in Section 16
of the the courts
of Article VII of the
armed or in the
present Constitution, the
appointment of the above and appointment First, the
mentioned officers operates. This is only heads of
(heads of bureaus; other true of the first group the
officers whose enumerated in Section executive
appointments are not 16, but the word departme
provided for by law; and nominate does not any nts,
those whom he may be more appear in the 2nd ambassa
authorized by law to and 3rd sentences. dors,
appoint) are excluded Therefore, the president's other
from the list of those appointment pursuant to public
officers whose the 2nd and 3rd ministers
appointments are to be sentences needs no and
confirmed by the confirmation. 6 consuls,
Commission on officers of
Appointments. This The only issue to be resolved by the the armed
amendment, reflected in Court in the present case is whether or forces
Section 16 of Article VII not Congress may, by law, require from the
of the Constitution, confirmation by the Commission on rank of
clearly shows the intent Appointments of appointments extended colonel or
of the framers to exclude by the president to government naval
such appointments from officers additional to those expressly captain,
the requirement of mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. and other
confirmation by the 16, Art. VII of the Constitution whose officers
Commission on appointments require confirmation by the whose
Appointments. Commission on Appointments. appointm
ents are
Third, under the 1935 To resolve the issue, we go back vested in
Constitution the word to Mison where the Court stated: him in this
"nominate" qualifies the Constituti
entire Subsection 3 of on;
. . . there are four (4)
Section 10 of Article VII groups of officers whom
thereof. the President shall Second,
appoint. These four (4) all other
Respondent reiterates groups, to which we will officers of
that if confirmation is hereafter refer from time the
required, the three (3) to time, are: Governm
stage process of ent whose
nomination, confirmation appointm
 ents are These were (1) the respondents Chairman and Members of
not exclusion of the the National Labor Relations
otherwise appointments of heads of Commission, it is unconstitutional
provided bureaus from the because:
for by law; requirement of
confirmation by the 1) it amends by legislation, the first
Third, Commission on sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII of the
those Appointments; and (2) Constitution by adding thereto
whom the the exclusion of appointments requiring confirmation by
president appointments made the Commission on Appointments; and
may be under the second
authorize sentence of the section 2) it amends by legislation the second
d by law from the same sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII of the
to requirement. . . . Constitution, by imposing the
appoint; confirmation of the Commission on
The second sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII Appointments on appointments which
Fourth, refers to all other officers of the are otherwise entrusted only with the
officers government whose appointments are not President.
lower in otherwise provided for by law and those
rank whom the President may be authorized Deciding on what laws to pass is a
whose by law to appoint. legislative prerogative. Determining their
appointm constitutionality is a judicial function. The
ents the Indubitably, the NLRC Chairman and Court respects the laudable intention of
Congress Commissioners fall within the second the legislature. Regretfully, however, the
may by sentence of Section 16, Article VII of the constitutional infirmity of Sec. 13 of RA
law vest Constitution, more specifically under the 6715 amending Art. 215 of the Labor
in the "third groups" of appointees referred to Code, insofar as it requires confirmation
President in Mison, i.e. those whom the President of the Commission on Appointments
alone. 7 may be authorized by law to appoint. over appointments of the Chairman and
Undeniably, the Chairman and Members Member of the National Labor Relations
Mison also opined: of the NLRC are not among the officers Commission (NLRC) is, as we see it,
mentioned in the first sentence of beyond redemption if we are to render
In the course of the Section 16, Article VII whose fealty to the mandate of the Constitution
debates on the text of appointments requires confirmation by in Sec. 16, Art. VII thereof.
Section 16, there were the Commission on Appointments. To
two (2) major changes the extent that RA 6715 requires Supreme Court decisions applying or
proposed and approved confirmation by the Commission on interpreting the Constitution shall form
by the Commission. Appointments of the appointments of part of the legal system of the
Philippines.8 No doctrine or principle of By legislative fiat as was
law laid down by the Court in a decision enunciated in Section 13, before its
rendered en banc or in division may be Republic Act No. 590, passage,
modified or reversed except by the Court Congress says that so as to
sitting en banc.9 taxing the salary of a give it any
judicial officer is not a binding
. . . The interpretation decrease of weight
upon a law by this Court compensation. This is a with the
constitutes, in a way, a clear example of courts. A
part of the law as of the interpretation or legislative
date that law was ascertainment of the definition
originally passed, since meaning of the phrase of a word
this Court's construction "which shall not be as used in
merely establishes the diminished during their a statute
contemporaneous continuance in office," is not
legislative intent that the found in Section 9, Article conclusiv
law thus construed VIII of the Constitution, e of its
intends to effectuate. The referring to the salaries of meaning
settled rule supported by judicial officers. as used
numerous authorities is a elsewhere
restatement of the legal xxx xxx xx ;
maxim "legis interpretado x otherwise,
legis vim obtinent" — the the
interpretation placed The rule legislature
upon the written law by a is would be
competent court has the recognize usurping
force of law. 10 d a judicial
elsewhere function in
The rulings in Mison, that the defining a
Bautista and Quintos-Deles have legislature term. (11
interpreted Art. VII, Sec. 16 consistently cannot Am. Jur.,
in one manner. Can legislation expand a pass any 914,
constitutional provision after the declarator emphasis
Supreme Court has interpreted it? y act, or supplied).
act
In Endencia and Jugo vs. David, 11 the declarator The
Court held: y of what legislature
the law cannot,
 upon interpretation of the basic governing the separation
passing law, the Constitution, of powers. 14(Emphasis
law which which is not within the supplied)
violates a sphere of the Legislative
constitutio department. If the Congress, of course, must interpret the
nal Legislature may declare Constitution, must estimate the scope of
provision, what a law means, or its constitutional powers when it sets out
validate it what a specific portion of to enact legislation and it must take into
so as to the Constitution means, account the relevant constitutional
prevent especially after the courts prohibitions. 15
an attack have in actual case
thereon in ascertained its meaning . . . The Constitution did
the by interpretation and not change with public
courts, by applied it in a decision, opinion.
a this would surely cause
declaratio confusion and
It is not only the same
n that it instability in judicial
words, but the same in
shall be processes and court
meaning . . . and as long
so decisions. Under such a
as it it speaks not only in
construed system, a final court
the same words, but with
as not to determination of a case
the same meaning and
violate the based on a judicial
intent with which it spoke
constitutio interpretation of the law
when it came from the
nal or of the Constitution may
hands of its framers, and
inhibition. be undermined or even
was voted and adopted
(11 Am., annulled by a subsequent
by the people . . . 16
Jur., 919, and different
emphasis interpretation of the law
supplied). or of the Constitution by The function of the Court in passing
the Legislative upon an act of Congress is to "lay the
department that would be article of the Constitution which is
We have already said
neither wise nor invoked beside the statute which is
that the Legislature under
desirable, being clearly challenged and to decide whether the
our form of government is
violative of the latter squares with the former" and to
assigned the task and the
fundamental principles of "announce its considered judgment upon
power to make and enact
our constitutional system the question." 17
laws, but not to interpret
them. This is more true of government,
with regard to the particularly those
It can not be overlooked that Sec. 16, appointments, embodied in Sec. 16, Art.
Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution was VII of the 1987 Constitution, has
deliberately, not unconsciously, intended undoubtedly evoked the displeasure and
by the framers of the 1987 Constitution disapproval of members of Congress.
to be a departure from the system The solution to the apparent problem, if
embodied in the 1935 Constitution where indeed a problem, is not judicial or
the Commission on Appointments legislative but constitutional. A future
exercised the power of confirmation over constitutional convention or Congress
almost all presidential appointments, sitting as a constituent (constitutional)
leading to many cases of abuse of such assembly may then consider either a
power of confirmation. Subsection 3, return to the 1935 Constitutional
Section 10, Art. VII of the 1935 provisions or the adoption of a hybrid
Constitution provided: system between the 1935 and 1987
constitutional provisions. Until then, it is
3. The President shall the duty of the Court to apply the 1987
nominate and with the Constitution in accordance with what it
consent of the says and not in accordance with how the
Commission on legislature or the executive would want it
Appointments, shall interpreted.
appoint the heads of the
executive departments WHEREFORE, the petition is
and bureaus, officers of DISMISSED. Art. 215 of the Labor Code
the Army from the rank of as amended by RA 6715 insofar as it
colonel, of the Navy and requires the confirmation of the
Air Forces from the rank Commission on Appointments of
of captain or commander, appointments of the Chairman and
and all other officers of Members of the National Labor Relations
the Government whose Commission (NLRC) is hereby declared
appointments are not unconstitutional and of no legal force and
herein otherwise effect.
provided for, and those
whom he may be SO ORDERED.
authorized by law to
appoint; . . .

The deliberate limitation on the power of

confirmation of the Commission on
Appointments over presidential