ULPIANO P. SARMIENTO III AND JUANITO G. ARCILLA vs.

SALVADOR MISON, AND GUILLERMO CARAGUE

G.R. No. 79974 (December 17, 1987)
J. Padilla

Except for those officers whose appointments require the consent of the Commission on Appointments by
express mandate of the first sentence in Sec. 16, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution, appointments of other officers
are left to the President without need of confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

Facts:

 This is a petition for prohibition filed by Sarmiento and Arcilla, who are taxpayers, lawyers, members of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and professors of Constitutional Law.
 Mison was appointed as the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs by President Corazon Aquino.
 Sarmiento and Arcilla are assailing Mison’s appointment stating that the said appointment is not valid
since it was not submitted to the Commission on Appointment for approval further arguing that under
the constitution the appointments made for Heads of Bureaus need confirmation from the COA.
 Guillermo Carague, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Budget, was also impleaded for
effecting disbursements in payment of Mison's salaries and emoluments, on the ground that Mison's
appointment as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs is unconstitutional.
Issue:

Whether or not the appointment of Mison as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs is valid.

Ruling:

YES. In the 1987 Constitution 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, Article 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.

Moreover, the President is expressly authorized by law to appoint the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Customs under RA 1937 and PD 34.

After the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, Rep. Act No. 1937 and PD No. 34 have to be read in harmony
with Sec. 16, Art. VII, with the result that, while the appointment of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs
is one that devolves on the President, as an appointment he is authorized by law to make, such appointment,
however, no longer needs the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments.
 CANDIDO B. LOPEZ vs. JOSE DE LOS REYES
G.R. NO. L-34361 (November 5, 1930)
J. Malcolm

This is a case at a time where the Philippines was under American rule, and follows the laws of the United
States. This sets forth the question “what is a constitution?“ Key points are noted in the concurring and dissenting
opinion of J. Villamor and J. Ostrand.

Facts:

 This is an application for the writ of habeas corpus to relieve the petitioner from restraint of his liberty,
by a ranking officer of the Constabulary, under a warrant of arrest issued by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, pursuant to resolutions of the House finding the petitioner guilty of contempt.
 On October 23, 1929, Candido Lopez attacked and assaulted, without any justification, Jose D. Dimayuga,
who was a member of the House of Representatives (HOR), while Dimayuga was going to the hall of the
House of Representative to attend to the sessions which were then about to begin.
 As a result, Dimayuga was unable to attend the sessions on that day and those of the next two days, by
reason of the threats which Mr. Candido Lopez made against Dimayuga. A warrant of arrest was issued
against Lopez for contempt by the Speaker of the HOR.
 A warrant of arrest issued on November 6, 1929 but was not served to Lopez; the House adjourned that
session, at midnight on November 8, 1929, without the order of arrest being served. A new warrant of
arrest was issued on the following year, on September 17, 1930, which is the contest of this petition.
 A petition for the writ of habeas corpus was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila, but was
subsequently denied and remanded Lopez to be in custody in compliance to the order of the HOR.

Issue:

Whether or not the House of Representatives has power to order the imprisonment of persons guilty of
contempt against it.

Ruling:

NO. As the Philippines follows the laws of the United States, the Philippine Legislature has practically the
same powers with the US Congress. The court agrees that there is a necessity for the Philippine Legislature to
possess the power to punish for contempt as there is for the Houses in the Congress of the United States and the
Houses in the State Legislatures to possess this power. However, such power terminates with the adjournment of
the session of the body in which the contempt occurred. Denying this petition would be tantamount to granting
more power to the PH HOR than what is allowed to be given the US Congress by virtue of the US laws. Thus, the
petition is granted and Lopez was discharged from custody.

Key Addition: Please read the concurring and dissenting opinion of JJ. Villamor and Ostrand.