7/28/2019 Bautista Digest

1/2

Mary Concepcion-Bautista vsCommission Appointments & Mallillin

Political Law

Appointments

CHROn 27 Aug 1987, Cory designated Bautista as the Acting Chairwoman of CHR. In December

of the same year, Cory made the designation of Bautista permanent. The

CoA, ignoring the decision in the Mison case, averred that Bautista cannot take

her seat w/o their confirmation. Cory, through the Exec Sec, filed with the

CoA communications about Bautistasappointment on 14 Jan 1989. Bautista refused to be

placed under the CoAs review hence she filed a petition before the SC. On the other hand,

Mallillin invoked EO 163-A stating that since CoA refused Bautistas appointment, Bautista

should be removed. EO 163-A provides that the tenure of the Chairman and theCommissioners of the CHR should be at the pleasureof the President.

ISSUE: Whether or not Bautistas appointment is subject to CoAs confirmation.

HELD: Since the position of Chairman of the CHR is not among the positions mentioned in

the first sentence of Sec. 16, Art. 7 of the 1987 Constitution, appointments to which are to

be made with the confirmation of the CoA 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 CoA.

To be more precise, the appointment of the Chairman and Members of the CHR is not

specifically provided for in theConstitution itself, unlike the Chairmen and Members of theCSC, the CoE and the COA, whose appointments are expressly vested by the Constitution in

the President with the consent of the CoA. The President appoints the Chairman and

Members of the CHR pursuant to the second sentence in Sec 16, Art. 7, that is, without the

confirmation of the CoA because they are among the officers of governmentwhom he (the

President) may be authorized by law to appoint. And Sec 2(c), EO 163 authorizes the

President to appoint the Chairman and Members of the CHR.

Because of the fact that the president submitted to the CoA on 14 Jan 1989

the appointment of Bautista, the CoA argued that the president though she has the soleprerogative to make CHR appointments may from time to time ask confirmation with the

CoA. This is untenable according to the SC. The Constitution has blocked off

certain appointments for the President to make with the participation of the Commission

on Appointments, so also has the Constitution mandated that the President can confer no

power of participation in the Commission on Appointments over

7/28/2019 Bautista Digest

2/2

other appointments exclusively reserved for her by the Constitution.

The exercise ofpolitical options that finds no support in the Constitution cannot be

sustained. Further, EVEN IF THE PRESIDENT MAY VOLUNTARILY SUBMIT TO THE

COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTSAN APPOINTMENT THAT UNDER

THE CONSTITUTION SOLELY BELONGS TO HER, STILL, THERE WAS NO VACANCYTO

WHICH AN APPOINTMENT COULD BE MADE ON 14 JANUARY1989. There can be no ad

interim appointments in the CHR for the appointment thereto is not subject to CoAs

confirmation. Appointments to the CHr is always permanent in nature.

The provisions of EO 163-A is unconstitutional and cannot be invoked by Mallillin. The

Chairman and the Commissioners of the CHR cannot be removed at the pleasure of the

president for it is constitutionally guaranteed that they must have a term of office.

Occena vs. Commission on Elections case digest (Consti-1)