Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. NO. L-69137 August 5, 1986FELIMON LUEGO, petitioner-appellant, vs.CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION !" FELICULA TUO#O, respondents-appellees.Jose Batiquin for petitioner-appellant.Fausto F. Tugade for private respondent-appellee. CRU#, J.:Stripped of irrelevant details and impertinent incidents that have cluttered the voluminous record, the facts of this case ma be briefl narrated as follo!s"#he petitioner !as appointed Administrative $fficer %%, $ffice of the Cit Maor, Cebu Cit, b Maor &lorentino Solon on &ebruar %', %('). 1 #he appointment !as described as permanent* but the Civil Service Commission approved it as *temporar,* sub+ect to the final action ta,en in the protest filed bthe private respondent and another emploee, and provided *there -!as. no pendin/ administrative case a/ainst the appointee, no pendin/ protest a/ainst the appointment nor an decision b competent authorit that !ill adversel affect the approval of the appointment.* $ $n March 00, %('1, after protracted hearin/s the le/alit of !hich does not have to be decided here, the Civil Service Commission found the private respondent better 2ualified than the petitioner for the contested position and, accordin/l, directed *that &elicula #uo3o be appointed to the position of Administrative $fficer %% in the Administrative 4ivision, Cebu Cit, in place of &elimon 5ue/o !hose appointment as Administrative $fficer 66 is hereb revo,ed.* 3 #he private respondent !as so appointed on 7une 0', %('1, b the ne! maor, Maor Ronald 4uterte. % #he petitioner, invo,in/ his earlier permanent appointment, is no! before us to 2uestion that order and the private respondent8s title.#he issue is star,l simple" 6s the Civil Service Commission authori3ed to disapprove a permanent appointment on the /round that another person is better 2ualified than the appointee and, on the basis of this findin/, order his replacement b the latter9#he Solicitor :eneral, rather than face the 2uestion s2uarel, sas the petitioner could be validl replaced in the instant case because his appointment !as temporar and therefore could be !ithdra!n at !ill, !ith or !ithout cause. ;avin/ accepted such an appointment, it is ar/ued, the petitioner !aived his securit of tenure and conse2uentl ran the ris, of an abrupt separation from hisoffice !ithout violation of the Constitution. 5* did not chan/e the character of the appointment, !hich !as clearl described as *Permanent* in the space provided for in Civil Service &orm No. )), dated &ebruar %', %('). 7 uire&ent of pa!&ent of the do0ket fee pursuant to 5e0+ 1 (0) of the 1((.Rules of Civil 4ro0edure+[11] Aggrieved, petitioner filed a otion for Re0onsideration,[1#] whi0h was, however, denied'! the CA in a Resolution[1"] dated %ove&'er 1(, #$$1+ 6en0e, herein petition, with petitioner raising the following errors 0o&&itted '! the CA,to wit1 i.THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELYERRED AND GROSSLYABUSED ITSDISCRETION IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF HEREIN PETITIONER PROVINCEOF CAMARINES SUR ANDINDENYINGITSMOTIONFOR RECONSIDERATIONSUCH DISMISSAL AND DENIAL BEING ENTIRELYNOT IN ACCORD ANDDIRECTLYINCONTRAVENTIONWITHTHE APPLICABLEDECISIONSOF THESUPREMECOURTINTHEINSTANTCASE, CONSIDERINGTHEATTENDANTCIRCUMSTANCESHEREINWHICHJUSTIFYTHELIBERALINTERPRETATIONAND APPLICATION OF THE RULES OF COURT. ii.THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OFHEREIN PETITIONERPROVINCE OF CAMARINESSUR SINCE SAID APPEAL ISEXCEPTIONALLY MERITORIOUS AS THE APPEALEDDECISIONCOMPLETELYDEPARTED FROM THE APPLICABLE RULES AND DULY ESTABLISHEDJURISPRUDENCE IN THE DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION INEXPROPRIATIONCASESANDINSTEADTHEJUDGEINTHELOWERCOURTUSEDHIS OWNPERSONALVIEWANDBELIEFINCOMINGUPWITHTHEVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AS TO URGENTLY REQUIRE THE EXERCISE OFTHE POWER OF JUDICIAL INTERVENTION AND SUPERVISION BY THE COURTOF APPEALS. iii.THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DENIEDTHEMOTIONFORRECONSIDERATIONFILEDBYHEREINPETITIONERANDAFFIRMED ITS RESOLUTION DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF HEREINPETITIONER PROVINCE BY CITING ONE CASE WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE INTHIS INSTANT CASE AND CITING ANOTHER WHICH IS, IN FACT, SUPPORT OFTHE APPEAL OF HEREIN PETITIONER.[14] At the 0ru3 of the 0ontrovers! is a deter&ination of the propriet! of the CA=s resolutiondis&issing petitioner=s appeal for failure to pa! the do0ket fees+ :n its otion forRe0onsideration[15] 'efore the CA, petitioner argued that its failure to pa! the do0ket fees wasdue to the honest inadverten0e and e30usa'le negligen0e of its for&er 0ounsel, Att!+ ,i0tor @+R+Catangui, to wit1 3 3 3 3 1+/he failure of the for&er 0ounsel of herein 4laintiff)Appellant 4rovin0e ofCa&arines 5ur (the late Att!+ ,i0tor @+R+ Catangui) to pa! or 0aused to 'e paid the appellate0ourt do0ket fees was 0o&&itted through honest inadverten0e and e30usa'le negligen0e, sin0eduringtheti&ethat thenoti0eofappeal wasfiled, said0ounsel wasalread!havinghealthpro'le&s affe0tinghis heart that su'stantiall!distra0tedhi&fro&faithfull!perfor&inghisduties and fun0tions as 4rovin0ial Gegal Bffi0er, in0luding that as 0ounsel of herein 4laintiff)Appellant 4rovin0e of Ca&arines 5ur in the a'ove)entitled 0aseC #+/hatitwasthesa&eph!si0al0onditionthatfor0edhi&toresignas4rovin0ialGegal Bffi0er effe0tive uent transfer to a &u0h nearer offi0e in :riga Cit!, he nevertheless, sadto tell, une3pe0tedl! su00u&'ed on ar0h #, #$$1 at the age of 4.+ 3 3 3[1-] /his Court is not 0onvin0ed+ /i&e and ti&e again, this Court has 0onsistentl! held thatthe pa!&ent of do0ket fees within the pres0ri'ed period is &andator! for the perfe0tion of anappeal+ Aithout su0h pa!&ent, the appellate 0ourt does not a0>uire ?urisdi0tion over the su'?e0t&atter of the a0tion and the de0ision sought to 'e appealed fro& 'e0o&es final and e3e0utor!+[1.] Re0ords dis0lose that petitioner=s for&er 0ounsel Att!+ Catangui filed a %oti0e of Appealon uire&entsfor an appeal were 0o&plied with+ M. A. Santander Construction Inc. v. Villanueva[##] is instru0tive, thus1 I the istat case% 'etitioer receive( a co') o* the Decisio o* thetrial co+rt o March ,% -../& Accor(igl)% it ha(% '+rs+at to Sectio ,%!+le 0-% +til March -/% -../ withi which to 'er*ect its a''eal 1) 2ligwithi that 'erio( the $otice o* A''eal a( 'a)ig the a''ellate (oc3eta( other legal *ees& 4hile 'etitioer 2le( the $otice o* A''eal o March.% -../% or withi the reglemetar) 'erio(% however% it 'ai( the re5+ire((oc3et *ees ol) o $ovem1er -,% -../% or late 1) 6 moths a( 78 (a)s& The mere 2lig o* the $otice o* A''eal is ot eo+gh% *or it m+st 1eaccom'aie( 1) the 'a)met o* the correct a''ellate (oc3et *ees& (*0men$in.ull o.,oc:e$.ees)i$/in$/e+rescri1e,+erio,ism*n,*$or0. I$is*nessen$i*lre5uiremen$ )i$/ou$ )/ic/$/e,ecision*++e*le,.rom)oul,1ecome6n*l *n,e=ecu$or0 *s i. no*++e*l/*, 1een 6le,.F*ilure$o +er.ec$*n *++e*l )i$/in$/e+rescri1e, +erio, is no$ * mere $ec/nic*li$0 1u$ Huris,ic$ion*l *n, .*ilure $o +er.ec$*n *++e*l ren,ers $/e Hu,gmen$ 6n*l *n, e=ecu$or0. :n *uevarra vs+ Court of Appeals, where the do0ket fees were not paid in full within thepres0ri'ed period of fifteen (15) da!s 'ut were paid fort!)one (41) da!s late due toHinadverten0e, oversight, andpressureofwork,Hweheldthat theCourtof Appeals0orre0tl!dis&issed the appeal+ :n Gee vs+ Repu'li0 of the 4hilippines, where half of the appellate do0ketfee was paid withinthepres0ri'edperiod,while the other half was tendered after the periodwithin whi0h pa!&ent should have 'een &ade, we ruled that no appeal was perfe0ted+ Clearl!,where the appellate do0ket fee is not paid in full within the regle&entar! period, the de0ision ofthe trial 0ourt 'e0o&es final and no longer sus0epti'le to an appeal+ 9or on0e a de0ision 'e0o&esfinal, the appellate 0ourt is without ?urisdi0tion to entertain the appeal+[#"] Aithal, it 'ears to stress that Appeal is not a 0onstitutional right, 'ut a &ere statutor!privilege+ :t &ust 'e e3er0ised stri0tl! in a00ordan0e with the provisions of the law and rules+5pe0ifi0all!, the pa!&ent of do0ket fees within the period for perfe0ting an appeal is &andator!+:n the present 0ase, petitioner has not given suffi0ient reason wh! it should 'e e3e&pt fro& thisstringent rule+ WHEREFORE, pre&ises 0onsidered, the petition is DENIED+ /he Resolutions of theCourt of Appeals, dated a! "1, #$$1 and %ove&'er 1(, #$$1, in CA)*+R+ C, %o+ -(."5,are AFFIRMED+ SO ORDERED+Provice o* Camaries S+r vs CAMa) -6% -..,F#C&S'S*ngguni*ng (*nl*l*)ig*n FS(G o. C*m Sur +*sse, Res. 39 *u$/ori #o sustain the Court of Appeals !ould mean that the local /overnment units can no lon/ere?propriate a/ricultural lands needed for the construction of roads, brid/es, schools, hospitals, etc.,!ithout first applin/ for conversion of the use of the lands !ith the 4epartment of A/rarian Reform,because all of these pro+ects !ould naturall involve a chan/e in the land use. 6n effect, it !ould thenbe the 4epartment of A/rarian Reform to scrutini3e !hether the e?propriation is for a public purposeor public use.Rt2'> uent assu&ption ofoffi0e to the sa&e positions violate the prohi'ition on reappoint&ent under 5e0tion 1 (#), Arti0le :M)C of theConstitutionC 4+ Ahether or not Benipa!o=sre&oval of petitioner fro&her positionas@ire0tor :,of the2:@andherreassign&ent to the Gaw @epart&ent is illegal and without authorit!, having 'een done without the approvalof the CB2G2C as a 0ollegial 'od!C5+AhetherornottheBffi0er)in)ChargeoftheCB2G2C=s9inan0e5ervi0es@epart&ent, in0ontinuingto&ake dis'urse&ents in favor of Benipa!o, Borra, /uason and Cin0o, is a0ting in e30ess of ?urisdi0tion+First Issue:Propriety of Judicial ReviewRespondents assert that the petition fails to satisf! all the four re>uisites 'efore this Court &a! e3er0ise itspower of ?udi0ial review in 0onstitutional 0ases+But of respe0t for the a0ts of the 23e0utive depart&ent, whi0his 0o)e>ual with this Court, respondents urge this Court to refrain fro& reviewing the 0onstitutionalit! of the adinterim appoint&ents issued '! the 4resident to Benipa!o, Borra and /uason unless all the four re>uisites arepresent+/hese are1 (1) the e3isten0e of an a0tual and appropriate 0ontrovers!C (#) a personal and su'stantialinterest of the part! raising the 0onstitutional issueC (") the e3er0ise of the ?udi0ial review is pleaded at theearliest opportunit!C and (4) the 0onstitutional issue is the lis mota of the 0ase+[1(]Respondents argue that the se0ond, thirdandfourthre>uisites are a'sent inthis 0ase+Respondents&aintainthat petitioner doesnot haveapersonal andsu'stantial interest inthe0ase'e0auseshehasnotsustained a dire0t in?ur! as a result of the ad interim appoint&ents of Benipa!o, Borra and /uason and theirassu&ption of offi0e+Respondents point out that petitioner does not 0lai& to 'e lawfull! entitled to an! of thepositions assu&ed '! Benipa!o, Borra or /uason+%either does petitioner 0lai& to 'e dire0tl! in?ured '! theappoint&ents of these three respondents+Respondents also 0ontend that petitioner failed to >uestion the 0onstitutionalit! of the adinterim appoint&ents at the earliest opportunit!+4etitioner filed the petition onl! on August ", #$$1 despite thefa0t that the adinterim appoint&ents of Benipa!o, Borraand/uasonwereissuedas earl!as ar0h##,#$$1+oreover, the petition was filed after the third ti&e that these three respondents were issuedadinterim appoint&ents+Respondents insist that the real issue in this 0ase is the legalit! of petitioner=s reassign&ent fro& the 2:@ tothe Gaw @epart&ent+Conse>uentl!, the 0onstitutionalit! of the ad interim appoint&ents is not the lis mota ofthis 0ase+Ae are not persuaded+Benipa!oreassignedpetitionerfro&the2:@, whereshewas A0ting@ire0tor,totheGaw@epart&ent,whereshewaspla0edondetailservi0e+[#$] Respondents0lai&thatthereassign&entwas;pursuanttoxxxBenipayos authority as Chairmanof the Commissiononlections, and as the Commissions Chiefxecutive!fficer.uisite locusstandi to raise the 0onstitutional issue in this petition+Respondents harp on petitioner=s 'elated a0t of >uestioning the 0onstitutionalit! of the adinterim appoint&ents of Benipa!o, Borra and /uason+4etitioner filed the instant petition onl! on August ",#$$1, when the first ad interim appoint&ents were issued as earl! as ar0h ##, #$$1+ 6owever, it is not thedate of filingof the petitionthat deter&ines whether the 0onstitutional issue was raisedat the earliestopportunit!+ /heearliest opportunit!toraisea0onstitutional issueistoraiseit inthepleadings'eforea0o&petent 0ourt that 0an resolve the sa&e, su0h that, Iif it is not raised in the pleadings, it 0annot 'e 0onsideredat the trial, and, if not 0onsidered at the trial, it 0annot 'e 0onsidered on appeal+J[##] 4etitioner >uestioned the0onstitutionalit!ofthe adinterim appoint&entsofBenipa!o, Borraand /uasonwhenshefiledherpetition'eforethis Court,whi0histhe earliestopportunit!forpleadingthe 0onstitutionalissue'efore a 0o&petent'od!+9urther&ore, this Court &a! deter&ine, in the e3er0ise of sound dis0retion, the ti&e when a0onstitutional issue &a! 'e passed upon+[#"] /here is no dou't petitioner raised the 0onstitutional issue on ti&e+oreover, the legalit!of petitioner=s reassign&ent hinges onthe 0onstitutionalit!of Benipa!o=s adinterim appoint&ent and assu&ption of offi0e+Fnless the 0onstitutionalit! of Benipa!o=s adinterimappoint&ent and assu&ption of offi0e is resolved, the legalit! of petitioner=s reassign&ent fro& the 2:@to the Gaw @epart&ent 0annot 'e deter&ined+Clearl!, the lis mota of this 0ase is the ver! 0onstitutional issueraised '! petitioner+:n an! event, the issue raised '! petitioner is of para&ount i&portan0e to the pu'li0+ /he legalit! of thedire0tives and de0isions &ade '! the CB2G2C in the 0ondu0t of the a! 14, #$$1 national ele0tions &a! 'eput in dou't if the 0onstitutional issue raised '! petitioner is left unresolved+ :n keeping with this Court=s dut!to deter&ine whether other agen0ies of govern&ent have re&ained within the li&its of the Constitution andhave not a'used the dis0retion given the&, this Court &a! even 'rush aside te0hni0alities of pro0edure andresolve an! 0onstitutional issue raised+[#4] 6ere the petitioner has 0o&plied with all the re>uisite te0hni0alities+oreover, pu'li0 interest re>uires the resolution of the 0onstitutional issue raised '! petitioner+"econd Issue:#he $ature of an %d Interim %ppointment4etitionerarguesthat an adinterim appoint&ent totheCB2G2Cisate&porar!appoint&ent that isprohi'ited '! 5e0tion 1 (#), Arti0le :M)C of the Constitution, whi0h provides as follows1/he Chair&an and the Co&&issioners shall 'e appointed '! the 4resident with the 0onsent of the Co&&ission on Appoint&ents for a ter& of seven !ears without reappoint&ent+Bf those first appointed, three e&'ers shall hold offi0e for seven !ears, two e&'ers for five !ears, and the last e&'ers for three !ears, without reappoint&ent+Appoint&ent to an! va0an0! shall 'e onl! for the une3pired ter& of the prede0essor+ In no case shall any &em'er 'e appointed or desi(nated in a temporary or actin( capacity+J(2&phasis supplied)4etitioner posits the view that an ad interim appoint&ent 0an 'e withdrawn or revoked '! the 4resident at herpleasure, and0aneven'edisapprovedorsi&pl!'!)passed'!theCo&&issionon Appoint&ents+9orthisreason, petitioner 0lai&s that an ad interim appoint&ent is te&porar! in 0hara0ter and 0onse>uentl! prohi'ited'! the last senten0e of 5e0tion 1 (#), Arti0le :M)C of the Constitution+Based on petitioner=s theor!, there 0an 'e no ad interim appoint&ent to the CB2G2C or to the other two0onstitutional 0o&&issions, na&el!theCivil 5ervi0eCo&&issionandtheCo&&issionon Audit+/helastsenten0eof5e0tion1(#),Arti0le:M)CoftheConstitutionisalsofoundin Arti0le:M)Band Arti0le:M)@providing for the 0reation of the Civil 5ervi0e Co&&ission and the Co&&ission on Audit,respe0tivel!+ 4etitioner interprets thelast senten0eof 5e0tion1(#) of Arti0le:M)Cto&eanthat the adinterim appointee 0annot assu&e offi0e until his appoint&ent is 0onfir&ed '! the Co&&ission on Appoint&entsfor onl! then does his appoint&ent 'e0o&e per&anent and no longer te&porar! in 0hara0ter+/he rationale 'ehind petitioner=s theor! is that onl! an appointee who is 0onfir&ed '! the Co&&ission onAppoint&ents 0anguarantee the independen0e of the CB2G2C+ A0onfir&edappointee is 'e!ondtheinfluen0e of the 4resident or &e&'ers of the Co&&ission on Appoint&ents sin0e his appoint&ent 0an no longer'e re0alled or disapproved+ 4rior to his 0onfir&ation, the appointee is at the &er0! of 'oth the appointing and0onfir&ingpowers sin0ehis appoint&ent 0an'eter&inatedat an!ti&efor an!0ause+ :nthewords ofpetitioner, a 5word of @a&o0les hangs over the head of ever! appointee whose 0onfir&ation is pending with theCo&&ission on Appoint&ents+Ae find petitioner=s argu&ent without &erit+An adinterim appoint&entisaper&anentappoint&ent'e0auseittakeseffe0ti&&ediatel!and0annolonger 'e withdrawn '! the 4resident on0e the appointee has >ualified into offi0e+ /he fa0t that it is su'?e0t to0onfir&ation'!theCo&&issionon Appoint&entsdoesnotalteritsper&anent 0hara0ter+/heConstitutionitself &akes an ad interim appoint&ent per&anent in 0hara0ter '! &aking it effe0tive until disapproved '! theCo&&ission on Appoint&ents or until the ne3t ad?ourn&ent of Congress+/he se0ond paragraph of 5e0tion 1-,Arti0le ,:: of the Constitution provides as follows1I/he 4resident shall have the power to &ake appoint&ents during the re0ess of the Congress, whether voluntar! or 0o&pulsor!, 'ut su0h appoint&ents shall 'e effective only until disapproval '! the Co&&ission on Appoint&ents or until the ne3t ad?ourn&ent of the Congress+J(2&phasis supplied)/hus, the ad interim appoint&ent re&ains effective until su0h disapproval or ne3t ad?ourn&ent, signif!ing thatit 0an no longer 'e withdrawn or revoked '! the 4resident+/he fear that the 4resident 0an withdraw or revokeat an! ti&e and for an! reason an ad interim appoint&ent is utterl! without 'asis+ore than half a 0entur! ago, this Court had alread! ruled that an ad interim appoint&ent is per&anent in0hara0ter+:n Summers vs. Ozaeta,[#5] de0ided on B0to'er #5, 1(4;, we held that1I3 3 3an ad interim appoint&ent is one &ade in pursuan0e of paragraph (4), 5e0tion 1$, Arti0le ,:: of the Constitution, whi0h provides that the N4resident shall have the power to &ake appoint&ents during the re0ess of the Congress, 'ut su0h appoint&ents shall 'e effe0tive onl! until disapproval '! the Co&&ission on Appoint&ents or until the ne3t ad?ourn&ent of the Congress+=It is an appointment permanent in nature, and the circumstance that it is su')ect to confirmation 'y the Commission on %ppointments does not alter its permanent character.An adinterim appoint&ent is disapproved 0ertainl! for a reason other than that its provisional period has e3pired+ 5aid appoint&ent is of 0ourse distinguisha'le fro& an Na0ting= appoint&ent whi0h is &erel! te&porar!, good until another per&anent appoint&ent is issued+J(2&phasis supplied)/heConstitutioni&posesno0onditionontheeffe0tivit!ofan adinterim appoint&ent, andthusan adinterim appoint&ent takes effe0t i&&ediatel!+ /he appointee 0an at on0e assu&e offi0e and e3er0ise, as a dejure offi0er, all the powers pertaining to the offi0e+:n Pacete vs. Secretary of te Commission on A!!ointments,[#-] this Court ela'orated on the nature of an ad interim appoint&ent as follows1IA distin0tion is thus &ade 'etween the e3er0ise of su0h presidential prerogative re>uiring 0onfir&ation '! the Co&&ission on Appoint&ents when Congress is in session and when it is in re0ess+ :n the for&er, the 4resident no&inates, and onl! upon the 0onsent of the Co&&ission on Appoint&ents &a! the person thus na&ed assu&e offi0e+ It is not so with reference to ad interim appointments*It ta+es effect at once* #he individual chosen may thus ,ualify and perform his function without loss of time*-is title to such office is complete.:n the language of the Constitution, the appoint&ent is effe0tive Nuntil disapproval '! the Co&&ission on Appoint&ents or until the ne3t ad?ourn&ent of the Congress+=J4etitioner 0ites Bla0k=s Gaw @i0tionar! whi0h defines the ter& Iad interimJ to &ean Iin the &eanti&eJ orIfortheti&e'eing+J 6en0e, petitionerarguesthat an adinterim appoint&ent isundou'tedl!te&porar!in0hara0ter+ /his argu&ent is not new and was answered '! this Court in Pamantasan n" #un"sod n" Maynila vs.Intermediate A!!ellate Court,[#.] where we e3plained that1I3 3 3 9ro& the argu&ents, it is eas! to see wh! the petitioner should e3perien0e diffi0ult! in understanding the situation+4rivate respondent had 'een e3tended several Nad interim= appoint&ents whi0h petitioner &istakenl! understands as appoint&ents te&porar! in nature+4erhaps, it is the literal translation of the word Nad interim= whi0h 0reates su0h 'elief+/he ter& is defined '! Bla0k to &ean Iin the &eanti&eJ or Ifor the ti&e 'eingJ+/hus, an offi0er ad interim is one appointed to fill a va0an0!, or to dis0harge the duties of the offi0e during the a'sen0e or te&porar! in0apa0it! of its regular in0u&'ent (Bla0k=s Gaw @i0tionar!, Revised 9ourth 2dition, 1(.;)+But su0h is not the &eaning nor the use intended in the 0onte3t of 4hilippine law+:n referring to @r+ 2ste'an=s appoint&ents, the ter& is not des0riptive of the nature of the appoint&ents given to hi&+Rather, it is used to denote the manner in which said appointments were made, that is, done 'y the President of the Pamantasan in the meantime, while the Board ofRe(ents, which is ori(inally vested 'y the .niversity Charter with the power of appointment, is una'le to act. 3 3 3+J(2&phasis supplied)/hus, the ter& Iad interim appoint&entJ, as used in letters of appoint&ent signed '! the 4resident, &eans aper&anent appoint&ent &ade '! the 4resident in the meantime that Con(ress is in recess.:t does not &ean ate&porar! appoint&ent that 0an 'e withdrawn or revoked at an! ti&e+/he ter&, although not found in the te3tof the Constitution, has a0>uired a definite legal &eaning under 4hilippine ?urispruden0e+/he Court had againo00asion to e3plain the nature of an ad interim appoint&ent in the &ore re0ent 0ase of Maroombsar vs. Courtof A!!eals,[#;] where the Court stated1IAe have alread! &entioned that an ad interim appoint&ent is not des0riptive of the nature of the appoint&ent, that is, it is not indi0ative of whether the appoint&ent is te&porar! or in an a0ting 0apa0it!, rather it denotes the &anner in whi0h the appoint&ent was &ade+:n the instant 0ase, the appoint&ent e3tended to private respondent '! then 5F 4resident Alonto, ualifiedintooffi0e+/hewithdrawal or revo0ation of an ad interim appoint&ent is possi'le onl! if it is 0o&&uni0ated to the appointee'efore the &o&ent he >ualifies, and an! withdrawal or revo0ation thereafter is tanta&ount to re&oval fro&offi0e+["$] Bn0e an appointee has >ualified, he a0>uires a legal right to the offi0e whi0h is prote0ted not onl! '!statute 'ut also '! the Constitution+6e 0an onl! 'e re&oved for 0ause, after noti0e and hearing, 0onsistent withthe re>uire&ents of due pro0ess+An ad interim appoint&ent 0an 'e ter&inated for two 0auses spe0ified in the Constitution+ /he first 0ause isthe disapproval of his ad interim appoint&ent '! the Co&&ission on Appoint&ents+/he se0ond 0ause is thead?ourn&ent ofCongresswithout theCo&&issionon Appoint&entsa0tingonhisappoint&ent+ /hesetwo0auses are resolutor! 0onditions e3pressl! i&posed '! the Constitution on all ad interim appoint&ents+/heseresolutor! 0onditions 0onstitute, in effe0t, a 5word of @a&o0les over the heads of ad interim appointees+%oone, however, 0an 0o&plain 'e0ause it is the Constitution itself that pla0es the 5word of @a&o0les over theheads of the ad interim appointees+Ahile an ad interim appoint&ent is per&anent and irrevo0a'le e30ept as provided '! law, an appoint&entor designation in a te&porar! or a0ting 0apa0it! 0an 'e withdrawn or revoked at the pleasure of the appointingpower+["1] A te&porar! or a0ting appointee does not en?o! an! se0urit! of tenure, no &atter how 'riefl!+/his isthekind of appoint&ent thattheConstitutionprohi'itsthe 4residentfro& &akingto thethreeindependent0onstitutional 0o&&issions, in0luding the CB2G2C+/hus, in $rillantes vs. %orac,["#] this Court stru0k downasun0onstitutionalthedesignation'!then4resident CoraLon A>uinoof Asso0iateCo&&issioner6a!deeOora0 as A0ting Chairperson of the CB2G2C+/his Court ruled that1IA designation as A0ting Chair&an is '! its ver! ter&s essentiall! te&porar! and therefore revo0a'le at will+ %o 0ause need 'e esta'lished to ?ustif! its revo0ation+Assu&ing its validit!, the designation of the respondent as A0ting Chair&an of the Co&&ission on 2le0tions &a! 'e withdrawn '! the 4resident of the 4hilippines at an! ti&e and for whatever reason she sees fit+:t is dou'tful if the respondent, having a00epted su0h designation, will not 'e estopped fro& 0hallenging its withdrawal+3 3 3/he Constitution provides for &an! safeguards to the independen0e of the Co&&ission on 2le0tions, fore&ost a&ong whi0h is the se0urit! of tenure of its &e&'ers+/hat guarantee is not availa'le to the respondent as A0ting Chair&an of the Co&&ission on 2le0tions '! designation of the 4resident of the 4hilippines+J2arlier, in &acionalista Party vs. $autista,[""] a 0ase de0ided under the 1("5 Constitution, whi0h did nothaveaprovisionprohi'itingte&porar!ora0tingappoint&entstotheCB2G2C, thisCourt neverthelessde0lared un0onstitutional the designation of the 5oli0itor *eneral as a0ting &e&'er of the CB2G2C+/hisCourt ruledthat the designation of ana0tingCo&&issioner wouldunder&ine the independen0e of theCB2G2C and hen0e violate the Constitution+Ae de0lared then1 I:t would 'e &ore in keeping with the intent,purpose and ai& of the fra&ers of the Constitution to appoint apermanent Co&&issioner than to designate oneto a0t te&poraril!+J (2&phasis supplied):n the instant 0ase, the 4resident did in fa0t appoint per&anent Co&&issioners to fill the va0an0ies in theCB2G2C, su'?e0t onl! to 0onfir&ation '! the Co&&ission on Appoint&ents+Benipa!o, Borra and /uasonwere e3tended per&anent appoint&ents during the re0ess of Congress+/he! were not appointed or designatedin a te&porar! or a0ting 0apa0it!, unlike Co&&issioner 6a!dee Oora0 in$rillantes vs. %orac["4] and 5oli0itor*eneral 9eli3 Bautista in &acionalista Party vs. $autista+["5] /he ad interim appoint&ents of Benipa!o, Borraand/uasonaree3pressl!allowed'!theConstitutionwhi0hauthoriLesthe4resident, duringthere0essofCongress, to &ake appoint&ents that take effe0t i&&ediatel!+Ahile the Constitution &andates that the CB2G2C Ishall 'e independentJ["-], this provision should 'ehar&oniLed with the 4resident=s power to e3tend ad interim appoint&ents+ /o hold that the independen0e of theCB2G2Cre>uires the Co&&ission onAppoint&ents tofirst 0onfir& adinterim appointees 'efore theappointees 0anassu&eoffi0ewill negatethe4resident=spower to&ake adinterim appoint&ents+/his is0ontrar! to the rule on statutor! 0onstru0tion to give &eaning and effe0t to ever! provision of the law+:t willalso run 0ounter to the 0lear intent of the fra&ers of the Constitution+/he original draft of 5e0tion 1-, Arti0le ,:: of the Constitution ) on the no&ination of offi0ers su'?e0t to0onfir&ation '! the Co&&ission on Appoint&ents ) did not provide for ad interim appoint&ents+/he originalintention of the fra&ers of the Constitution was to do awa! with ad interim appoint&ents 'e0ause the plan wasfor Congress to re&ain in session throughout the !ear e30ept for a 'rief "$)da! 0o&pulsor! re0ess+ 6owever,'e0auseoftheneedtoavoiddisruptionsinessential govern&ent servi0es, thefra&ersoftheConstitutionthought it wise to reinstate the provisions of the 1("5 Constitution onad interim appoint&ents+ /he followingdis0ussion during the deli'erations of the Constitutional Co&&ission elu0idates this1I9R+ B2R%A51 M 3 3 our 0o&pulsor! re0ess now is onl! "$ da!s+ 5o under su0h 0ir0u&stan0es, is it ne0essar! to provide for ad interim appoint&entsP4erhaps there should 'e a little dis0ussion on that+3 3 35+ AQF:%B1! 0on0ern is that unless this pro'le& is addressed, this mi(ht present pro'lems in terms of anticipatin( interruption of (overnment 'usiness, 0onsidering that we are not 0ertain of the length of involuntar! re0ess or ad?ourn&ent of the Congress+Ae are 0ertain, however, of theinvoluntar! ad?ourn&ent of the Congress whi0h is "$ da!s, 'ut we 0annot leave to 0on?e0ture the &atter of involuntar! re0ess+9R+ B2R%A51/hat is 0orre0t, 'ut we are tr!ing to look for a for&ula+ : wonder if the Co&&issioner has a for&ula 3 3 3+3 3 3R+ B2%*8B%1ada& 4resident, apropos of the &atter raised '! Co&&issioner A>uino and after 0onferring with the Co&&ittee, Co&&issioner A>uino and : propose the following a&end&ent as the last paragraph of 5e0tion 1-, the wordings of whi0h are in the 1("5 Constitution1/62 4R25:@2%/ 56AGG 6A,2 /62 4BA2R /B AK2 A44B:%/2%/5 @FR:%* /62 R2C255 B9 CB%*R255 A62/62R :/ B2 ,BGF%/ARO BR CB4FG5BRO BF/ 5FC6 A44B:%/2%/5 56AGG B2 2992C/:,2 B%GO F%/:G @:5A44RB,AG BO /62 CB:55:B% B% A44B:%/2%/5 BR F%/:G /62 %2M/ A@uentl! &ade '! the Constitutional Co&&ission to these fourfeatures+ 9irst, asdis0ussedearlier,thefra&ersoftheConstitutionde0idedtore>uire0onfir&ation'!theCo&&issiononAppoint&ents of all appoint&ents tothe0onstitutional 0o&&issions+5e0ond, thefra&ersde0ided to stren(then further theprohi'ition on serving'e!ondthe fi3edseven)!earter&, inthe light of afor&er0hairoftheCo&&issionon Audit re&aininginoffi0efor1#!earsdespitehisfi3edter&ofseven!ears+/he following e30hange in the deli'erations of the Constitutional Co&&ission is instru0tive1IR+ 5FAR281/hese are onl! 0larifi0ator! >uestions, ada& 4resident+a! : 0all the sponsor=s attention, first of all, to 5e0tion # (#) on the Civil 5ervi0e Co&&ission wherein it is stated1 I:n no 0ase shall an! e&'er 'e appointed in a te&porar! or a0ting 0apa0it!+J: dete0t in the Co&&ittee=s proposed resolutions a 0onstitutional hangover, if : &a! use the ter&, fro& the past ad&inistration+A& : 0orre0t in 0on0luding that the reason the Co&&ittee introdu0ed this parti0ular provision is to avoid an in0ident si&ilar to the 0ase of the 6onora'le 9ran0is0o /antui0o who was appointed in an a0ting 0apa0it! as Chair&an of the Co&&ission on Audit for a'out 5 !ears fro& 1(.5 until 1(;$, and then in 1(;$, was appointed as Chair&an with a tenure of another . !ears+5o, if we follow that appoint&ent to (its) logi0al 0on0lusion, he o00upied that position for a'out 1# !ears in violation of the ConstitutionPR+ 9B81:t is onl! one of the 0onsiderations+%nother is really to ma+e sure that any mem'er who is appointed to any of the commissions does not serve 'eyond 2 years+J[-$](2&phasis supplied)Co&&issioner Christian onsod further 0larified the prohi'ition on reappoint&ent in this &anner1HR+ B%5B@+:f the (Co&&issioner) will read the whole Arti0le, she will noti0e that there is no reappointment of any +ind and, therefore as a whole there is no wa! that so&e'od! 0an serve for &ore than seven !ears+ #he purpose of the last sentence is to ma+esure that this does not happen 'y includin( in the appointment 'oth temporary and actin( capacities+H[-1](2&phasis supplied)4lainl!,theprohi'itiononreappoint&ent isintendedtoinsurethat therewill 'enoreappoint&ent ofan!kind+Bntheother hand, theprohi'itiononte&porar!or a0tingappoint&ents isintendedtoprevent an!0ir0u&ventionof theprohi'itiononreappoint&ent that &a!result inanappointee=stotal ter&of offi0ee30eeding seven !ears+ /he evils sought to 'e avoided '! the twin prohi'itions are ver! spe0ifi0 ) reappoint&entof an! kind and e30eeding one=s ter& in offi0e 'e!ond the &a3i&u& period of seven !ears+%ot 0ontented with these iron0lad twin prohi'itions, the fra&ers of the Constitution tightened even furtherthe s0rews on those who &ight wish to e3tend their ter&s of offi0e+/hus, the word IdesignatedJ was insertedtoplugan!loopholethat &ight 'ee3ploited'!violatorsoftheConstitution, asshowninthefollowingdis0ussion in the Constitutional Co&&ission1IR+ @2 GB5 R2O251Bn line "#, 'etween the words IappointedJ and IinJ, : propose to insert the words BR @25:*%A/2@ so that the whole senten0e will read1 I:n no 0ase shall an! e&'er 'e appointed BR @25:*%A/2@ in a te&porar! or a0ting 0apa0it!+J/62 4R25:@:%* B99:C2R (r+ /renas)1Ahat does the Co&&ittee sa!PR+ 9B81But it 0hanges the &eaning of this senten0e+/he senten0e reads1 I:n no 0ase shall an! e&'er 'e appointed in a te&porar! or a0ting 0apa0it!+JR+ @2 GB5 R2O251r+ 4residing Bffi0er, the reason for this a&end&ent is that so&e law!ers &ake a distin0tion 'etween an appoint&ent and a designation+/he *entle&an will re0all that in the 0ase of Co&&issioner on Audit /antui0o, : think his ter& e30eeded the 0onstitutional li&it 'ut the inister of uent renewals of appoint&ents of Benipa!o, Borra and /uason donot violate the prohi'ition on reappoint&ents 'e0ause there were no previous appoint&ents that were 0onfir&ed'! the Co&&ission on Appoint&ents+A reappoint&ent presupposes a previous 0onfir&ed appoint&ent+/hesa&e adinterim appoint&entsandrenewalsofappoint&entswill alsonot 'rea0htheseven)!earter&li&it'e0ause all the appointments and renewals of appointments of Benipayo, Borra and #uason are for a fixedterm expirin( on Fe'ruary 3, 3445.[-"] An! dela! in their 0onfir&ation will not e3tend the e3pir! date of theirter&s of offi0e+ Conse>uentl!, there is no danger whatsoever that the renewal of the ad interim appoint&ents ofthese three respondents will result in an! of the evils intended to 'e e3or0ised '! the twin prohi'itions in theConstitution+ /he 0ontinuing renewal of the ad interim appoint&ent of these three respondents, for so long astheir ter&s of offi0e e3pire on 9e'ruar! #, #$$;, does not violate the prohi'ition on reappoint&ents in 5e0tion 1(#), Arti0le :M)C of the Constitution+Fourth Issue:Respondent Benipayos %uthority to Reassi(n Petitioner4etitioner 0lai&s that Benipa!o has no authorit! to re&ove her as @ire0tor :, of the 2:@ and reassign hertotheGaw@epart&ent+4etitionerfurtherarguesthat onl!theCB2G2C, a0tingasa0ollegial 'od!,0anauthoriLe su0h reassign&ent+oreover, petitioner &aintains that a reassign&ent without her 0onsent a&ountsto re&oval fro& offi0e without due pro0ess and therefore illegal+4etitioner=sposturingwill holdwaterifBenipa!odoesnot possessan!0oloroftitletotheoffi0eofChair&an of the CB2G2C+Ae have ruled, however, that Benipa!o is the de jure CB2G2C Chair&an, and0onse>uentl! he has full authorit! to e3er0ise all the powers of that offi0e for so long as his adinterimappoint&entre&ains effe0tive+ Fnder 5e0tion . (4), Chapter #, 5u'title C, Book , of the RevisedAd&inistrative Code, the Chair&an of the CB2G2C is vested with the following power1I5e0tion .+ Cairman as ,-ecutive Officer. Po/ers and *uties+ /he Chair&an, who shall 'e the Chief 23e0utive Bffi0er of the Co&&ission, shall13 3 3(4) &a+e temporary assi(nments, rotate and transfer personnel in a00ordan0e with the provisions of the Civil 5ervi0e Gaw+J(2&phasis supplied)/he Chair&an,as the Chief23e0utiveof the CB2G2C,ise3pressl! e&poweredon hisownauthorit!totransfer or reassign CB2G2C personnel in a00ordan0e with the Civil 5ervi0e Gaw+:n the e3er0ise of thispower, the Chair&an is not re>uired '! law to se0ure the approval of the CB2G2C en banc+4etitioner=sappoint&ent papers dated9e'ruar!#, 1(((, 9e'ruar!15, #$$$and9e'ruar!15, #$$1,atta0hed as Anne3es IMI, IOJ and I8J to her 4etition, indisputa'l! show that she held her @ire0tor :, positionin the 2:@ onl! in an actin( or temporary 0apa0it!+[-4] 4etitioner is not a Career 23e0utive 5ervi0e (C25) offi0er,and neither does she hold Career 23e0utive 5ervi0e 2ligi'ilit!, whi0h are ne0essar! >ualifi0ations for holdingthe position of @ire0tor :, as pres0ri'ed in the Qualifi0ations 5tandards (Revised 1(;.) issued '! the Civil5ervi0e Co&&ission+[-5] B'viousl!, petitioner does not en?o! se0urit! of tenure as @ire0tor :,+ :n Secretary of+ustice Serafin Cuevas vs. Atty. +osefina '. $acal,[--] this Court held that1IAs respondent does not have the rank appropriate for the position of Chief 4u'li0 Attorne!, her appoint&ent to that position 0annot 'e 0onsidered per&anent, and she 0an 0lai& no se0urit! of tenure in respe0t of that position+As held in Acacoso v. Macarai"1N:t is settled that a per&anent appoint&ent 0an 'e issued onl! Nto a person who &eets all the re>uire&ents for the position to whi0h he is 'eing appointed, in0luding the appropriate eligi'ilit! pres0ri'ed+= A0ha0oso did not+At 'est, therefore, his appoint&ent 0ould 'e regarded onl! as te&porar!+And 'eing so, it 0ould 'e withdrawn at will '! the appointing authorit! and Nat a &o&ent=s noti0e=, 0onfor&a'l! to esta'lished ?urispruden0e 3 3 3+/he &ere fa0t that a position 'elongs to the Career 5ervi0e does not auto&ati0all! 0onfer se0urit! of tenure on its o00upant even if he does not possess the re>uired >ualifi0ations+5u0h right will have to depend on the nature of his appoint&ent, whi0h in turn depends on his eligi'ilit! or la0k of it+A person who does not have the re>uisite >ualifi0ations for the position 0annot 'e appointed to itin the first pla0e, or as an e30eption to the rule, &a! 'e appointed to it &erel! in an a0ting 0apa0it! in the a'sen0e of appropriate eligi'les+/he appoint&ent e3tended to hi& 0annot 'e regarded as per&anent even if it &a! 'e so designated 3 3 3+=J6aving'eenappointed&erel!inate&porar!or a0ting0apa0it!, andnot possessedofthene0essar!>ualifi0ations to hold the position of @ire0tor :,, petitioner has no legal 'asis in 0lai&ing that her reassign&entwas 0ontrar! to the Civil 5ervi0e Gaw+/his ti&e, the vigorous argu&ent of petitioner that a te&porar! or a0tingappoint&ent 0an 'e withdrawn or revoked at the pleasure of the appointing power happens to appl! s>uarel! toher situation+5till, petitioner assails her reassign&ent, 0arried out during the ele0tion period, as a prohi'ited a0t under5e0tion #-1 (h) of the B&ni'us 2le0tion Code, whi0h provides as follows1I5e0tion #-1+4rohi'ited A0ts+ /he following shall 'e guilt! of an ele0tion offense13 3 3(h) /ransfer of offi0ers and e&plo!ees in the 0ivil servi0e ) An! pu'li0 offi0ial who &akes or 0auses an! transfer or detail whatever of an! offi0er or e&plo!ee in the 0ivil servi0e in0luding pu'li0 s0hool tea0hers, within the ele0tion period e30ept upon prior approval of the Co&&ission+J4etitioner 0lai&s that Benipa!o failed to se0ure the approval of the CB2G2C en banc to effe0t transfers orreassign&ents of CB2G2Cpersonnel duringthe ele0tionperiod+[-.] oreover, petitioner insists that theCB2G2C en banc &ust 0on0ur to ever! transfer or reassign&ent of CB2G2C personnel during the ele0tionperiod+ Contrar! to petitioner=s allegation, the CB2G2C did in fa0t issue CB2G2C Resolution %o+ ""$$ dated%ove&'er-, #$$$,[-;] e3e&ptingtheCB2G2Cfro&5e0tion#-1(h)oftheB&ni'us2le0tionCode+/heresolution states in part1IA62R2A5, 5e0+ 5- and 5e0+ #-1, paragraphs (g) and (h), of the B&ni'us 2le0tion Code providesas follows1 3 3 35e0+ #-1+ 4rohi'ited A0ts+/he following shall 'e guilt! of an ele0tion offense13 3 3(h) /ransfer of offi0ers and e&plo!ees in the 0ivil servi0e E An! pu'li0 offi0ial who &akes or 0auses an! transfer or detail whatever of an! offi0er or e&plo!ee in the 0ivil servi0e in0luding pu'li0 s0hool tea0hers, within the ele0tion period e30ept upon approval of the Co&&ission+A62R2A5, the afore>uoted provisions are appli0a'le to the national and lo0al ele0tions on a! 14, #$$1CA62R2A5, there is an urgent need to appoint, transfer or reassign personnel of the Co&&ission on 2le0tions during the prohi'ited period in order that it 0an 0arr! out its 0onstitutional dut! to 0ondu0t free, orderl!, honest, pea0eful and 0redi'le ele0tionsCI%BA, /62R29BR2, the Co&&ission on 2le0tions '! virtue of the powers 0onferred upon it '! the Constitution, the B&ni'us 2le0tion Code and other ele0tion laws, as an e30eption to the foregoing prohi'itions, has R25BG,2@, as it is here'! R25BG,2@, to appoint, hire new e&plo!ees or fill new positions and transfer or reassi(n its personnel, when necessary in the effective performance of its mandated functions durin( the prohi'ited period, provided that the 0hanges in the assign&ent of its field personnel within the thirt!)da! period 'efore ele0tion da! shall 'e effe0ted after due noti0e and hearing+J(2&phasis supplied)/heprovisoinCB2G2CResolution%o+ ""$$, re>uiringduenoti0eandhearing'eforean!transfer orreassign&ent 0an 'e &ade within thirt! da!s prior to ele0tion da!, refers onl! to CB2G2C fieldpersonnel andnot toheadoffi0epersonnel likethepetitioner+FndertheRevised Ad&inistrativeCode,[-(] theCB2G2CChair&an is the sole officer spe0ifi0all! vested with the power to transfer or reassign CB2G2C personnel+/heCB2G2CChair&anwill logi0all!e3er0ise the authorit!totransfer or reassignCB2G2Cpersonnelpursuant to CB2G2C Resolution %o+ ""$$+/he CB2G2C en banc0annot arrogate unto itself this power'e0ausethat will &eana&endingtheRevised Ad&inistrativeCode, ana0t theCB2G2C enbanc 0annotlegall! do+ CB2G2CResolution%o+ ""$$does not re>uirethat ever!transfer or reassign&ent of CB2G2Cpersonnel should0arr!the0on0urren0eof the CB2G2C as a 0ollegial'od!+ :nterpreting Resolution%o+""$$ to re>uire su0h 0on0urren0e will render the resolution &eaningless sin0e the CB2G2C en banc will haveto approve ever! personnel transfer or reassign&ent, &aking the resolution utterl! useless+Resolution %o+ ""$$should 'e interpreted for what it is, an approval to effe0t transfers and reassign&ents of personnel, without needof se0uring a se0ond approval fro&the CB2G2C en banc to a0tuall! i&ple&ent su0h transfer orreassign&ent+/he CB2G2C Chair&an is the offi0ial e3pressl! authoriLed '! law to transfer or reassign CB2G2Cpersonnel+/hepersonholdingthat offi0e, ina dejure 0apa0it!, is Benipa!o+/heCB2G2Cenbanc, inCB2G2C Resolution %o+ ""$$, approved the transfer or reassign&ent of CB2G2C personnel during theele0tion period+/hus, Benipa!o=s order reassigning petitioner fro& the 2:@ to the Gaw @epart&ent does notviolate5e0tion#-1(h)oftheB&ni'us2le0tionCode+9orthesa&ereason, Benipa!o=sorderdesignatingCin0o Bffi0er)in)Charge of the 2:@ is legall! unassaila'le+Fifth Issue:6e(ality of 7is'ursements to RespondentsBased on the foregoing dis0ussion, respondent *ideon C+ @e *uL&an, Bffi0er)in)Charge of the 9inan0e5ervi0es @epart&ent of the Co&&ission on 2le0tions, did not a0t in e30ess of ?urisdi0tion in pa!ing the salariesand other e&olu&ents of Benipa!o, Borra, /uason and Cin0o+WHEREFORE, the petition is dis&issed for la0k of &erit+Costs against petitioner+SO ORDERED.MA& 9& A$:ELI$A :& MATI;A:% +e$i$ioner, vs.ALF!ED" L& ;E$IPA0ali.i'ations o. t/e appointee. "in'e t/e onstit0tion (oes not provi(e .or any appeal .ro1s0'/ (e'ision, t/e (isapproval is .inal an( bin(ing on t/e appointee as 2ell as on t/e appointing po2er. +n t/is instan'e, t/e 4resi(ent 'an no longer rene2 t/e appoint1ent not be'a0se o. t/e'onstit0tional pro/ibition on reappoint1ent, b0t be'a0se o. a .inal (e'ision by t/e o11issionon Appoint1ents to 2it//ol( its 'onsent to t/e appoint1ent.An a(interi1 appoint1ent t/at is by=passe( be'a0se o. la'6 o. ti1e or .ail0re o. t/eo11ission on Appoint1ents to organiEe is anot/er 1atter. A by=passe( appoint1ent is onet/at /as not been .inally a'te( 0pon on t/e 1erits by t/e o11ission on Appoint1ents at t/e'lose o. t/e session o. ongress. !/ere is no .inal (e'ision by t/e o11ission on Appoint1entsto give or 2it//ol( its 'onsent to t/e appoint1ent as re>0ire( by t/e onstit0tion. Absent s0'/(e'ision, t/e 4resi(ent is .ree to rene2 t/e a( interi1 appoint1ent o. a by=passe( appointee@@@!/e pro/ibition on reappoint1ent in "e'tion 1 :2;, Arti'le +