Pacete v. Commission on Appointments (1971) Digest
2
PACETE V. COMMISION ON APPOINTMENTS (1971) Fernando, J.: FACTS: -On April 14, 1966, Petitioner Felizardo Pacete, alleging that he was appointed by the President as the Municipal Judge of Pigcawayan, Cotabato, filed a suit for mandamus and prohibition to compel the Secretary of Commission on Appointments to issue him certificate of confirmation. -Petitioner was appointed on August 31, 1964. He assumed office on September 11, 1964 and discharged his duties as such. -His appointment was made during recess of Congress band was submitted at its next session in 1965, On May 20, 1965, His appointment was unanimously confirmed. -On February 7, 1966, The Secretary of Justice sent him a letter ordering him to vacate his position because his confirmation was by-passed. -When he inquired about it, he learned that on May 21, 1965, one day after his confirmation, Sen. Rofolfo Ganzon, member of Commission on Appointments, wrote to Chairman of the Commission on Appointments to file for a motion for reconsideration on petitioner’s confirmation in view of derogatory information received by Sen. Ganzon. -The Secretary of Commission on Appointments notified Secretary of Justice regarding the practice that a motion of reconsideration automatically cancels the confirmation of appointment in question. -Petitioner contends that the Commission on Appointments exercises power to approve or reject appointments thru majority votes of members in the quorum and not thru members individually as provided by Sec. 10 of its Rules. -Respondents contend that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction because the case only involves internal rules of Commission on Appointments. There are no constitutional questions involved. ISSUES AND RULING: ISSUE #1: WON SUPREME COURT HAS JURISDICTION Yes. The case involves interpretation of the Constitution regarding the powers of Commission on Appointments. ISSUE #2: WON PETITIONER’S APPOINTMENT MUST BE CONFIRMED Yes. The controlling principle is Altarejos v. Molo which interpreted Rule 21 of the Revised Rules of Commission on Appointments. It held that mere
description
Pacete v. Commission on Appointments (1971) Digest
Transcript of Pacete v. Commission on Appointments (1971) Digest
PACETE V
PACETE V. COMMISION ON APPOINTMENTS (1971)Fernando, J.:
FACTS:
-On April 14, 1966, Petitioner Felizardo Pacete, alleging that he was appointed by the President as the Municipal Judge of Pigcawayan, Cotabato, filed a suit for mandamus and prohibition to compel the Secretary of Commission on Appointments to issue him certificate of confirmation.
-Petitioner was appointed on August 31, 1964. He assumed office on September 11, 1964 and discharged his duties as such.
-His appointment was made during recess of Congress band was submitted at its next session in 1965, On May 20, 1965, His appointment was unanimously confirmed.
-On February 7, 1966, The Secretary of Justice sent him a letter ordering him to vacate his position because his confirmation was by-passed.
-When he inquired about it, he learned that on May 21, 1965, one day after his confirmation, Sen. Rofolfo Ganzon, member of Commission on Appointments, wrote to Chairman of the Commission on Appointments to file for a motion for reconsideration on petitioners confirmation in view of derogatory information received by Sen. Ganzon.
-The Secretary of Commission on Appointments notified Secretary of Justice regarding the practice that a motion of reconsideration automatically cancels the confirmation of appointment in question.-Petitioner contends that the Commission on Appointments exercises power to approve or reject appointments thru majority votes of members in the quorum and not thru members individually as provided by Sec. 10 of its Rules.
-Respondents contend that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction because the case only involves internal rules of Commission on Appointments. There are no constitutional questions involved.
ISSUES AND RULING:
ISSUE #1: WON SUPREME COURT HAS JURISDICTION
Yes. The case involves interpretation of the Constitution regarding the powers of Commission on Appointments.
ISSUE #2: WON PETITIONERS APPOINTMENT MUST BE CONFIRMED
Yes. The controlling principle is Altarejos v. Molo which interpreted Rule 21 of the Revised Rules of Commission on Appointments. It held that mere filing of motion for reconsideration did not have the effect of setting aside a confirmation. Instead, it will only reopen the appointment and submit it for approval or disapproval by the majority of members of the Commission on Appointments.
Moreover, there is distinction between appointments made during recess of Congress and appointments while Congress is in session. When Congress is in session, presidential nominees can only assume office once confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.
When Congress is in recess, the President makes ad interim appointments which take effect at once. The individual chosen may qualify and perform his function. The appointment is effective until the disapproval of the Commission on Appointments or next adjournment of Congress.
