Pobre vs Mendieta

ARTICLE VII [EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT]

Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the 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 disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress. Pobre vs. Mendieta [G.R. No. 106677, July 23, 1993] FACTS: These consolidated petitions under Rules 45 and 65 of the Rules of Court were filed by Her genes Pobre to set aside the court’s decision and writ of prohibitory injunction, issued by Judge Corona Ibay-Somera, annulling the appointment extended by President Corazon C. Aquino to the petitioner, Hermogenes Pobre, as Commissioner/Chairman of the Professional Regulation Commission mo (PRC) and enjoining him from discharging the duties and functions of that office. The controversy began on January 2, 1992, when the term of office of Honorable Julio B. Francia as PRC Commissioner/Chairman expired. At that time, Mariano A. Mendieta was the senior Associate Commissioner and Hermogenes P. Pobre was the second Associate Commissioner of the PRC. The Executive Secretary wanted to know whether the President may appoint as Commissioner/Chairman of the PRC another Associate Commissioner or any person other than the Senior Associate Commissioner. In a Memorandum, Acting Secretary of Justice Silvestre H. Bello, III answered the queries as follows: Based on the foregoing premises, it is our view that Section 2 of P.D. No. 223 does not limit or restrict the appointing power of the President. It has been said that "those matters which the Constitution specifically confides to the executive, the legislative cannot directly or indirectly take from his control" Pobre opposed the issuance of a restraining order because President Aquino had already appointed him PRC Chairman and he had, in fact,

ARTICLE VII [EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT]

already taken his oath of office on February 17, 1992. Judge Somera denied the prayer for a restraining order as well as the petition for declaratory relief for being moot and academic. Consequently, Mendieta filed a petition for quo warranto contesting Pobre's appointment as chairman of the PRC because he (Mendieta) allegedly succeeded Francia as PRC Chairman by operation of law. Pobre disputed Mendieta's claim on the ground that only the President of the Philippines, in whom the appointing power is vested by law and the Constitution, may name the successor of retired PRC Commissioner/Chairman Francia upon the expiration of the latter's term of office. The petition raises an issue regarding the proper construction of the provision in Section 2 of P.D. No. 223 that: ". . . any vacancy in the Commission shall be filled for the unexpired term only with the most Senior of the Associate Commissioners succeeding the Commissioner at the expiration of his term, resignation or removal," whereby the legality of Pobre's appointment as PRC Chairman may be determined. In interpreting this section of P.D. No. 223, consideration should be accorded the provision of the Constitution vesting the power of appointment in the President of the Philippines. ISSUE: Whether or not the appointment of Pobre as Commissioner/Chairman of the Professional Regulation Commission by the President is lawful. RULING: THE POWER OF APPOINTMENT CANNOT BE RESTRICTED TO THE POINT THAT THE OFFICER LOSES THE DISCRETION. The Court finds unacceptable the view that every vacancy in the Commission (except the position of "junior" Associate Commissioner) shall be filled by "succession" or by "operation of law" for that would deprive the President of his power to appoint a new PRC Commissioner and Associate Commissioners — "all to be appointed by the President" under P.D. No. 223. The absurd result would be that the only occasion for the President to exercise his appointing power would be when the position of junior (or second) Associate Commissioner becomes vacant. We may not presume that when the President issued P.D. No. 223, he deliberately clipped his prerogative to choose and appoint the head of the PRC and limited himself to the selection and appointment of only the associate commissioner occupying the lowest rung of the ladder in that agency. Since such an absurdity may not be presumed, the Court should so construe the law as to avoid it. "The duty devolves on the court to ascertain the true meaning where the language of a statute is of doubtful meaning, or where an adherence to the strict letter would lead to injustice, absurdity, or contradictory provisions,

ARTICLE VII [EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT]

since an ambiguity calling for construction may arise when the consequence of a literal interpretation of the language is an unjust, absurd, unreasonable, or mischievous result, or one at variance with the policy of the legislation as a whole; and the real meaning of the statute is to be ascertained and declared, even though it seems to conflict with the words of the statute." (82 CJS 589-590; Emphasis supplied.)