Calderon v. Carale

Facts:

Who is Calderon? – Atty. PETER JOHN D. CALDERON. The case doesn’t say anything else about

him.

Who is Carale? - BARTOLOME CARALE, in his capacity as Chairman of the National Labor

Relations Commission

In 1989, Republic Act No. 6715 was passed. This law amended PD 442 or the Labor Code. RA 6715

provides that the Chairman, the Division Presiding Commissioners and other Commissioners [of the

NLRC] shall all be appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Commission on

Appointments (COA).

Pursuant to the said law, President Corazon Aquino appointed Bartolome Carale et al as the Chairman

and the Commissioners respectively of the NLRC. The appointments were however not submitted to the

CoA for its confirmation. Peter John Calderon questioned the appointment saying that without the

confirmation by the CoA, such an appointment is in violation of RA 6715. Calderon insisted that RA

6715 should be followed as he asserted that RA 6715 is not an encroachment on the appointing power of

the executive contained in Sec. 16, Art. 7, of the Constitution, as Congress may, by law, require

confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of other officers appointed by the President in addition

to those mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. 16 of Article 7 of the Constitution.

The Court cites three cases, Mison, Bautista, and Quintos-Deles, and summarizes the rulings as follows:

1. Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments is required only for presidential appointees

mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII, including, those officers whose appointments

are expressly vested by the Constitution itself in the president (like sectoral representatives to Congress

and members of the constitutional commissions of Audit, Civil Service and Election).

2. Confirmation is not required when the President appoints other government officers whose

appointments are not otherwise provided for by law or those officers whom he may be authorized by law

to appoint (like the Chairman and Members of the Commission on Human Rights). Also, as observed in

Mison, when Congress creates inferior offices but omits to provide for appointment thereto, or provides in

an unconstitutional manner for such appointments, the officers are considered as among those whose

appointments are not otherwise provided for by law.

Arguments of Calderon:1.    Mandatory compliance of RA 67152.    Mison and Bautista rulings are not decisive to the issue because President issued permanent

appointments.

Arguments of Carale:1.    If confirmation is required, three stage process of nomination, confirmation and appointment operates

(Sub section 3 Section 10 of Article VII). The word nominate does not any more appear in 2nd and 3rd sentences of Section 16 Article VII.Argument of Solicitor General:

1.    RA 6715 transgresses Sec 16 Art VII by expanding the confirmation powers of the Commission on Appointments without constitutional basis.

Issue:

Whether or not Congress may, by law, expand the list of public officers required to be confirmed by the Commission on Appointment as listed in the Constitution.

Held:

No. Under the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, there are four (4) groups of officers whom the

President shall appoint. These four (4) groups are:

First, the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, 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;

Second, all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law;

Third, those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint;

Fourth, officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the President alone.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Solicitor General: confirmation by the CoA is required exclusively

for the heads of executive departments, ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, officers of the armed

forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in the

President by the Constitution, such as the members of the various Constitutional Commissions ( first

group). With respect to the other officers (second to fourth group) whose appointments are not otherwise

provided for by the law and to those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint, no

confirmation by the Commission on Appointments is required.

NLRC Chairman falls in the third group.

Indubitably, the NLRC Chairman and Commissioners fall within the second sentence of Section 16,

Article VII of the Constitution, more specifically under the "third groups" of appointees referred to in

Mison, i.e. those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint. Undeniably, the Chairman and

Members of the NLRC are not among the officers mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16, Article

VII whose appointments requires confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. To the extent that

RA 6715 requires confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of the appointments of respondents

Chairman and Members of the National Labor Relations Commission, it is unconstitutional because:

1) it amends by legislation, the first sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII of the Constitution by adding thereto

appointments requiring confirmation by the Commission on Appointments; and

2) it amends by legislation the second sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII of the Constitution, by imposing the

confirmation of the Commission on Appointments on appointments which are otherwise entrusted

only with the President.

Deciding on what law to pass is a legislative prerogative. Determining their constitutionality is a judicial

function. The Court respects the laudable intention of the legislature. Regretfully, however, the

constitutional infirmity of Sec. 13 of RA 6715 amending Art. 215 of the Labor Code, insofar as it requires

confirmation of the Commission on Appointments over appointments of the Chairman and Members of

the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) is, as we see it, beyond redemption if we are to render

fealty to the mandate of the Constitution in Sec. 16, Art. VII thereof.

“Had it been the intention to allow Congress to expand the list of officers whose appointments must be

confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, the Constitution would have said so by adding the

phrase “and other officers required by law” at the end of the first sentence, or the phrase, “with the

consent of the Commission on Appointments” at the end of the second sentence. Evidently, our

Constitution has significantly omitted to provide for such additions.