Cunanan vs Tan

8/3/2019 Cunanan vs Tan

1/4

G.R. No. L-19721 May 10, 1962

CARLOS CUNANAN, petitioner,vs.JORGE TAN, JR., respondents.

PER CURIAM:

Gentlemen:

For your information and guidance, the resolution of this Court on even date isquoted below:

In Civil Case G.R. No. L-19721 "Carlos Cunanan vs. Jorge Tan, Jr." thefacts are:

Petitioner Carlos Cunanan who claims to be a career employee, withmore than thirty (30) years in the government service was, on June 6 or8, 1961, appointed by the President of the Philippines as acting DeputyAdministrator of the Reforestation Administration, Department ofAgriculture and Natural Resources. Thereupon, he qualified and assumedthe duties and functions of said office. On November 6, 1961, the President

extended to him an ad interim appointment as Deputy Administrator of theReforestation Administration, Department of Agriculture and NaturalResources. On April 3, 1962, six (6) Senators and seven (7) members of theHouse of Representatives, purporting to act as the Commission onAppointments, rejected said ad interim appointment. On April 11, 1962,respondent Jorge Tan, Jr. was designated by the President as Acting DeputyAdministrator of the Reforestation Administration, Department ofAgriculture and Natural Resources, and performed the function of saidoffice, without the consent of petitioner herein. Hence, soon thereafter, oron April 27, 1962, petitioner commenced the present quo warrantoproceeding against respondent, contending that the latter's designation isinvalid, the office of Deputy Administrator of the ReforestationAdministration, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, not beingvacant when he was designated thereto, because the aforesaid rejection ofpetitioner's ad interim appointment is invalid for several reasons.

When the first session of the Fifth Congress of the Philippines opened onJanuary 22, 1962, the members of the Senate were evenly divided into two(2) groups: there were twelve (12) Senators affiliated with the Liberal Party,on the one hand, and on the other were twelve (12) Senators affiliated withthe Nacionalista Party and Nationalist-Citizens' Party. Hence, the Senatehas been unable to elect a new Senate President, and Senator EulogioRodriguez, Sr., who was President of the Senate during the immediatelypreceding Congress, continued to hold said office in an acting capacity. TheHouse of Representatives, consisting of seventy-two (72) membersaffiliated with the Nacionalista Party, twenty-nine (29) affiliated with theLiberal Party and one (1) not affiliated with any political party, electedCongressman Daniel F. Romualdez as Speaker of said chamber.

In due course, the Commission on Appointments was constituted pursuantto the Constitution, on the basis of proportional representation of thepolitical parties in each House of Congress, as follows:

On the Part of the Senate

Nacionalista Party Liberal Party

Hon. Alejandro Almendras Hon. Eulogio Balao

Hon. Fernando Lopez Hon. Mariano J. Cuenco

Hon. Genaro Magsaysay Hon. Ferdinand Marcos

Hon. Cipriano Primicias Hon. Camilo OsiasHon. Jose Roy Hon. Francisco (Soc) Rodrigo

Hon. Gil J. Puyat Hon. Rogelio de la Rosa

On the Part of the House of Representatives


Hon. Jose M. Aldeguer Hon. Eladio T. Balite

Hon. Wenceslao R. Lagumbay Hon. Manuel T. Cases

Hon. Felix A. Fuentebella Hon. Floro Crisologo

Hon. Rodolfo Ganzon Hon. Gerardo M. Roxas

Hon. Agustin Gatuslao

Hon. Rasid Lucman

Hon. Apolonio V. Marasigan

Hon. Maximo Noel

On March 21, 1962, by the vote of twenty-nine (29) Congressmen affiliated with theLiberal Party and twenty-five (25) Congressmen affiliated with the NacionalistaParty, forming what is commonly known as the "Allied Majority," declared vacant theseats of the twelve (12) members of the House of Representatives in theCommission of Appointments and re-elected, as members thereof for said Chamber,its former representatives in said Commission, except Congressmen Ganzon,Lucman and Lagumbay, in lieu of whom said "Allied Majority" elected Congressmen

Jose Alberto, Reynaldo Honrado and Jose Cojuangco, Jr. although still affiliated withthe Nacionalista Party, these three (3) Congressmen form part of the "AlliedMajority". The members of Congress who took part in the alleged session of theCommission on Appointments on April 3, 1962, and rejected the ad interimappointment of petitioner herein were:

(a) Six (6) Senators affiliated with the Liberal Party, namely: Hon. EulogioBalao, Hon. Mariano J. Cuenco, Hon. Ferdinand Marcos, Hon. Camilo Osias,Hon. Francisco (Soc) Rodrigo, Hon. Rogelio de la Rosa;

(b) Four (4) Congressmen affiliated with the same party, to wit: Hon. EladioT. Balite, Hon. Manuel T. Cases, Hon. Floro Crisologo, and Hon. Gerardo M.Roxas; and


2/4

(c) Three (3) Congressmen affiliated with the Nacionalista Party, butidentified with the 'Allied Majority': Hon. Jose Alberto, Hon. ReynaldoHonrado and Hon. Jose Cojuangco Jr.

Was the rejection of petitioner's ad interim appointment by the aforementionedthirteen (13) members of Congress, purporting to act as the Commission onAppointments, valid or not? The determination of this issue depends upon: (1) thelegality of the resolution of the House of Representatives of March 21, 1962,declaring the seats of its twelve (12) members in the Commission on Appointmentsvacant; and (2) the legality of the action of the House of Representatives in

reconstituting the membership of the Commission on Appointments for said House.In view of the conclusion we have reached with respect to the first question, wedeem it unnecessary to pass upon the second question.

With respect to the first question, we hold that the same should be resolved in thenegative. The Commission on Appointments is it creature of the Constitution.Although its membership is confined to members of Congress, said Commission isindependent of Congress. The powers of the Commission do not come fromCongress, but emanate directly from the Constitution. Hence, it is not an agent ofCongress. In fact, the functions of the Commissioner are purely executive in nature.In order that the members of the Commission could properly discharge their dutiesas such, it is essential that their tenure therein be provided with a certain measureof stability to insure the necessary freedom of action.1wph1.t

Upon the other hand, the constitutional provision to the effect that "there shall be aCommission on Appointments consisting of twelve (12) Senators and twelve (12)members of the House of Representatives elected by each House, respectively, onthe basis of proportional REPRESENTATION OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES THEREIN",necessarily connotes the authority of each House of Congress to see to it that thisrequirement is duly complied with. As a consequence, it may take appropriatemeasures, not only upon the initial organization of the Commission, but, also,subsequently thereto. If by reason of successful election protests against membersof a House, or of their expulsion from the political party to which they belongedand/or of their affiliation with another political party, the ratio in the representationof the political parties in the House is materially changed, the House is clothed withauthority to declare vacant the necessary number of seats in the Commission onAppointments held by members of said House belonging to the political partyadversely affected by the change and then fill said vacancies in conformity with theConstitution.

One thing, however, is to take these measures owing to changes of permanentcharacter in the representation of the political parties in the House, and anotherthing for some members thereof affiliated with a political party to make commoncause in certain matters with members of the House belonging to another politicalparty. In other words, a shifting of votes at a given time, even if due toarrangements of a more or less temporary nature, like the one that has led to theformation of the so-called "Allied Majority", does not suffice to authorize areorganization of the membership of the Commission for said House. Otherwise, theCommission on Appointments may have to be reorganized as often as votes shiftfrom one side to another in the House. The framers of our Constitution could nothave intended to thus place a constitutional organ, like the Commission onAppointments, at the mercy of each House of Congress.

We are aware of the statements made on the floor of our Constitutional Conventionindicating the opinion of some officers thereof or delegates thereto that members of

the Commission on Appointments were to serve at the pleasure of the legislature. Itshould be noted, however, that said statements were made with reference to theCommission on Appointments of the National Assembly, the unicameral legislatureunder our original Constitution. The statements did not refer and do not necessarilyapply to the Commission on Appointments under the present Constitution, asamended, for we now have a bicameral Congress, both Houses of which arerepresented in the Commission on Appointments. If a House of Congress were free,at any time, to declare vacant the position of its members in the Commission onAppointments, such House could, in effect, paralyze the entire Commission, withoutthe consent of the other House. Such possibility could not have been countenancedby the Constitutional Convention.

In his amended petition petitioner alleges that on April 27, 1962, his ad interimappointment was confirmed by the "legitimate" Commission on Appointments, in ameeting said to have been presided over by its chairman ex oficio, Hon. EulogioRodriguez, Sr., and attended by six (6) Senators namely. Senators Almendras,Lopez, Magsaysay, Primicias, Roy and Puyat and eight (8) Congressmen namely, Congressmen Aldeguer, Lagumbay, Fuentebella, Ganzon, Gatuslao,Lucman, Marasigan and Noel. Respondent has denied such allegation, but thiscannot affect our foregoing view.

Without prejudice to an extended decision later on, the Court holds, therefore, thatthe resolution of the House of Representatives of March 21, 1962, declining vacantthe seats of the twelve (12) members of the House of Representatives in theCommission on Appointments and appointing others in lieu of some of them, as wellas the rejection of the ad interim appointment of petitioner by thirteen (13) allegedmembers of the Commission on Appointments as thus reorganized, and thedesignation of respondent Jorge Tan, Jr., as Acting Deputy Administrator of theReforestation Administration, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, onApril 16, 1962, when said office was not vacant, are null and void; that petitioner isentitled to hold said office; and that respondent should vacate the same and turn itover to petitioner, with costs against said respondent.

Mr. Justice Padilla voted to dismiss the petition, upon the ground that the effectivityof petitioner's ad interim appointment expired on December 30, 1961, for thereasons given in his concurring opinion inAytona vs. Castillo, G.R. No. L-18313(January 19, 1962).

Yours truly,

(SGD.) PAULINO S. MARQUEZClerk of Court

Separate Opinions

BAUTISTA ANGELO,J., concurring:

I concur in the resolution of the majority in view of the stand I have taken in onecase ofCabili, et al. vs. Francisco, et al. On this point, we said:

. . . although in the selection of members of the Commission, party

affiliation is a requisite qualification, the Constitution contemplates stabilityof tenure so as to insure for the members thus selected that liberty of


3/4

action (free from party interests or squabbles) which should surround theactuations of the Commission on Appointments. They maintain that, as theConstitution reserved no power in the Senate to remove or substitute theSenate Members of the Commission, these should continue until that timewhen the Senate, upon the advent of new members elected in a generalelection should organize itself anew, and upon such organization shallselect pursuant to Constitutional authority another set of members for theaforesaid Commission. They emphasize that the selection is to be madewithin thirty days after the organization of the Senate, which period beingmandatory conditions to the Senate's power to select; the Constitution'spurpose being to respect and enforce the will of the electorate asrepresented by the parties therein at that time, and any subsequentrealignmentof the senators can not alter that popular will (and theselection made according to it) until after a new national election ofsenators is made, and the new alignment is confirmed by the voters atlarge.

I am of the opinion that this Court can pass upon this question it involving aninterpretation of our Constitution.

PADILLA,J., dissenting:

The ad interim appointment of the petitioner as Deputy Administrator, ReforestationAdministration, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, made by the

President of the Philippines on 6 November 1961, having lapsed or expired on the30th of December 1961, for the reasons set forth in my opinion in the case of

Aytona vs. Castillo, et al., G.R. No. L-19313, 19 January 1962, and no newappointment of the petitioner to the same office having been made, he has nolonger any right to the office to which he claims he is entitled. His petition for a writofquo warranto should be denied.

This is sufficient to dispose of the case submitted to the Court for judgment.1

However, the majority has deemed it wise to pass upon and determine other pointsraised by the parties to the case. In view thereof, I am constrained to express myview on those points very briefly due to the urgency of deciding the case before theadjournment of Congress.

It is urged for the petitioner that the Commission on Appointments constituted on 23

February 1962 that confirmed on 27 April 1962 his ad interim appointment asDeputy Administrator, Reforestation Administration, Department of Agriculture andNatural Resources, is the duly constituted Commission on Appointments, whereasthe Commission on Appointments that confirmed on 3 May 1962, the nomination ofthe respondent to the same office is not.

There is no controversy as to membership of the Senators in the Commission.

Only the membership of the Representatives in the Commission is disputed. On 23February 1962 the following Representatives were elected:


1. Hon. Jose M. Aldeguer 1. Hon. Eladio T. Balite

2. Hon. Wenceslao R. Lagumbay 2. Hon. Manuel Cases

3. Hon. Fel ix A. Fuentebella 3. Hon. Floro Crisologo

4. Hon. Rodolfo Ganzon 4. Hon. Gerardo M. Roxas

5. Hon. Agustin Gatuslao

6. Hon. Apolonio Marasigan

7. Hon. Maximo Noel

8. Hon. Rasid Lucman

On 21 March 1962 the House of Representatives declared vacant the seats of thetwelve members of the House of Representatives in the Commission onAppointments. On the same date, the following Representatives were elected:


1. Hon. Jose M. Aldeguer 1. Hon. Eladio T. Balite

2. Hon. Maximo Noel 2. Hon. Manuel T. Cases

3. Hon. Felix Fuentebella 3. Hon. Floro Crisologo

4. Hon. Agustin Gatuslao 4. Hon. Gerardo M. Roxas

5. Hon. Apolonio Marasigan

6. Hon. Jose Alberto

7. Hon. Reynaldo Honrado

8. Hon. Jose Cojuangco, Jr.

The action taken by the House of Representatives declaring vacant the seats of thetwelve members of the House of Representatives in the Commission onAppointments cannot be reviewed by the Court in like manner that the Court couldnot interfere with the election of the Speaker, Majority Floor Leaders, Chairmen and

Members of committees and officers, of the House. In other words, the Court cannotinterfere with the organization and functions of the House.2 Such being theprecedents on the point the action taken by the House on 21 March 1962 cannot bereviewed and held invalid and of no effect. Likewise, the election of twelveRepresentatives on that same date cannot be reviewed by the Court, unless atransgression of a provision of the Constitution had been committed. It is contendedthat the election by the House of the twelve Representatives on 21 March 1962 tosit in the Commission on Appointments infringes upon the provisions of section 12,Article VI, of the Constitution. Said section provides:

There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of twelveSenators and twelve Members of the House of Representatives, elected byeach House, respectively, on the basis of proportional representation of thepolitical parties therein. The President of the Senate shall be the Chairmanex oficio of the Commission, but shall not vote, except in case of tie.


4/4

Both parties agree that the number of Representatives to be elected by the Houseto sit in the Commission on Appointments based on the number of Representativesin the House is eight of the Nacionalista Party and four for the Liberal Party, or thatthe proportional representation of the two political parties is eight and four,respectively.

The election of the twelve Representatives to sit in the Commission onAppointments is by the House. It is not by the Party or by the leader of the Party orby a duly authorized Representative belonging to that Party. At most, the Partythrough the last mentioned persons may propose or submit the names of the

Representatives of the Party who are to sit in the Commission on Appointments, buttheir election is by the House. Unlike the Members of the Electoral Tribunals of theSenate and House who are chosen by the Senate and House upon nomination of theparty having the largest number of votes and of the party having the second largestnumber of votes therein,3 the members of the Commission on Appointments areelected by the Senate and the House on the basis of proportional representation.

The proportional number of Representatives elected by the House to sit in theCommission on Appointments, to wit: eight Nacionalistas and four Liberals being inaccordance with the provision of the Constitution, their election should be held anddeclared constitutional. Although a fixed tenure of membership in the Commissionon Appointments is desirable, yet the action taken by the House declaring vacantthe twelve seats in the Commission on Appointments is not unconstitutional andcannot be inquired into and reviewed by the Court and the election by the House on21 March 1962 of the twelve members of Representatives to sit in the Commissionon Appointments being on the basis of proportional representation should be

upheld.

Bengzon, C.J., Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala andMakalintal, JJ., concur.

Documents

Cunanan vs Tan