Bautista vs. Salonga

The Court held that the appointment of the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights is an exercise of the President's power under the second sentence of Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, which allows the President to appoint officers "whom he may be authorized by law to appoint" without the participation of the Commission on Appointments. Because the CHR Chairman is not listed in the first sentence of Section 16 (which enumerates appointees requiring CA confirmation), and because Executive Order No. 163 authorizes the President to make such appointment, the appointment is complete and effective upon the President's act and the appointee's acceptance, without need for CA review.

President Corazon C. Aquino designated petitioner Mary Concepcion Bautista as Acting Chairman of the CHR on August 27, 1987. On December 17, 1988, the President issued Bautista a permanent appointment as CHR Chairman, advising her she could qualify and assume office upon taking her oath. Bautista took her oath before the Chief Justice on December 22, 1988, and immediately discharged the functions of the office. On January 9 and 10, 1989, the CA requested Bautista submit documents and appear for deliberation on her appointment. Bautista refused, asserting the CA lacked jurisdiction. On January 14, 1989, the President extended an ad interim appointment to Bautista, which the CA subsequently disapproved on January 25, 1989, due to her refusal to submit to its jurisdiction. The President then designated respondent Hesiquio R. Mallillin as Acting Chairman pending resolution of Bautista's case.

• President Aquino designated petitioner Bautista as Acting CHR Chairman on August 27, 1987.
• On December 17, 1988, the President issued Bautista a permanent appointment as CHR Chairman, advising her she could qualify and assume office.
• Bautista took her oath of office before the Chief Justice on December 22, 1988, and immediately assumed the duties of the office.
• On January 9 and 10, 1989, the CA requested Bautista to submit documents and appear for deliberation on her appointment.
• On January 13, 1989, Bautista wrote to the CA Chairman asserting the CA had no jurisdiction to review her appointment.
• On January 14, 1989, the President extended an ad interim appointment to Bautista.
• On January 25, 1989, the CA disapproved Bautista's ad interim appointment due to her refusal to submit to its jurisdiction.
• The President thereafter designated respondent Mallillin as Acting CHR Chairman pending the case's resolution.

• Petitioner maintained that the CHR Chairman is not among the officials enumerated in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution requiring CA confirmation.
• Petitioner argued that the CHR is an independent constitutional office, and its independence would be compromised if its Chairman's tenure were subject to CA approval.
• Petitioner contended that the CA's power to confirm appointments is a derogation of the President's appointing power and must be expressly granted, which it is not for the CHR Chairman.
• Petitioner asserted that her appointment on December 17, 1988, was a completed presidential act upon her acceptance, leaving no vacancy for a subsequent appointment on January 14, 1989.

• Respondents (CA and Senator Salonga) argued that the President voluntarily submitted Bautista's appointment to the CA, thereby consenting to its jurisdiction.
• Respondent Mallillin contended that Executive Order No. 163-A made the CHR Chairman's tenure at the pleasure of the President, rendering the petition moot as Bautista could be removed at will.
• Mallillin further argued that with the CA's disapproval of Bautista's appointment, there was greater reason for her removal and replacement.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the petition had become moot and academic in light of the CA's disapproval of Bautista's appointment and her subsequent replacement.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the appointment of the CHR Chairman requires confirmation by the Commission on Appointments under Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.

• Procedural: The Court held the petition was not moot. The petitioner had timely elevated the case and had not abandoned it. The substantive constitutional questions required resolution.
• Substantive: The Court ruled that the appointment of the CHR Chairman does not require CA confirmation. The position is not listed in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII. It falls under the second sentence, where the President appoints officers "whom he may be authorized by law to appoint" (pursuant to E.O. No. 163). The President's appointment of Bautista on December 17, 1988, was a completed act upon her acceptance. The subsequent ad interim appointment and CA disapproval were without constitutional authority. Furthermore, Executive Order No. 163-A, which made the CHR Chairman's tenure at the President's pleasure, was declared unconstitutional as it undermined the independence of the CHR.

• Completion of Appointment Doctrine — An appointment is complete when the appointing power has performed its last act. Once the President issues an appointment and the appointee accepts (by taking the oath and assuming office), the appointment is complete and the President's power over the office ceases, absent a legal removal cause. The Court applied this to hold Bautista's December 17, 1988, appointment was final.
• Constitutional Balance of Power — The Constitution establishes a careful balance between the Executive and Legislative branches regarding appointments. Neither branch can create power where the Constitution confers none. The Court held that the President cannot voluntarily submit an appointment reserved to the President alone to the CA, nor can the CA assume jurisdiction over such an appointment, as this would disrupt the constitutional balance.
• Independence of Constitutional Commissions — The Commission on Human Rights is an independent constitutional office. Its independence would be negated if its Chairman's tenure were made dependent on the pleasure of the President, as this would subject the Commission to executive influence and control, contrary to the constitutional intent.

• "The evident constitutional intent is to strike a careful and delicate balance, in the matter of appointments to public office, between the President and Congress (the latter acting through the Commission on Appointments). To tilt one side or the other of the scale is to disrupt or alter such balance of power." — This passage underscores the Court's reasoning on the separation of powers and the limits of each branch's authority in appointments.
• "The Court finds it extremely difficult to conceptualize how an office conceived and created by the Constitution to be independent as the Commission on Human Rights... can truly function with independence and effectiveness, when the tenure in office of its Chairman and Members is made dependent on the pleasure of the President." — This highlights the Court's rationale for striking down E.O. No. 163-A.

• Sarmiento III v. Mison — The controlling precedent that interpreted Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. The Court held that only appointments expressly mentioned in the first sentence require CA confirmation. The Court in Bautista applied and reiterated this doctrine.
• Marbury v. Madison — Cited for the principle that an appointment is the sole act of the appointing power and is complete when the last act required of that power is performed. Used to support the completion of Bautista's appointment.
• Alba v. Evangelista — Distinguished. That case involved a statutory office where tenure was expressly made at the President's pleasure. The Court held the CHR, as a constitutional independent office, is different; its term is fixed by law (E.O. No. 163) and cannot be altered to make tenure at will.

• Section 16, Article VII, 1987 Constitution — The central provision governing presidential appointments. The Court interpreted its three sentences to delineate which appointments require CA confirmation (first sentence), which are made by the President alone (second and third sentences).
• Section 17(1), Article XIII, 1987 Constitution — Creates the independent Commission on Human Rights. The Court used this to emphasize the CHR's constitutionally mandated independence.
• Executive Order No. 163, Section 2(c) — Authorizes the President to appoint the CHR Chairman and Members for a seven-year term. The Court relied on this as the law authorizing the President to appoint, thus bringing the appointment under the second sentence of Section 16.
• Executive Order No. 163-A — Amended E.O. No. 163 to make the CHR Chairman's tenure at the President's pleasure. Declared unconstitutional by the Court for violating the CHR's independence.

• N/A (The decision was a majority opinion with dissents; no separate concurrences are noted in the provided text.)

• Justice Gutierrez, Jr. — Argued that the Mison doctrine leads to absurd results (e.g., a naval captain requires CA confirmation while the CHR Chairman does not). He contended the second sentence of Section 16 should be read as requiring confirmation, and that the President's voluntary submission of Bautista's appointment indicated a recognition of the CA's authority.
• Justice Cruz — Maintained his dissent from Mison, arguing the CHR Chairman is an "other officer whose appointment is vested in [the President] in this Constitution" under the first sentence of Section 16, thus requiring confirmation. He found the majority's alternative reasoning (no vacancy) an unnecessary bolstering of a potentially erroneous precedent.
• Justice Griño-Aquino — Dissented, opining that the CHR Chairman is a constitutional officer whose appointment is vested in the President by the Constitution, thereby falling under the first sentence of Section 16 and requiring CA confirmation. She viewed the CA's role as part of the system of checks and balances.