Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
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 is quoted below:
In Civil Case G.R. No. L-19721 "Carlos Cunanan vs. Jorge Tan, Jr." the
facts are:
Petitioner Carlos Cunanan — who claims to be a career employee, with more than thirty (30) years in the government service — was, on June 6 or 8, 1961, appointed by the President of the Philippines as acting Deputy Administrator of the Reforestation Administration, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Thereupon, he qualified and assumed the duties and functions of said office. On November 6, 1961, the President extended to him an ad interim appointment as Deputy Administrator of the Reforestation Administration, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources. On April 3, 1962, six (6) Senators and seven (7) members of the House of Representatives, purporting to act as the Commission on Appointments, rejected said ad interim appointment. On April 11, 1962, respondent Jorge Tan, Jr. was designated by the President as Acting Deputy Administrator of the Reforestation Administration, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and performed the function of said office, without the consent of petitioner herein. Hence, soon thereafter, or on April 27, 1962, petitioner commenced the present quo warranto proceeding against respondent, contending that the latter's designation is invalid, the office of Deputy Administrator of the Reforestation Administration, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, not being vacant when he was designated thereto, because the aforesaid rejection of petitioner's ad interim appointment is invalid for several reasons.
When the first session of the Fifth Congress of the Philippines opened on January 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 with the Nacionalista Party and Nationalist-Citizens' Party. Hence, the Senate has been unable to elect a new Senate President, and Senator Eulogio Rodriguez, Sr., who was President of the Senate during the immediately preceding Congress, continued to hold said office in an acting capacity. The House of Representatives, consisting of seventy-two (72) members affiliated with the Nacionalista Party, twenty-nine (29) affiliated with the Liberal Party and one (1) not affiliated with any political party, elected Congressman Daniel F. Romualdez as Speaker of said chamber.
In due course, the Commission on Appointments was constituted pursuant to the Constitution, on the basis of proportional representation of the political 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 Osias |
| Hon. Jose Roy | Hon. Francisco (Soc) Rodrigo |
| Hon. Gil J. Puyat | Hon. Rogelio de la Rosa |
On the Part of the House of Representatives
| Nacionalista Party | Liberal Party |
|---|
| 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 the Liberal Party and twenty-five (25) Congressmen affiliated with the Nacionalista Party, forming what is commonly known as the "Allied Majority," declared vacant the seats of the twelve (12) members of the House of Representatives in the Commission 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 with the Nacionalista Party, these three (3) Congressmen form part of the "Allied Majority". The members of Congress who took part in the alleged session of the Commission on Appointments on April 3, 1962, and rejected the ad interim appointment of petitioner herein were:
(a) Six (6) Senators affiliated with the Liberal Party, namely: Hon. Eulogio Balao, 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. Eladio T. Balite, Hon. Manuel T. Cases, Hon. Floro Crisologo, and Hon. Gerardo M. Roxas; and
(c) Three (3) Congressmen affiliated with the Nacionalista Party, but identified with the 'Allied Majority': Hon. Jose Alberto, Hon. Reynaldo Honrado and Hon. Jose Cojuangco Jr.
Was the rejection of petitioner's ad interim appointment by the aforementioned thirteen (13) members of Congress, purporting to act as the Commission on Appointments, valid or not? The determination of this issue depends upon: (1) the legality of the resolution of the House of Representatives of March 21, 1962, declaring the seats of its twelve (12) members in the Commission on Appointments vacant; 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, we deem it unnecessary to pass upon the second question.
With respect to the first question, we hold that the same should be resolved in the negative. The Commission on Appointments is it creature of the Constitution. Although its membership is confined to members of Congress, said Commission is independent of Congress. The powers of the Commission do not come from Congress, but emanate directly from the Constitution. Hence, it is not an agent of Congress. In fact, the functions of the Commissioner are purely executive in nature. In order that the members of the Commission could properly discharge their duties as such, it is essential that their tenure therein be provided with a certain measure of stability to insure the necessary freedom of action.1äwphï1.ñët
Upon the other hand, the constitutional provision to the effect that "there shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of twelve (12) Senators and twelve (12) members of the House of Representatives elected by each House, respectively, on the basis of proportional REPRESENTATION OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES THEREIN", necessarily connotes the authority of each House of Congress to see to it that this requirement is duly complied with. As a consequence, it may take appropriate measures, not only upon the initial organization of the Commission, but, also, subsequently thereto. If by reason of successful election protests against members of a House, or of their expulsion from the political party to which they belonged and/or of their affiliation with another political party, the ratio in the representation of the political parties in the House is materially changed, the House is clothed with authority to declare vacant the necessary number of seats in the Commission on Appointments held by members of said House belonging to the political party adversely affected by the change and then fill said vacancies in conformity with the Constitution.
One thing, however, is to take these measures owing to changes of permanent character in the representation of the political parties in the House, and another thing for some members thereof affiliated with a political party to make common cause in certain matters with members of the House belonging to another political party. In other words, a shifting of votes at a given time, even if due to arrangements of a more or less temporary nature, like the one that has led to the formation of the so-called "Allied Majority", does not suffice to authorize a reorganization of the membership of the Commission for said House. Otherwise, the Commission on Appointments may have to be reorganized as often as votes shift from one side to another in the House. The framers of our Constitution could not have intended to thus place a constitutional organ, like the Commission on Appointments, at the mercy of each House of Congress.
We are aware of the statements made on the floor of our Constitutional Convention indicating 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. It should be noted, however, that said statements were made with reference to the Commission on Appointments of the National Assembly, the unicameral legislature under our original Constitution. The statements did not refer and do not necessarily apply to the Commission on Appointments under the present Constitution, as amended, for we now have a bicameral Congress, both Houses of which are represented 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 on Appointments, such House could, in effect, paralyze the entire Commission, without the consent of the other House. Such possibility could not have been countenanced by the Constitutional Convention.
In his amended petition petitioner alleges that on April 27, 1962, his ad interim appointment was confirmed by the "legitimate" Commission on Appointments, in a meeting said to have been presided over by its chairman ex oficio, Hon. Eulogio Rodriguez, 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 this cannot affect our foregoing view.
Without prejudice to an extended decision later on, the Court holds, therefore, that the resolution of the House of Representatives of March 21, 1962, declining vacant the seats of the twelve (12) members of the House of Representatives in the Commission on Appointments and appointing others in lieu of some of them, as well as the rejection of the ad interim appointment of petitioner by thirteen (13) alleged members of the Commission on Appointments as thus reorganized, and the designation of respondent Jorge Tan, Jr., as Acting Deputy Administrator of the Reforestation Administration, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, on April 16, 1962, when said office was not vacant, are null and void; that petitioner is entitled to hold said office; and that respondent should vacate the same and turn it over to petitioner, with costs against said respondent.
Mr. Justice Padilla voted to dismiss the petition, upon the ground that the effectivity of petitioner's ad interim appointment expired on December 30, 1961, for the reasons given in his concurring opinion in Aytona vs. Castillo, G.R. No. L-18313 (January 19, 1962).
Yours truly,
(SGD.) PAULINO S. MARQUEZ
Clerk 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 one case of Cabili, 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 stability of tenure so as to insure for the members thus selected that liberty of action (free from party interests or squabbles) which should surround the actuations of the Commission on Appointments. They maintain that, as the Constitution reserved no power in the Senate to remove or substitute the Senate Members of the Commission, these should continue until that time when the Senate, upon the advent of new members elected in a general election should organize itself anew, and upon such organization shall select pursuant to Constitutional authority another set of members for the aforesaid Commission. They emphasize that the selection is to be made within thirty days after the organization of the Senate, which period being mandatory conditions to the Senate's power to select; the Constitution's purpose being to respect and enforce the will of the electorate as represented by the parties therein at that time, and any subsequent realignment of the senators can not alter that popular will (and the selection made according to it) until after a new national election of senators is made, and the new alignment is confirmed by the voters at large.
I am of the opinion that this Court can pass upon this question it involving an interpretation of our Constitution.
PADILLA, J., dissenting:
The ad interim appointment of the petitioner as Deputy Administrator, Reforestation Administration, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, made by the President of the Philippines on 6 November 1961, having lapsed or expired on the 30th 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 new appointment of the petitioner to the same office having been made, he has no longer any right to the office to which he claims he is entitled. His petition for a writ of quo 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 points raised by the parties to the case. In view thereof, I am constrained to express my view on those points very briefly due to the urgency of deciding the case before the adjournment 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 as Deputy Administrator, Reforestation Administration, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, is the duly constituted Commission on Appointments, whereas the Commission on Appointments that confirmed on 3 May 1962, the nomination of the 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 23 February 1962 the following Representatives were elected:
| Nacionalista Party | Liberal Party |
|---|
| 1. Hon. Jose M. Aldeguer | 1. Hon. Eladio T. Balite |
| 2. Hon. Wenceslao R. Lagumbay | 2. Hon. Manuel Cases |
| 3. Hon. Felix 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 the twelve members of the House of Representatives in the Commission on Appointments. On the same date, the following Representatives were elected:
| Nacionalista Party | Liberal Party |
|---|
| 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 the twelve members of the House of Representatives in the Commission on Appointments cannot be reviewed by the Court in like manner that the Court could not 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 cannot interfere with the organization and functions of the House.2 Such being the precedents on the point the action taken by the House on 21 March 1962 cannot be reviewed and held invalid and of no effect. Likewise, the election of twelve Representatives on that same date cannot be reviewed by the Court, unless a transgression of a provision of the Constitution had been committed. It is contended that the election by the House of the twelve Representatives on 21 March 1962 to sit 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 twelve Senators and twelve Members of the House of Representatives, elected by each House, respectively, on the basis of proportional representation of the political parties therein. The President of the Senate shall be the Chairman ex oficio of the Commission, but shall not vote, except in case of tie.
Both parties agree that the number of Representatives to be elected by the House to sit in the Commission on Appointments based on the number of Representatives in the House is eight of the Nacionalista Party and four for the Liberal Party, or that the proportional representation of the two political parties is eight and four, respectively.
The election of the twelve Representatives to sit in the Commission on Appointments is by the House. It is not by the Party or by the leader of the Party or by a duly authorized Representative belonging to that Party. At most, the Party through 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, but their election is by the House. Unlike the Members of the Electoral Tribunals of the Senate and House who are chosen by the Senate and House upon nomination of the party having the largest number of votes and of the party having the second largest number of votes therein,3 the members of the Commission on Appointments are elected by the Senate and the House on the basis of proportional representation. The proportional number of Representatives elected by the House to sit in the Commission on Appointments, to wit: eight Nacionalistas and four Liberals being in accordance with the provision of the Constitution, their election should be held and declared constitutional. Although a fixed tenure of membership in the Commission on Appointments is desirable, yet the action taken by the House declaring vacant the twelve seats in the Commission on Appointments is not unconstitutional and cannot be inquired into and reviewed by the Court and the election by the House on 21 March 1962 of the twelve members of Representatives to sit in the Commission on Appointments being on the basis of proportional representation should be upheld.
Bengzon, C.J., Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1Dissenting opinion in Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds of Manila, 19 Phil. 542, 548-550.
2Vera, et al. vs. Avelino, et al., 43 Off. Gaz. 3597; Avelino vs. Cuenco, 83 Phil. 17; and Caabili, et al. vs. Francisco, et al., G.R. No. L-4638, 8 May 1951.
3Section 11, Article VI, of the Constitution.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
