Calderon vs Carale Case Digest

Here are some digested cases from the Jurisprudence regarding issues related to the Executive Department. I know, I digested it differently but this is how I remember things easily. You still have to read the whole Jurisprudence. You will never understand the things I wrote below, maybe some but perhaps most of the things I jot down are only the important ones and I might even forgot some important key factors, unless you have read the original text. Do not rely too much ion this. These digested cases will just help you remember things out during oral recitations. God bless future lawyers!

Calderon vs Carale

GR No. 91636

April 23, 1992

This is a petition for prohibition questions the constitutionality and legality of permanent appointments extended by President to Chairman and Members of NLRC without submitting the same to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation pursuant to Art 215 of the Labor Code as amended by RA 6715.

Arguments of Calderon:

1.    Mandatory compliance of RA 6715

2.    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 2^nd and 3^rd 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.

Rules of Court:

1.    Four groups of officers whom the President shall appoint (Mison Doctrine)

2.    2 major changes (Mison Doctrine)

3.    NLRC Chairman falls in the third group.

4.    RA 6715 requires confirmation by the Commission on Appointments is unconstitutional because

a.    It amends by legislation in 1^st and 2^nd sentence of Sec 16 Art VII

5.    The court respects the laudible intention of legislative intent. Sec 13 RA 6715 amending Art 215 of the Labor Code requires consent is beyond redemption. Follow Judicial decisions, Mison, Bautista, Salonga jurisprudence

Separation of Powers