Matibag vs Benipayo 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!

Matibag vs Benipayo

GR No. 149036

April 2, 2002

Maria J. Angelina G. Matibag questions the constitutionality of the appointment by President Arroyo of Benipayo (Chairman of the Commission on Elections), and Bora and Tuason (COMELEC Commissioners). She questions the legality of appointment by Benipayo of Velma J. Cinco as Director IV of the Comelec’s EID and reassigning her to the Law department.

Issues:

1.    Instant petition satisfies all requirements

2.    Assumption of office by Benipayo, Bora and Tuason; ad interim appointments amounts to a temporary appointment prohibited by Sec 1 (2), Article IX-C of the Constitution

3.    Renewal of ad interim violated the prohibition on reappointment under Sec 1 (2), Article IX-C of the Constitution

4.    Benipayo’s removal of petitioner is illegal

5.    OIC of COMELEC’s Finance Services Department acting in excess jurisdiction

Matibag’s Argument:

1.    Failure to consult for reassignment

2.    Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No 7; transferring and detailing employees are prohibited during the election period beginning January 2 until June 13, 2001

3.    Reassignment violated Sec 261 of the Omnibus Election Code, COMELEC Resolution No. 3258

4.    Ad interim appointments of Benipayo, Bora and Tuason violated the constitutional provisions on the independence of the COMELEC

5.    Illegal removal or reassignment

6.    Challenges the designation of Cinco

7.    Questions the disbursement made by COMELEC

8.    No ad interim appointment to the COMELEC or to Civil Service Commission and COA

9.    Sec 1 (2) of Article IX-C; an ad interim appointee cannot assume office until confirmed by the Commission on Appointments

Benipayo’s Argument:

1.    Comelec Resolution No. 3300

2.    Petitioner does not have personal interest, not directly injured

3.    Failure to question constitutionality of ad interim appointments at the earliest opportunity. She filed only after third time of reappointments

4.    Ad interim is not the lis mota because the real issue is the legality of petitioner’s reassignment.

Rules of Court:

1.    Real issue is whether or not Benipayo is the lawful Chairman of the Comelec

2.    Petitioner has a personal and material stake.

3.    It is not the date of filing of the petition that determines whether the constitutional issue was raised at the earliest point. The earliest opportunity to raise a constitutional issue is to raise it in the pleading.

4.    Questioned the constitutionality of the ad interim appointments which is the earliest opportunity for pleading the constitutional issue before a competent body.

5.    Ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment because it takes effect immediately and can no longer be withdrawn. It is not the nature of appointment but the manner on which appointment was made. It will avoid interruptions that would result to prolonged vacancies. It is limited the evil sought to be avoided.

6.    Termination of Ad interim appointment (Sword of Damocles); (1) disapproval (2) recess

7.    Two modes of appointment: (1) in session (2) in recess

8.    By-passed appointments – (1) lack of time/failure of the Commission on Appointments to organize, (2) subject of reconsideration, (3) can be revived since there is no final disapproval

9.    Four situations in for a term of seven years without replacement: (1) serves his full seven-year term, (2) serves a part of his term and then resigns before his seven-year term, (3) served the unexpired term of someone who died or resigned, (4) served a term of less than seven years, and a vacancy arises from death or resignation. Not one of the four situation applies to the case of Benipayo, Borra or Tuason

10. Reappointment cannot be applied; (1) appointed by president, (2) confirmed by Commission on Appointments

11. Without reappointment means: (first phrase) prohibits reappointment of any person previously appointed for a term of seven years (second phrase) prohibits reappointment of any person previously appointed for a term of 5 or 3 years pursuant to the first set of appointees

12. Reasons for prohibition of reappointments: (1) prevent second appointment (2) not serve beyond the fixed term

13. Two important amendments: (1) requiring the consent by Commission of Appointments (2) prohibition on serving beyond the fixed term of 7 years

14. Twin Prohibition (ironclad): (1) prohibition of reappointments (2) prohibition of temporary or acting appointments

15. Third issue not violation because the previous appointments were not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.

16. Benipayo is the de jure COMELEC Chairman. He is not required by law to secure the approval of the COMELEC en banc.

17. The petitioner is acting only temporary because a permanent appointment can be issued only upon meeting all the requirements.

COMELEC Resolution No. 3300 refers only to COMELEC field personnel not to head office personnel.