Sarmiento III vs Mison 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!

Sarmiento III vs Mison

GR No. 79974

December 17, 1987

This is a petition for prohibition of Salvador Mison from performing the functions of the Office of Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and Guillermo Carague, as Secretary of the Department of Budget from effecting disbursements in payments of Mison’s compensation.

Sarmiento’s Arguments:

1.    Mison not been confirmed by the Commission of Appointments

Mison’s Arguments:

1.    Section 16 Article VII; Congress may by law vest their appointment in the President, in the courts or in heads of various dept, agencies, commissions, or boards in the government. No reason for the word alone.

Rules of Court:

1.    Section 16, Article VII

2.    Four groups of officers;

First group	heads of executive depts, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, officers of AFP from the rank colonel or naval captain and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution
Second group	all other officers of the Gov't whose appointments are otherwise provided by law
Third group	whom President may be authorized by law to appoint
Fourth group	officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the Pres alone

3.    Section 10, Article VII of 1935 differentiated with 1987 – limitation of consent from Commission on Appointments due to 1935’s horse-trading, absolute power of appointment by the President in 1987 Constitution,

4.    Two major changes proposed and approved by 1986 Commission; (1) exclusion of the appointments of heads of bureaus from requirement of consent (2) exclusion of appointments made under 2^nd sentence of Article VII

Reasons:

1.    Position of bureau director is quite low

2.    Confirmation of head of bureau would lead to political influence

5.    Section 16, Article VII; the word “also” means 1^st sentence needs consent and 2^nd sentence does not need consent

6.    Power to appoint is fundamentally executive or presidential in character.

7.    The word “alone” is a lapse of draftmanship. The word alone meant without consent.

RA No. 1937 Sec 601 and PD No. 34 (enacted during 1935 constitution) – harmonized with the new constitution