GUEVARA

LAWPHIL
G.R. No. L-25577 March 15, 1966
ONOFRE P. GUEVARA, petitioner,
vs.
RAOUL M. INOCENTES, respondent.
Ambrosia Padilla and Onofre Guevara for the petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General for the respondent.
AUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
This decision is written in keeping with the statement we made in our resolution dated February 16,
1966.
Petitioner was extended an ad interim appointment as ndersecretary o! "abor by the !ormer
#xecutive on $ovember 1%, 196&, having taken his oath o! o!!ice on $ovember '& o! the same year,
and considering that the ad interim appointment !or the same position extended to respondent by the
incumbent #xecutive on (anuary '), 1966 is invalid in spite o! *emorandum +ircular $o. % issued
by the latter on the same date declaring all ad interimappointments made by the !ormer #xecutive as
having lapsed with the ad,ournment o! the special session o! +ongress at about midnight o! (anuary
'', 1966, petitioner brought be!ore this +ourt the instant petition !or quo warranto seeking to be
declared the person legally entitled to said o!!ice o! ndersecretary o! "abor.
The petition is predicated on the !ollowing grounds- .1/ under 0rticle 122, 3ection 14.5/ o! the
+onstitution, petitioner6s ad interim appointment is valid and permanent and may only become
ine!!ective either upon express disapproval by the +ommission on 0ppointments or upon the
ad,ournment o! the regular session o! +ongress o! 19667 .'/ here there has been no express
disapproval by the +ommission on 0ppointments because the same has never been constituted
during the special session called by President *arcos in his Proclamation $o. ', series o! 19667 and
.)/ there has been no ad,ournment o! the +ongress as contemplated in the +onstitution because .a/
the a!oresaid special session was suspended by the 8ouse on 3aturday, (anuary '', 1966 at 14-&&
p.m. to be resumed on *onday, (anuary '5, 1966 at 14-44 a.m.7 .b/ the resolution approved by the
3enate on (anuary '), 1966 at past '-44 a.m. !or ad,ournment sine die is not the ad,ournment
contemplated in 0rticle 122, 3ection 14.a/ o! our +onstitution7 .c/ the suspension by the 8ouse or the
ad,ournment by the 3enate to resume the session on (anuary '5, 1966 at 14-44 a.m. meant the end
o! the special session and the start o! the regular session as a continuous session without any
interruption7 and .d/ the phrase 9until the next ad,ournment o! the +ongress9 must be related with the
phrase 9until disapproval by the +ommission on 0ppointments9 so that the ad,ournment
contemplated should re!er to a regular session during which the +ommission on 0ppointments may
be organi:ed and allowed to discharge its !unctions as such.
;espondent, on the other hand, set up the !ollowing de!enses- .1/ petitioner6s ad interim appointment
lapsed when +ongress ad,ourned its last special session called under Proclamation $o. ' o!
President *arcos7 .'/ an ad interimappointment ceases to be valid a!ter each term o! +ongress and
so petitioner6s appointment must have lapsed as early as <ecember )4, 196&7 .)/ petitioner6s ad
interim appointment as well as others made under similar conditions, is contrary to morals, good
customs and public policy, and hence null and void7 and .5/ petitioner6s appointment is void in the
light o! the doctrine laid down in Rodriguez, r. vs. !uirino, =.;. $o. ">19%44 ?ctober '%, 19&).
0!ter due deliberation, the +ourt resolved that the ad interim appointment extended to petitioner on
$ovember 1%, 196& by the !ormer #xecutive lapsed when the special session o! +ongress
ad,ourned sine die at about midnight o! (anuary '', 1966, as embodied in our resolution dated
February 16, 1966.
@e will now elaborate on the reasons expressed in said resolution.
The important provision to be considered is 0rticle 122, 3ection 14, 3ubsection 5 o! our +onstitution,
which provides-
The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess o! the
+ongress, but such appointments shall be e!!ective only until disapproval by the +ommission
on 0ppointments or until the next ad,ournment o! the +ongress.
0 perusal o! the above>Auoted provision would at once reveal that it is the clear intent o! the !ramers
o! our +onstitution to make a recess appointment e!!ective only .a/ until disapproval by the
+ommission on 0ppointments, or .b/ until the next ad,ournment o! +ongress, and never a day longer
regardless o! the nature o! the session ad,ourned. 0nd this is so considering the plain language o!
the a!oresaid provision which is !ree !rom any ambiguity in the light o! the well>settled rule o!
statutory construction that 9when the intention o! the legislature is so apparent !rom the !ace o! the
statute that there can be no Auestion as to its meaning there is no room !or construction9 .1ol. ',
3utherland, 3tatutory +onstruction, p. )16/. 8ence, the above provision contemplates two modes o!
termination o! an ad interim appointment, or o! one made during the recess o! +ongress, which are
completely separate !rom, and independent o!, each other. 0nd while during the special session
called under proclamation $o. ' no +ommission on 0ppointments was organi:ed by +ongress, the
second mode o! termination, however, had its constitutional e!!ect, as when +ongress ad,ourned
sine die at about midnight o! (anuary ''. 1966. 3uch ad,ournment, in legal contemplation, had the
e!!ect o! terminating petitioner6s appointment thereby rendering it legally ine!!ective.
Petitioner6s theory that the !irst mode o! termination consisting in the disapproval by the +ommission
on 0ppointments should be inseparately related with the clause 9until the next ad,ournment o!
+ongress9 in the sense that the +ommission has to be !irst organi:ed in order that the last mode
may operate is untenable considering that the latter is not dependent upon, nor in!luenced in any
manner by the operation o! the !ormer. 0s already stated, the two modes o! termination are
completely separate !rom and independent o! each other. 2! the !ramers o! the +onstitution had
intended to make the operation o! the second clause dependent upon the prior constitution o! the
+ommission on 0ppointments they should have so stated in clear terms considering that the !irst
clause implies a positive act o! the +ommission, while the second an entirely separate and
independent act o! +ongress. 2ndeed, the theory o! petitioner, i! carried to its logical conclusion, may
result into the anomaly that, should +ongress be controlled by a party not inclined to organi:e said
+ommission, or should there arise a group which !or reasons o! its own indulges in obstructionism,
the +ommission on 0ppointments contemplated in the +onstitution is never organi:ed as a
conseAuence o! the action o! either, any appointment made during the recess o! +ongress would
never run the test o! legislative scrutiny and would thereby then be always considered permanent
even i! it is extended ad interim, a result which, to be sure, was never intended by the !ramers o! our
+onstitution. 2t thus becomes imperative that we avoid such absurd result.
2t is true that the provision o! the +onstitution we are now considering in speaking o! the mode o!
termination epitomi:ed in the phrase 9until the next ad,ournment o! the +ongress9 does not make
any re!erence to any speci!ic session o! the +ongress, B whether regular or special, B but such
silence is o! no moment, !or it is a well>known maxim in statutory construction that when the law
does not distinguish we should not distinguish. C2 "#D $?$ <23T2$=2T $#+ $?3
<23T2$=#;# <#C#*3 .;obles vs. Eambales +hromite *ining +ompany, et al., =. ;. $o. ">
1'&64, 3eptember )4, 19&%/. +onseAuently, it is sa!e to conclude that the !ramers o! our
+onstitution in employing merel" the word ad#ournment as a mode o! terminating an appointment
made during the recess o! +ongress had in mind either the regular or special session, and not
simply the regular one as contended by petitioner.
nder our tripartite !orm o! government predicated on the principle o! separation o! powers the
power to appoint is inherently an executive !unction while the power to con!irm or re,ect
appointments belongs to the legislative department, the latter power having been con!erred as a
check on the !ormer. This power to check may be exercised through the members o! both 8ouses in
the +ommission on 0ppointments. Cut although the +ommission on 0ppointments is provided !or in
the +onstitution, its organi:ation reAuires congressional action, and once organi:ed, by express
provision o! the +onstitution, it 9shall meet only while +ongress is in session.9 +onseAuently, i! !or
any reason +ongress ad,ourns a regular or special session without organi:ing the +ommission on
0ppointments, +ongress should be deemed to have impliedly exercised said power to check by
allowing the ad interim appointments to lapse as provided !or in the +onstitution.
The next important inAuiry is- 3ince +ongress in its special session held under Proclamation $o. ' o!
the President, series o! 1966, did not deem it wise to organi:e the +ommission on 0ppointments to
act on the recess appointments made by the !ormer #xecutive, can it be said that +ongress is
deemed to have impliedly exercised its power to check on such recess appointments when it
ad,ourned its special session at about 1'-44 o6clock midnight o! (anuary '', 1966F
The answer must o! necessity be in the a!!irmative inasmuch as that special session actually
ad,ourned in legal contemplation at about 1'-44 midnight o! (anuary '', 1966 considering that the
3enate ad,ourned sine die at about said hour. 0lthough the 8ouse allegedly suspended its session
at 14-&& p.m. on (anuary '', 1966 to be resumed on *onday, (anuary '5, 1966, at 14-44 a.m.,
+ongress cannot be considered to be in special session subseAuently to (anuary '' !or the reason
that the 8ouse without the 3enate which had ad,ourned sine die, is not 9+ongress.9 2ndeed, when
the 3enate ad,ourned at 1'-44 midnight on (anuary '', 1966 this ad,ournment should be considered
as the 9next ad,ournment o! the +ongress9 o! the special session notwithstanding the alleged
suspension o! the session earlier by the 8ouse !or the reason that neither the 8ouse nor the 3enate
can hold session independently o! the other in the same manner as neither can transact any
legislative business a!ter the ad,ournment o! the other. $one other than President *acapagal and
3peaker +ornelio 1illareal expressed such opinion when as members o! the "ower 8ouse in 19&5
they expoused and de!ended the same on the !loor as can be seen !rom the !ollowing transcript o!
the congressional record-
*r. *0+0P0=0" B . . . 3ince the 3enate has, by its own responsibility, ad,ourned one and
a hal! hours ago, there!ore, under the present !acts, in our +onstitution this 8ouse is
automatically ad,ourned, and there!ore it is improper and illegal !or us to continue the
proceedings !arther.
x x x x x x x x x
*r. 12""0;#0" B *r. 3peaker, although it is true that 2 do not want to appeal !rom the ruling
o! the +hair, nonetheless, 2 maintain that our actuations !rom the time we approved that
resolution will be illegal acts, and 2 do not want this +ongress to commit illegal acts because
it will a!!ect the dignity o! this +hamber. @e are not unaware o! the !acts. 2 invite the
Presiding ?!!icer and everybody here to go to the 3enate now, and i! they accept my
challenge, let us go so that 2 can prove to them that there is not one ghost o! any 3enator in
that +hamber. The 3enate has actually ad,ourned, *r. 3peaker, and are we to have a !iction
here that the 3enators are still holding a sessionF @e approved that resolution o!
ad,ournment be!ore twelve o6clock tonight knowing that the 3enate ad,ourned two or three
hours ago. 0re we cra:y here to believe that the 3enators are still holding sessionsF 8ow
can we in conscience ,usti!y our actuations here that we are still doing something !or the
bene!it o! the people when in !act and in truth we are not because we cannot do soF . . .
*r. 3peaker, let us be !rank7 let us be honest to ourselves7 let us not ridicule ourselves7 let us
ad,ourn now because we having nothing to do and all that we will do will be illegal beginning
now. . . .
*r. 3peaker. 2 honestly believe that legally we cannot do anything any !urther, and i! 2 am the
author o! a bill pending approval, 2 would not submit the bill !or passage now because that
will be the sub,ect o! litigation in court as to whether such approval will be legal or not, and 2
would never risk my committee report to be submitted a!ter the approval o! that resolution,
knowing !ully well that actually and physically that pper +hamber has already ad,ourned.
.+ongressional ;ecord, 8ouse o! ;epresentatives, )rd +ongress, ;epublic o! the
Philippines, First ;egular and First 3pecial 3essions, 1ol. 2, pp. 5491 and 5495/.$%wph&$.'(t
0s a corollary, the theory that there was a continuous session without any interruption when the
house allegedly suspended its session at 14-&& p.m. on (anuary '', 1966 to be resumed on
*onday, (anuary '5, 1966 at 14-44 a.m. cannot be accepted, because such theory runs counter to
well>established parliamentary precedents and practice. Thus, !or one thing, between (anuary '',
1966 at 14-&& p.m. and (anuary '5, 1966 at 14-)& a.m. when the 8ouse opened its regular session,
there intervened (anuary '), 1966, which was 3unday, and as such is expressly excluded by the
+onstitution as a session day o! +ongress. For another, it is imperative that there be a 9constructive
recess9 between a special and regular session, as when a regular session succeeds immediately a
special session or vice>versa, and so a special session cannot be held immediately be!ore a regular
session without any interruption nor can both be held simultaneously together. 8inds6 Precedents
has the !ollowing to say on the matter-
The commissions granted during the recess prior to the convening o! +ongress in
extraordinary session $ovember 9, 194), o! course !urnished law!ul warrant !or the
assumption by the persons named therein o! the duties o! the o!!ices to which they were,
respectively, commissioned. Their names were regularly sent to the 3enate therea!ter. 2!
con!irmed, o! course they would hold under appointment initiated by the nomination without
any regard to the recess commission. 2! not con!irmed, their right to hold under the recess
nomination absolutely ended at 1' o6clock meridian on the Gth o! <ecember, 194), !or at that
hour the extraordinary session ended and the regular session o! +ongress began by
operation o! law. An e)traordinar" session and a regular session can not coe)ist, and the
beginning o! the regular session at 1' o6clock was the end o! the extraordinary session7 not a
constructive end o! it, but an actual end o! it. 0t 1' o6clock <ecember G the President pro
tempore o! the 3enate said-
3enators, the hour provided by law !or the meeting o! the !irst regular session o! the
Fi!ty>eighth +ongress having arrived, 2 declare the extraordinary session ad,ourned
without day.
0side !rom the statement upon the record that the 9hour had struck9 which marked the
ending o! the one and the beginning o! the other, the declaration o! the President pro
tempore was without e!!icacy. 2t did not operate to ad,ourn without day either the +ongress or
the 3enate. *nder the law the arrival of the hour did both.
The constitutional provision that the commission shall expire at the end o! the next session is
sel!>executing, and when the session expires the right to hold under the commission expires
with it. 2! there be no appreciable point o! time between the end o! one session and the
beginning o! another, since o! necessity one ends and another begins, the tenure under the
commission as absolutely terminates as i! months o! recess supervened. .8inds6 Precedents
o! the 8ouse o! ;epresentatives o! the nited 3tates, 1ol. 1, p. %&5./
+onsidering now petitioner6s ad interim appointment and others extended under similar conditions in
the light o! the doctrine we laid down in the 0ytona case, we may say that they were even more
irregular than those involved in said case to the extend that they may be avoided even on this
ground alone. Thus, while President =arcia only extended )&4 ad interim appointments a!ter he had
lost the election, President *acapagal made 1,G1G ad interimappointments most o! which were
made only a!ter the elections in $ovember, 196&. 0s a conseAuence, the !ollowing anomalies were
noted- a !ormer presidential assistant was appointed ,udge o! three di!!erent salas, another was
appointed to a non>existing branch o! the +ourt o! First 2nstance o! Pangasinan, while still another
who had a pending disbarment case received an ad interim appointment as ,udge o! !irst instance.
This is indeed a !ar cry !rom the !ollowing admonition we made in the 0ytona case-
?! course, nobody will assert that President =arcia ceased to be such earlier than at noon o!
<ecember )4, 1961. Cut it is common sense to believe that a!ter the proclamation o! the
election o! President *acapagal, his was no more than a 9caretaker9 administration. 8e was
duty bound to prepare !or the orderly trans!er o! authority to the incoming President, and he
should not do acts which, he ought to know, would embarrass or obstruct the policies o! his
successor. The time !or debate had passed7 the electorate had spoken. 2t was not !or him to
use his powers as incumbent President to continue the political war!are that had ended or to
avail himsel! o! presidential prerogatives to serve partisan purposes. The !illing up o!
vacancies in important positions, i! !ew, and so spaced as to a!!ord some assurance o!
deliberate action and care!ul consideration o! the need !or the appointment and the
appointee6s Auali!ications may undoubtedly be permitted. Cut the issuance o! )&4
appointments in one night and the planned induction o! almost all o! them a !ew hours be!ore
the inauguration o! the new President may, with some reason, be regarded by the latter as
an abuse o! Presidential prerogatives, the steps taken being apparently a mere partisan
e!!ort to !ill all vacant positions irrespective o! !itness and other conditions, and thereby to
deprive the new administration o! an opportunity to make the corresponding appointments.
.0ytona vs. +astillo, et al., =.;. $o. ">19)1), (anuary '4, 196'./
2t is hoped that now and herea!ter such excess in the exercise o! power should be obviated to avoid
con!usion, uncertainty, embarrassment and chaos which may cause disruption in the normal !unction
o! government to the pre,udice o! public interest. 2t is time that such excess be stopped in the
interest o! the public weal.
@here!ore, petition is denied. $o costs.
+engzon, ,.., Re"es, .+.-., +arrera and Regala, ., concur.
.a/alintal, ., dissents for the same reasons previousl" e)pressed b" him in the resolution of 0eb.
$1, $211.
+engzon, .P., and Sanchez, ., too/ no part.
S!"ara#! O"$%$o%&
CONCEPCION, J., concurring-
8aving been extended an ad interim appointment, dated $ovember 1%, 196&, as ndersecretary o!
"abor, petitioner ?no!re F. =uevara assumed the o!!ice on $ovember '&, 196&. The Auestion !or
determination is whether his title to said o!!ice has lapsed upon ad,ournment o! the special session
o! +ongress that began on (anuary 1G, 1966, in view o! the provisions o! 3ection 14.5/, 0rticle 122 o!
the +onstitution, reading-
The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess o! the
+ongress, but such appointments shall be e!!ective only until disapproval by the +ommission
on 0ppointments or until the next ad,ournment o! the +ongress.
Petitioner maintains that the Auestion adverted to above should be answered in the negative, !or
there has been no ad,ournment o! +ongress because the a!orementioned special session had
commenced on (anuary 1G, 1966, and, although the 3enate had ad,ourned sine die shortly a!ter
midnight o! (anuary '' to '), 1966, the 8ouse o! ;epresentatives merely suspended its session on
(anuary '', 1966, at 14-&& p.m., 9to be resumed on (anuary '5, 1966, at 14-44 a.m.9 when the
present regular session began. Petitioner concludes, there!rom, that +ongress has been in
continuous session without any interruption9 since (anuary 1G, 1966.
This pretense is clearly devoid o! merit !or-
1. The 3enate had admittedly ad,ourned at about midnight o! (anuary '' to '), 1966. 2nasmuch as
the 8ouse o! ;epresentatives is only a part o! our +ongress, not ,ongress itself, it !ollows
necessarily that 9+ongress9 can not be said to have been in session on (anuary '), 1966.
'. $ot even the 8ouse was in special session on (anuary ') and '5, 1966. The !act is that it did not
hold any session on (anuary '), 1966. 0lthough it purported to have 9suspended9 the session on
(anuary '' to be resumed on (anuary '5, the 8ouse did not, evidently, intend to 9resume9 the
special session on (anuary '5, 1966, at 14-44 a.m., !or- a/ the members o! the 8ouse knew that
the regular session would then begin7 b/ the regularsession did begin on (anuary '5, 1966, at 14-44
a.m.7 and c/ they did not meet, or tr" or even purport to meet inspecial session on (anuary '5, 1966,
or at any other time a!ter (anuary '', 1966. 2n other words, when, on (anuary '', 1966 at 14-&&
p.m., the 8ouse placed on record that the .special/ session was then suspended to be resumed on
(anuary '5, 1966, at 14-44 a.m., it meant that the +ongressmen would meet on (anuary '5, 1966, at
14-44 a.m., not in special session, but to begin the regular session.
). Petitioner does not claim that +ongress is still in special session. 2t is, likewise, an undisputable
and undisputed !act that the regular session o! +ongress had begun on (anuary '5, 1966. 3ince the
commencement o! such regular session has necessarily put an end, ipso facto, to the special
session that began on (anuary 1G, 1966, the inevitable conclusion is that +ongress, assembled in
such special session, has ad#ourned since, at least, (anuary '5, 1966,
1
even i! we assumed
hypothetically that its two .'/ 8ouses had actually assembled daily in legislative session, without any
interruption, !rom (anuary 1G up to this date, which is not a fact. 2ndeed, said assumption does not
o!!set the !act that the present regular session o! +ongress is di!!erent, distinct and separate !rom
said special session7 that said regular session is not the session ne)t !ollowing the issuance o!
petitioner6s ad interimappointment7 and that, even i! the regular session had !ollowed the special
session, without any ph"sical solution o! continuity, said special session, which is the one ne)t to
said ad interim appointment has in !act and in law beenad#ourned. 8ence, it is admitted in the
petition herein .par. 6HdI/ that the a!orementioned 9suspension by the 8ouse9 o! its session on
(anuary '', to be resumed on (anuary '5, 1966, at 14-44 a.m. 9meant the end o! the special
session.9
2t is next urged by petitioner that the clause 9the next ad,ournment o! the +ongress9 in the above
Auoted provision o! our !undamental law re!ers to an ad,ournment o! +ongress assembled in regular
session. 2 am unable to accept this view because-
1/ To do so would entail a ,udicial legislation by the insertion o! the word 9regular9 in said
provision. @e can not even ,usti!y such act upon the ground o! ,udicial construction, !or
9where the language o! a statute is plain and unambiguous9 B as the constitutional precept
in Auestion is B 9there is no occasion !or construction, and the statute must be given e!!ect
according to its plain and obvious meaning,9
'
and 9this is true even though other meanings of
the language emplo"ed could be fraud.9
)
The editor o! 0merican (urisprudence has expressed itsel! as !ollows-
x x x @here the language o! a statute is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear
and de!inite meaning, there is no occasion !or resorting to the rules o! statutory
construction, and the court has no right to loo/ for or impose another meaning.
5
'/ $either can we adopt petitioner6s theory without, in e!!ect, amending the +onstitution, and
violating its reAuirement there!or o! 9a vote o! three>!ourths .)J5/ o! all the *embers o! the
3enate and o! the 8ouse o! ;epresentatives voting separately9 and a rati!ication by a
ma,ority o! the votes cast at a plebiscite called !or the purpose.
&
0s the branch o! the
=overnment to which the task o! being the last bulwark o! the +onstitution has been
assigned, we can not adopt the posture advocated by the petitioner, entailing as it does an
impairment o! the basic tenets o! our political system, and the assumption o! omnipotent
powers which, admittedly, we do not have.
)/ Petitioner6s theory is re!uted by the !act B admitted by petitioner and his counsel B that
the ad,ournment o! a special session o! +ongress ma" render ine!!ective an ad
interim appointment made prior thereto, i! said appointment had been preceded by a regular
session o! a new +ongress. 2n !act, upon ad,ournment o! the regular session o! +ongress in
196&, ad interim appointments were made, some o! which, including those o! several
members o! this +ourt, were renewed upon the ad,ournment o! each o! the
several specialsessions called a!ter said regular session. 2n other words, it is an established
practice in this ,urisdiction, con!irmed no less than by the party backing up petitioner herein,
that ad interim appointments made be!ore a given special session o! +ongress, expire upon
the ad,ournment thereo!.
5/ Petitioner6s theory is !urther re!uted by the !act that, i! a special session is held be!ore the
initial regular session o! a new +ongress, and the +ommission on 0ppointments is organi:ed
during said special session, its ad,ournment would admittedly extinguish the e!!ectivity o! ad
interim appointments made prior thereto, provided, according to petitioner, that the
+ommission has had reasonable time during that session to act on said appointments.
2n this connection, it should be noted that, although +ongress convenes in regular session on the
!ourth *onday o! (anuary, it may by law !ix another date !or the beginning o! said session.
6
3uppose
that the date !ixed by law there!or is, say, (une 19 .;i:al6s birthday/7 that ad interim appointments
have been made on (anuary ', !ollowing the assumption o! o!!ice o! a new President, who calls !our
.5/ special sessions, one a!ter the other, each !or thirty .)4/ days, the !irst to begin on (anuary &7 and
that the +ommission on 0ppointments is duly organi:ed on (anuary 14. 3hall we hold that, i! the
+ommission does not act on said appointments, the same shall be e!!ective until the ad,ournment o!
the regular session o! +ongress, which, in our hypothesis, would take place early in ?ctoberF
2ndeed, there is no plausible reason to distinguish between the ad,ournment o! a regular session and
that o! a special session, inso!ar as the e!!ect thereo! upon ad interim appointments is concerned.
The main argument adduced in support o! petitioner6s theory that the ad,ournment o! the last special
session o! +ongress cannot a!!ect the e!!ectivity o! his ad interim appointment, is that the
+ommission on 0ppointments had not been organi:ed during said special session and that, even i!
then organi:ed, the +ommission would not have had enough time, during that session, to consider
the 1,G1G ad interim appointments made a!ter the last special session held in 196&.
@ith respect to the last part o! the argument, the +onstitution does not make the extinctive e!!ect o!
the 9next ad,ournment o! the +ongress9 upon ad interim appointments made prior thereto dependent
on the su!!iciency o! the time available to the +ommission on 0ppointments. Thus, i! the +ommission
on 0ppointments were not organi:ed until, say, *ay 1&, 1966, there could be no possible doubt that
such ad interim appointments as may have been made prior to the present regular session o!
+ongress, no matter how many said appointments may be, would lapse upon ad,ournment o!
+ongress at about *ay '4, or !ive .&/ days later, even i! this period o! time were mani!estly
inadeAuate to permit a reasonable consideration o! said appointments.
"et us now consider the theory that the 9next ad,ournment o! the +ongress9 does not extinguish the
e!!ectivity o!ad interim appointments made prior thereto, unless the +ommission on 0ppointments
has been organi:ed be!ore said ad,ournment. This theory is contradicted by the admission o!
petitioner6s counsel during the hearing o! this case, that, upon ad,ournment o! a regular session o!
+ongress, ad interim appointments made be!ore said session would lapse, even i! the +ommission
on 0ppointments had not been organi:ed prior to said ad,ournment.
The a!orementioned theory is, moreover, predicated upon !alse assumptions, namely- that the 9next
ad,ournment o! the +ongress9 should be construed in relation only to the 9disapproval o! the
+ommission on 0ppointments,9 not to 9the recess o! the +ongress97 that 9the next ad,ournment o!
the +ongress9 terminates the e!!ectivity o! ad interimappointments because the +ommission on
0ppointments cannot !unction when +ongress is not in session7 and that +ongress would be
usurping the !unctions o! the +ommission on 0ppointments i! said appointments lapsed by the
ad,ournment o! +ongress, although the +ommission had not as yet been constituted.
0t the outset, it is well to remember that one o! the !undamental tenets underlying our constitutional
system is the principle o! separation o! powers, pursuant to which the powers o! government are
mainly divided into three classes,
G
each o! which is assigned to a given branch o! the service.
%
The
main characteristic o! said principle isnot, however, this allocation o! powers among said branches o!
the service,
9
but the !act that- 1/ each department is independent o! the others and supreme within
its own sphere7 and '/ the power vested in one department cannot be given or delegated, either by
the same or by 0ct o! +ongress, to any other department. The reason is that, otherwise, instead o!
being separated, said powers are likely to be concentrated > and hence united > in one .1/
department,
14
thereby seriously ,eopardi:ing our republican system. 2ndeed, history has shown that
sovereignty cannot long remain in the people when the powers o! =overnment are in the hands o!
one man, !or the latter is thus placed in a position, and would eventually be inclined, to change his
role, !rom that o! a publicservant to that o! master o! the people.
The separation o! powers in our =overnment is not, however, absolute. $ot all legislative powers are
vested in +ongress. 3ome, like the veto power and the power to make rules o! +ourt, are explicitly
vested in the President and the 3upreme +ourt, respectively.
11
3imilarly, not all executive powers
are vested in the President. 3ome, like the treaty>making power, are shared by him with the
legislative department.
1'
$ot all ,udicial powers are vested in courts o! ,ustice. 3ome B like the
pardoning power B are lodged exclusively in the President.
1)
0s a conseAuence, there is some overlapping o! powers and a system o! checks and balances,
under which adepartment may exercise some measure o! restraint, upon another department. 3uch
is the situation as regards appointing power o! the #xecutive, which is sub,ect to said restraint by the
legislative department.
15
2ndeed, the latter may limit said executive power by, inter alia, prescribing
the Auali!ications o! the appointees, !ixing their term o! o!!ice, or disapproving appointments to some
o!!ices.
@ith respect to the approval or disapproval o! appointments, the !ramers o! our +onstitution
considered it, however, impractical to entrust the exercise o! the power to the whole $ational
0ssembly or +ongress. +onsidering its si:eable membership, it was deemed wiser to vest the power
o! con!irmation or re,ection o! appointments upon a body, small enough to permit reasonable
expeditious action, when necessary, but su!!iciently representative to re!lect substantially the views
o! the legislature. 8ence, the +ommission on 0ppointments, which, under the present +onstitution,
consists o! 9twelve 3enators and twelve *embers o! the 8ouse o! ;epresentatives elected by each
8ouse, respectively, on basis o! proportional representation o! the political parties
therein.9
1&
0lthough, in the discharge o! their duties, the *embers o! the +ommission are not under
the control o! +ongress, it is only obvious, !rom the composition o! the +ommission B particularly
the eAual representation therein o! each 8ouse o! +ongress and the manner o! selection o! the
*embers o! the +ommission B that the same was expected to re!lect the !eelings o! +ongress on
presidential appointments, and this expectation has, invariably, been borne out by the !acts. 2n other
words, the +ommission was intended to be, and is an agent o! +ongress, or the means by which
+ongress may check the appointing power o! the President.
*ore speci!ically, appointments made by the President are sub,ect to two .'/ !orms o! legislative
restraint, namely- a/ disapproval o! the +ommission on 0ppointments7 and b/ termination o! the
e!!ectivity o! ad interim appointments upon 9the next ad,ournment o! the +ongress.9
0s regards the !irst !orm o! restraint, the +onstitution provides that regular appointments to speci!ied
o!!ices shall be made only after consent thereto has been given by the +ommission on
0ppointments, to which the President must have first submitted the corresponding
nominations.
16
2nasmuch as the +ommission can act only while +ongress is in session,
1G
no
appointments could be made during a recess o! +ongress !or lack o! said consent, i! the provision
above Auoted had not been inserted in the !undamental law. Pursuant thereto, which +ongress is not
in session, a nomination need not be made. $either is the previous consent o! the +ommission on
0ppointments necessary, !or, being impotent to act at such time, said consent cannot possibly be
given. 2n order to avoid a hiatus in the public service B to !orestall a suspension in the exercise o!
governmental !unctions B the President may 9make appointments during the recess o! the
+ongress, but such appointments shall be e!!ective only until disapproval by the +ommission on
0ppointments or until the next ad,ournment o! the +ongress.9
$ow, why is the li!etime o! ad interim appointments limitedF Cecause, i! they expired before the
session o! +ongress, the evil sought to be avoided B interruption in the discharge o! essential
!unctions B may take place. Cecause the same evil would result i! the appointments ceased to be
e!!ective during the session o! +ongress and be!ore its ad,ournment.
1%
pon the other hand, once
+ongress has ad,ourned, the evil a!orementioned may easily be con,ured by the issuance o!
other ad interim appointments or reappointments.
2n short, an ad interim appointment ceases to be e!!ective upon disapproval by the +ommission,
because the incumbent can not continue holding o!!ice over the positive ob#ection o! the
+ommission. 2t ceases, also, upon the next ad,ournment o! the +ongress,9 simply because the
President may then issue new appointments B notbecause o! implied disapproval o! the
+ommission deduce !rom its inaction during the session o! +ongress, !or, under the +onstitution, the
+ommission may a!!ect adversely the ad interim appointments only by action, never by omission. 2!
the ad#ournment of ,ongress were an implied disapproval of ad interim appointments made prior
thereto, then the President could no longer appoint those so b"passed b" the ,ommission. Cut, the
fact is that the President ma" reappoint them, thus clearly indicating that the reason !or said
termination o! the ad interimappointments is not the disapproval thereo! allegedly in!erred !rom said
omission o! the +ommission, but, the circumstance that, upon said ad#ournment of the ,ongress,
the President is free to ma/e ad interim appointments or reappointments.
2t is thus patent that the ad,ournment o! +ongress operates differentl" !rom the disapproval by the
+ommission7 that the e!!ect o! the !ormer is predicated upon a premise other than that o! the latter7
and that the opinion o! the ma,ority o! the +ourt in the case at bar, not only does not lead to an
encroachment by +ongress upon the !ield assigned to the +ommission on 0ppointments, but is,
moreover, in consonance with the latter and the spirit o! the !undamental law.
2n !act, the !irst dra!t o! our +onstitution provided that ad interim appointments shall 9become
ine!!ective after a period of three months or upon disapproval9 by a Permanent +ommission, which
was to per!orm the !unctions o! the +ommission on 0ppointments. 2n other words, it sub,ected the
e!!ectivity o! said appointments to .1/ a period .three months/ and .'/ a condition .disapproval by the
Permanent +ommission/. 2t is worthy o! notice, in this connection, that the operation of said period
was not conditioned upon the organization of the Permanent ,ommission. The provision
incorporated into the original +onstitution
19
adopted, in principle, the same limitations-a period and a
condition. 2n lieu o! the 9Permanent +ommission9, it used the phrase 9+ommission on
0ppointments9, and instead o! the three>month term in the dra!t, it, merely, inserted the clause 9until
the next ad,ournment o! the $ational 0ssembly9. pon the amendment o! our +onstitution, by the
establishment o! a bicameral legislature, the term 9+ongress9 was substituted in lieu o! the 9$ational
0ssembly9. The philosophy o! the original dra!t was thereby preserved B the e!!ectivity o! ad interim
appointments is sub,ect to a condition .disapproval by the +ommission on 0ppointments/ and a
period .the next ad,ournment o! the +ongress, regardless o! whether the +ommission on
0ppointments was been organi:ed or not/.
0 portion o! my concurring and dissenting opinion in A"tona vs. ,astillo .">19)1), (an. 19, 196'/ has
been Auoted in support o! petitioner herein. <etached !rom the context thereo!, the Auotation
seemingly gives an impression altogether at variance with the obvious import o! said opinion. The
0ytona case did not involve the legal issue posed in this case B the e!!ect o! the ad#ournment o! a
special session o! +ongress upon ad interim appointments made prior thereto. The Auestion raised
in the 0ytona case was whether an incoming President could, before+ongress had met in regular or
special session, validly withdraw ad interim appointments made by the outgoing President, in order
that the +ommission on 0ppointments could not act, even i! it wanted to, on said appointments. 2n
the regular session o! +ongress !ollowing said withdrawal o! ad interim appointments, the
+ommission on 0ppointments was actuall" organized. @hat is more, the ,ommission did, in fact,
approve or confirm some of the aforementioned ad interim appointments. The 0ytona case was
decided even before the next session o! +ongress had begun. 0n incident thereo!
'4
was decided
be!ore the ad#ournment o! said session. There was no occasion, there!ore, to pass upon the e!!ect o!
said ad,ournment. 2n the case at bar, the ad interim appointments made by the outgoing President
were not withdrawn by the incoming President be!ore the special session o! +ongress7 the
+ommission on 0ppointments was not organized during said special session7 and the President
merely considered said appointments
'1
ine!!ective upon the ad,ournment o! the a!orementioned
special session, as well aswithdrawn.
True, there are a number o! things in common between the 0ytona case and the one at bar7 in both
cases the outgoing President had made hundreds o! ad interim appointments knowing that he had
lost his bid !or reelection7 in both cases eAuity is, admittedly, against the action taken by the outgoing
President and in !avor o! that taken by the incoming President7 in both cases the ,udicial verdict has
been in !avor o! the latter. Cut, then, there are the !ollowing points o! di!!erence- .1/ the right o! the
incoming President to withdraw said appointments in the 0ytona case was de!ended by those who
deny the existence o! such right in the present case7 .'/ those who invoked eAuity in !avor o! the
measure taken by the incoming President in the 0ytona case, now ob,ect to the application o! the
rules o! eAuity in !avor o! the action taken by the incoming President in the case at bar7 .)/ the only
legal ground, in support o! our decision in the 0ytona case was a principle o! eAuity in the writs o!
prohibition and mandamus sought by 0ytona depended upon the sound discretion o! the +ourt to be
exercised on eAuitable principles, because o! which the writs were denied B whereas, in addition to
equit", there is a clear and explicit provision o! the +onstitution in support o! the step taken by the
incoming President in the present case7 .5/ those who urged the condition o! said decision in the
0ytona case, backed by no other principles than those o! eAuity, and hailed it as an act o! ,ustice,
now maintains that said principles, plus said constitutional provision, are insu!!icient to warrant a
similar decision in the present case.
2t is trite to say that the interest o! the appointees involved therein cannot but be the ob,ect o! grave
concern. Cut, the +ourts must apply the law as they !ind it, not as they wish it to be. *oreover, the
power to make ad interimappointments and the li!etime thereo! are dictated by considerations o!
public policy B the neccessity o! insuring continuity in the discharge o! the sovereign !unctions o! the
3tate. The protection o! the interest o! the appointees is subordinate to such policy and merel"
incidental thereto. nder our constitutional set up, the President is the principal administrative o!!icer
o! the =overnment. 0s such, he is the o!!icer mainly responsible !or the !aith!ul execution o! the laws
and the maintenance o! law and order in the Philippines. +onsistently with this responsibility, he has
authority to appoint those who shall assist him in the discharge o! his di!!icult task. 8e may exercise
such authority, even i! his term is about to expire, but, only to avoid a disruption in the operation o!
the =overnment. 0nd his appointees B particularly those whose appointments have been con!irmed
by the +ommission on 0ppointments B shall be entitled to remain in o!!ice, even a!ter the expiration
o! his term. Cut, the recipients o! hisad interim appointments are !orwarned that the same are sub,ect
to the resolutory condition and the period adverted to above. They know that, unless approved by
the +ommission prior thereto, the appointments cease to be e!!ective upon the expiration o! said
period. They know that the incoming #xecutive may then either re>appoint those whose ad
interim appointments had lapsed or appoint others whom he may deem !it to carry out the policies o!
his administration. 2n the exercise o! this authority, his !unctions are mainly political, and, hence, not
sub,ect to ,udicial review.
@here!ore, 2 vote to dismiss the petition and concur in the ma,ority opinion, penned by *r. (ustice
Felix Cautista 0ngelo.
'I(ON, J., concurring-
2 concur. 8owever, aside !rom the reasons given in support o! the ma,ority opinion penned by *r.
(ustice Felix Cautista 0ngelo, 2 am o! the opinion that the ad interim appointments extended to
petitioner =uevara must be deemed to have lapsed !or the reasons given in support o! the
concurring opinion penned by !ormer (ustice 3abino Padilla in the 0ytona case B with which 2
concur.
DIGEST 2
Case Digest - Guevara vs. Inocentes, G. R. No. L-25577, 16
SCRA 379, March 15, 1966

Case Digest for Statutory Construction
FACTS: The petitioner, Onofre Guevara was extended an ad interim appointment as Undersecretary of
Laor y the former !xecutive on "ovemer #$, #%&'( Too) his oath of office on "ovemer *'
th
same
year( The incument !xecutive issued +emorandum Circu,ar "o( $ dated -anuary *., #%&& dec,arin/
that a,, ad interim appointments made y the former !xecutive ,apsed with the ad0ournment of the
specia, session of Con/ress at aout midni/ht of -anuary **, #%&&( The respondent, 1aou, 2nocentes
was extended an ad interim appointment for the same position y the incument !xecutive on -anuary
*., #%&&( Guevara fi,ed efore the court an instant petition for 3uo 4arranto see)in/ to e dec,ared
person ,e/a,,y entit,ed to the said Officer of the Undersecretary of Laor under Art( 522 Sec( #6 789 of
the #%.' Constitution( which states that:
The president shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress,
but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or
until the next adjournment of Congress.
Since there was no Commission on Appointments or/ani:ed durin/ the specia, session which
commenced on -anuary #;, #%&&, the respondent contended that the petitioner<s ad interim
appointment as we,, as other made under simi,ar conditions must have ,apsed when the Con/ress
ad0ourned its ,ast specia, session( =ut the petitioner stated that 7#9 the specific provision in the
Constitution which states that: >unti, the next ad0ournment of Con/ress? means ad0ournment of a
re/u,ar session of Con/ress and not y a specia, session and 7*9 on,y the Senate ad0ourned sine die at
midni/ht of -anuary **, #%&& and the @ouse of the 1epresentative mere,y Asuspended< its session and
to e resumed on -anuary *8, #%&& at #6:66 A+( The petitioner therefore conc,udes that Con/ress
has een in continuous session without interruption since -anuary #;(
2SSU!BS:#( 4hether or not, the petitioner<s contention re/ardin/ >the next ad0ournment of Con/ress
specifica,,y provides for re/u,ar session on,y(
*( 4hether or not, the petitioner<s contention that Con/ress is sti,, in continuous sessionC
@!LD: #( "O( The phrase >unti, the next ad0ournment of Con/ress? does not ma)e any reference to
specific session of Con/ress, whether re/u,ar or specia,( =ut a we,,E)now Latin maxim is statutory
construction stated that Awhen the ,aw does not distin/uish we shou,d not distin/uish( Ui ,ex non
distin/uit nec nos distin/uere deemus( 2t is safe to conc,ude that the authors of the #%.'
Constitution used the word >ad0ournment? had in mind either re/u,ar or specia, and not simp,y the
re/u,ar one as the petitioner contended(
*( "O( The mere fact that the Senate ad0ourned sine die at midni/ht of -anuary **, #%&&, the @ouse
of the 1epresentative is on,y a part of the Con/ress and not the Con/ress itse,f( So ,o/ica,,y, the
ad0ournment of one of its @ouses is considered ad0ournment of the Con/ress as a who,e( And the
petitioner<s ad interim appointment must have een ,apsed on -anuary **, #%&& upon ad0ournment of
the Senate(