Public Corporations Digested by: Jennylyn C.

Mondejar

Joson v. Ombudsman
G.R. Nos. 210220-21 April 6, 2016

Facts: Joson and the Province of Nueva Ecija, represented by Governor Umali, entered into a contract of consultancy with
Ferdinand wherein the latter was appointed or employed as Consultant-Technical Assistant in the Office of the Governor. Joson
asserted that Governor Umali appointed Ferdinand despite his knowledge of the latter's disqualification for appointment or re-
employment in any government position.

Joson claimed that Ferdinand was dismissed from the service as Senior State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice for
"conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service" pursuant to Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 14, and that such penalty of
dismissal carried with it his perpetual disqualification for re-employment in the government service.

On the other hand, Governor Umali and Ferdinand claimed that he is not an employee of the Provincial Government of Nueva
Ecija since he is not was not vested with a portion of the sovereign authority.

Issue: WON Ferdinand is an employee of the Provincial Government of Nueva Ecija.

Held: NO. The Court notes that Ferdinand did not take an oath of office prior to his rendition of consultancy services for the
Provincial Government of Nueva Ecija. All public officers and employees from the highest to the lowest rank are required to take
an oath of office which marks their assumption to duty. It is well-settled that on oath of office is a qualifying requirement for
public office, a prerequisite to the full investiture of the office.

In this case, Ferdinand was not required to take an oath of office because he rendered consultancy services for the provincial
government not by virtue of an appointment or election to a specific public office or position but by a contractual engagement.

Pimentel v. Ermita
G.R. No. 164978 October 13, 2005

Facts: The Senate and the House of Representatives ("Congress") commenced their regular session on July 26, 2004. The
Commission on Appointments, composed of Senators and Representatives, was constituted on August 25, 2004.

On September 8, 2004, Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., On September 8, 2004, Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., together
with other senators, filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition to declare unconstitutional the appointments issued by
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, through Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita (Secretary Ermita), to several individuals
(Abad, Cruz, Jr., Defensor, Durano, Gonzales, Romulo, Villa and Yap, etc.) as acting secretaries of their respective departments
while Congress is in session. Pimentel argued that they should not be allowed to assume office in the absence of the concurrence
by the Commission on Appointments as required by the Constitution.

Congress adjourned on September 22, 2004. On September 23, 2004, President Arroyo issued ad interim appointments.

ISSUE: WON president’s appointment is valid.

Held: YES. Supreme Court ruled that this is a valid issuance by the president because they were simply issued in an acting
capacity. President’s act impairs no power of Congress since the Commission on Appointments is independent of Congress
whose powers come from the Constitution. Its exercise of powers is executive and not legislative. The office of a Department
Secretary may become vacant while Congress is in session. Congress, through a law, cannot impose on the President the
obligation to appoint automatically the undersecretary as her temporary alter ego. An alter ego, whether temporary or permanent,
holds a position of great trust and confidence.
Even one who has not yet been in the government service may be designated or appointed by the President in an acting capacity,
say as department head. There may be a possibility of abuse here, right? The rule is, to prevent such abuse, the acting
appointment cannot exceed one year. There is no abuse in the present case as President GMA issued ad interim appointments to
respondents immediately upon the recess of Congress, way before the lapse of one (1) year.

In this case, the independence of the Commission on Appointments from Congress, it is error for petitioners to claim standing in
the present case as members of Congress. President Arroyo's issuance of acting appointments while Congress is in session
impairs no power of Congress.