DOMINADOR R. AYTONA, petitioner,
the appointments were irregular, immoral and unjust, because
vs.
ANDRES V. CASTILLO, ET AL., respondents.
Facts:
• On December 29, 1961, then President Carlos P. Garcia appointed
Dominador R. Aytona as ad interim Governor of the Central Bank.
On the same day, the latter took the corresponding oath.
• On December 30, 1961, at noon, President-elect Diosdado
Macapagal assumed office; and on December 31, 1961, he issued
Administrative Order No. 2 recalling, withdrawing, and cancelling
all ad interim appointment made by President Garcia after
December 13, 1961, (date when he, Macapagal, had been
proclaimed elected by the Congress). On January 1, 1962,
President Macapagal appointed Andres V. Castillo as ad interim
Governor of the Central Bank, and the latter qualified immediately.
• On January 2, 1962, both appointed exercised the powers of their
office, although Castillo informed Aytona of his title thereto; the
next day and thereafter, Aytona was definitely prevented from
holding office in the Central Bank.
• Aytona filed a quo warranto, challenging Castillo's right to exercise
the powers of Governor of the Central Bank.
o Aytona claims he was validly appointed, had qualified for
the post, and therefore, the subsequent appointment and
qualification of Castillo was void, because the position was
then occupied by him.
o Castillo replies that the appointment of Aytona had been
revoked by Administrative Order No. 2 of Macapagal; and
so, the real issue is whether the new President had power
to issue the order of cancellation of the ad interim
appointments made by the past President, even after the
appointees had already qualified.
• The record shows that President Garcia sent to the Commission on
Appointments — which was not then in session — several
communications dated December 29, 1961, submitting for
confirmation names of appointees, one of which is herein
petitioner. There were other appointments thus submitted by
President Garcia on that date, December 29, 1961. All in all, about
three hundred fifty (350) "midnight" or "last minute" appointments.
• In revoking the appointments, President Macapagal is said to have
acted for these and other reasons:
1. the outgoing President should have refrained from filling
vacancies to give the new President opportunity to consider
names in the light of his new policies, which were approved by
the electorate in the last elections;
2. these scandalously hurried appointments in mass do not fall
within the intent and spirit of the constitutional provision
authorizing the issuance of ad interim appointments;
3.
they were issued only upon the condition that the appointee
would immediately qualify obviously to prevent a recall or
revocation by the incoming President, with the result that
those deserving of promotion or appointment who preferred to
be named by the new President declined and were by-passed;
and
4. the abnormal conditions surrounding the appointment and
qualifications evinced a desire on the part of the outgoing
President merely subvert the policies of the incoming
administration.
Issue:
The question is whether the appointment of a person to a public office by a
President whose term of office was about to expire or cease is lawful or
does not contravene the Constitution; or, if lawful after the appointee has
taken his oath, until when would such appointment be valid and effective.
Held:
WHEREFORE, the Court exercising its judgment and discretion in the
matter, hereby dismiss the action, without costs.
• The "midnight appointments" made by President Garcia were
extended by him under Section 10, Paragraph 4, Article VII of the
Constitution which provides: "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 the
Congress." It is clear that these appointments can only be made
during the recess of Congress because they are ad interim
appointments.
• The term "recess" has a definite legal meaning. It means the
interval between a session of Congress that has adjourned and
another of the same Congress. It does not refer to the interval
between the session of one Congress and that of another. In that
case the interval is not referred to as a "recess" but an
adjournment sine die.
• If the ad interim appointments made by the President during the
recess of the Congress are effective only until disapproval by the
Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the
Congress — a limitation on the power of the President — there is a
cogent and strong reason for holding to be the intent of the
framers of the Constitution that such appointments made by him
ceased to be valid and effective after the term of the Congress
existing at the time of the making of such appointments had ended
or expired. The end or expiration of the of the Congress existing at
the time of the making of the ad interim appointments by the
President is a stronger cause or reason for the lapse or
ineffectuality of such appointments than "the next adjournment of
the Congress." Since that Congress no longer exists and hence can
no longer convene and then "adjourn." The effectivity and validity
of the appointment of the petitioner as Governor of the Central
Bank ceased, lapsed and expired on thirtieth of December 1961.
He is no longer entitled hold the office to which he had been
appointed.