Process of Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments | Power of Appointment | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Power of Appointment of the President and the Process of Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments

I. Constitutional Framework on the Power of Appointment

The power of appointment is vested in the President of the Philippines under Article VII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution. This provision grants the President the authority to appoint individuals to public office, either with or without the need for confirmation by the Commission on Appointments (CA).

The relevant portion of Article VII, Section 16 states:

“The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint.”

This power is broad and applies to various positions in government, but the Constitution provides specific rules for appointments that require the confirmation of the CA, as well as those that do not.

II. Classifications of Appointments

1. Appointments Requiring Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments (CA): Appointments to certain key government positions require the consent of the CA before they can take effect. These positions include:

   • Heads of executive departments (Cabinet Secretaries)
   • Ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls
   • Officers of the Armed Forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain
   • Other officers as may be provided by law or vested in the President by the Constitution

   The rationale for requiring confirmation from the CA is to provide a system of checks and balances, ensuring that these key appointments are subject to legislative oversight. The CA is composed of members of Congress and acts as a mechanism to prevent abuse in appointments.

2. Appointments Not Requiring CA Confirmation: The President is also empowered to appoint a wide range of officials without the need for CA confirmation. These include:

   • Members of the Supreme Court and lower courts (judicial appointments are subject to the Judicial and Bar Council’s nomination process, but not CA confirmation)
   • Members of Constitutional Commissions such as the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), Civil Service Commission (CSC), and Commission on Audit (COA), although they require confirmation from the CA
   • The Ombudsman and his or her Deputies (subject to CA confirmation)
   • Heads of government agencies or offices other than those listed for CA confirmation
   • Temporary appointments made during a recess of Congress (recess appointments), which are effective only until the next adjournment of Congress

III. The Appointment Process

1. Nomination and Appointment: The process begins with the nomination by the President. The nominee's qualifications, integrity, and capacity to serve are often evaluated based on their record, background, and the requirements of the position.

2. Submission to the Commission on Appointments: For positions that require confirmation, the nomination is submitted to the CA. The CA is a bicameral body composed of members from both the Senate and the House of Representatives. It is chaired by the Senate President and functions as a collective body distinct from the legislative function of Congress.

3. Hearing and Deliberation: The CA, through its relevant committees, conducts public hearings where the nominee is invited to answer questions regarding his or her qualifications, background, and plans for the position. The process is rigorous, and members of the CA may raise objections, seek clarification, or support the nomination based on the responses of the nominee and the overall assessment of their suitability for the role.

4. Voting: After the hearings, the CA proceeds to vote on the nomination. A majority vote of all members of the CA is required for confirmation. If the nominee secures the majority vote, the CA issues a formal confirmation of the appointment. In the case of non-confirmation, the nomination is rejected, and the President must submit a new nominee for the same position or make an interim appointment during a recess of Congress.

5. Effect of Non-Confirmation: If the CA disapproves or rejects the appointment, the nominee is barred from assuming office. However, the President may appoint a new nominee to the same position or, in certain cases, may issue a temporary or ad interim appointment during a recess of Congress (discussed further below).

IV. Ad Interim Appointments

1. Nature of Ad Interim Appointments: An ad interim appointment is a temporary appointment made by the President during a recess of Congress. Such appointments take effect immediately and enable the appointee to assume office, even before the CA has confirmed the appointment. However, the appointment is subject to CA confirmation when Congress reconvenes.

2. Effectivity of Ad Interim Appointments: Ad interim appointments remain effective unless the CA expressly disapproves the appointment upon reconvening. If the CA rejects the ad interim appointment, the appointee must vacate the position. If no action is taken by the CA, the ad interim appointment remains valid until the end of the next session of Congress.

3. Limitations on Ad Interim Appointments: While ad interim appointments are a means for the President to fill critical vacancies during Congress’ recess, they are meant to be temporary. They are often scrutinized for potential misuse, particularly in attempts to bypass the CA's oversight role. As such, a non-confirmed appointee cannot be reappointed ad interim after the rejection of the nomination by the CA.

V. Checks and Balances: Role of the Commission on Appointments

The Commission on Appointments plays a pivotal role in ensuring the integrity of key presidential appointments. It serves as a check on executive power, preventing abuse in the selection of high-ranking government officials. The CA’s confirmation power ensures that only qualified and capable individuals are appointed to positions of critical importance in the government.

1. Independent Function of the CA: The CA operates independently of both the legislative and executive branches in its function of reviewing and confirming appointments. Although composed of members of Congress, it acts as a separate body with its own rules and procedures.

2. Transparency and Public Accountability: The public nature of CA hearings allows transparency in the confirmation process. Nominees are questioned not only on their qualifications but also on any past controversies or issues of integrity that may arise. This open scrutiny helps ensure public accountability of high-ranking officials.

3. Limitations on the CA’s Power: The CA’s confirmation power is limited to specific positions expressly provided for by the Constitution and by law. It does not extend to appointments that fall outside its jurisdiction, such as judicial appointments or appointments to certain government agencies. This is in line with the principle of separation of powers and allows for distinct processes depending on the nature of the appointment.

VI. Judicial Review of Appointments

In some cases, disputes regarding appointments or the confirmation process may be subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court of the Philippines has, in several cases, ruled on the validity of appointments, especially concerning issues of constitutional interpretation, qualifications, and the role of the CA. The judiciary may intervene if there is a grave abuse of discretion in the appointment or confirmation process.

VII. Key Jurisprudence

1. Flores v. Drilon (1993) – The Supreme Court clarified that the CA's role in confirming appointments is limited only to positions specifically enumerated in the Constitution and by law. Appointments to positions outside this list do not require CA confirmation.

2. Matibag v. Benipayo (2002) – The Court upheld the validity of ad interim appointments and clarified that an appointee who is rejected by the CA cannot be reappointed in the same capacity during the same legislative session.

3. Pimentel v. Executive Secretary (2002) – This case reaffirmed that the CA must confirm key appointments, such as those for constitutional commissions, to prevent the concentration of appointment powers in the executive branch.

VIII. Conclusion

The power of appointment is one of the most significant powers vested in the President of the Philippines. However, the Constitution ensures that this power is not exercised unchecked by requiring certain appointments to undergo the process of confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. This process balances executive authority with legislative oversight, maintaining a system of checks and balances essential to the democratic governance of the country. The CA's confirmation role safeguards the integrity of appointments, ensuring that only qualified and reputable individuals serve in key government positions.