This case examines whether the appointment of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs requires confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. The petitioners sought to prohibit the respondent from performing the functions of Commissioner, arguing his appointment was unconstitutional without confirmation. However, the Court ruled confirmation was not needed based on Sec. 601 of the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended, which stated that the Commissioner "shall be appointed by the President." The 1987 Constitution also did not require confirmation for presidential appointments authorized by law, which included the Commissioner position. Therefore, the appointment of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs by the President did not need confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
This case examines whether the appointment of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs requires confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. The petitioners sought to prohibit the respondent from performing the functions of Commissioner, arguing his appointment was unconstitutional without confirmation. However, the Court ruled confirmation was not needed based on Sec. 601 of the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended, which stated that the Commissioner "shall be appointed by the President." The 1987 Constitution also did not require confirmation for presidential appointments authorized by law, which included the Commissioner position. Therefore, the appointment of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs by the President did not need confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
This case examines whether the appointment of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs requires confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. The petitioners sought to prohibit the respondent from performing the functions of Commissioner, arguing his appointment was unconstitutional without confirmation. However, the Court ruled confirmation was not needed based on Sec. 601 of the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended, which stated that the Commissioner "shall be appointed by the President." The 1987 Constitution also did not require confirmation for presidential appointments authorized by law, which included the Commissioner position. Therefore, the appointment of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs by the President did not need confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
This case examines whether the appointment of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs requires confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. The petitioners sought to prohibit the respondent from performing the functions of Commissioner, arguing his appointment was unconstitutional without confirmation. However, the Court ruled confirmation was not needed based on Sec. 601 of the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended, which stated that the Commissioner "shall be appointed by the President." The 1987 Constitution also did not require confirmation for presidential appointments authorized by law, which included the Commissioner position. Therefore, the appointment of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs by the President did not need confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
Sarmiento vs Mison
G.R. No. 79974
December 17, 1987
Facts: The Court in this case is called upon to delineate constitutional boundaries. In this petition for prohibition, the petitioners, seek to enjoin the respondent Salvador Mison from performing the functions of the Office of Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and the respondent Guillermo Carague, as Secretary of the Department of Budget, from effecting disbursements in payment of Mison's salaries and emoluments, on the ground that Mison's appointment as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs is unconstitutional by reason of its not having been confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. The respondents, on the other hand, maintain the constitutionality of respondent Mison's appointment without the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments.
Issue: Whether the appointment of a Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs by the President still needs a confirmation by the Commission on Appointments
Decision: No, the appointment of a Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs needs no Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
Sec. 601 of Republic Act No. 1937, as amended on 27 October 1972 by Presidential Decree No. 34, amending the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines. Sec. 601, as thus amended, now reads as follows:
Sec. 601. Chief Officials of the Bureau of Customs.-The Bureau of Customs
shall have one chief and one assistant chief, to be known respectively as the Commissioner (hereinafter known as Commissioner) and Deputy Commissioner of Customs, who shall each receive an annual compensation in accordance with the rates prescribed by existing law. The Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner of Customs shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines (Emphasis supplied.)
Under Sec 16 Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution, there are 4 groups of officers whom the President shall appoint:
1st, appointment of executive departments and bureaus heads, ambassadors,
other public ministers, consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers with the consent and confirmation of the Commission on Appointments;
RKKYap Digest 2nd, all other Government officers whose appointments are not otherwise provided by law;
3rd those whom the President may be authorized by the law to appoint; and
4th, low-ranking officers whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the President alone.
First group of officers is clearly appointed with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Appointments of such officers are initiated by nomination and, if the nomination is confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, the President appoints. 2nd, 3rd and 4th group of officers are the present bone of contention.
By following the accepted rule in constitutional and statutory construction that
an express enumeration of subjects excludes others not enumerated, it would follow that only those appointments to positions expressly stated in the first group require the consent (confirmation) of the Commission on Appointments.
Also, in the 1987 Constitution, the clear and expressed intent of its framers was to exclude presidential appointments from confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, except appointments to offices expressly mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. 16, Article VII.
Therefore, the appointment of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs is one
that devolves on the President, as an appointment he is authorized by law to make, such appointment, however, no longer needs the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments.
