Scribd
Upload
137 views2 pages

Matibag Vs Benipayo G.R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002

1. Matibag challenged the appointments of Benipayo, Borra, and Tuason to the COMELEC, claiming their "ad interim" appointments by former President Arroyo violated the constitutional independence of the COMELEC and prohibitions on temporary appointments. 2. The Court held that an "ad interim" appointment is permanent, not temporary, as it takes effect immediately and can only be withdrawn if disapproved by the Commission on Appointments. The President's power to make "ad interim" appointments prevents vacancies in important offices and is a valid constitutional power. 3. The Court dismissed Matibag's petition, finding the "ad interim" appointments of Benipayo,

Uploaded by

Wren
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
137 views2 pages

Matibag Vs Benipayo G.R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002

1. Matibag challenged the appointments of Benipayo, Borra, and Tuason to the COMELEC, claiming their "ad interim" appointments by former President Arroyo violated the constitutional independence of the COMELEC and prohibitions on temporary appointments. 2. The Court held that an "ad interim" appointment is permanent, not temporary, as it takes effect immediately and can only be withdrawn if disapproved by the Commission on Appointments. The President's power to make "ad interim" appointments prevents vacancies in important offices and is a valid constitutional power. 3. The Court dismissed Matibag's petition, finding the "ad interim" appointments of Benipayo,

Uploaded by

Wren
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

9. Matibag vs Benipayo G.R. No.

149036, April 2, 2002

FACTS: The COMELEC en banc appointed Ma. J. Angelina G. Matibag as "Acting Director IV" of the
Education and Information Department (EID). Matibag’s appointment was renewed twice as Director IV
of EID in a "Temporary" capacity.
On March 22, 2001, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appointed, ad interim, Benipayo as COMELEC
Chairman, and Borra and Tuason as COMELEC Commissioners, each for a term of seven years. The Office
of the President submitted to the Commission on Appointments the ad interim appointments for
confirmation. However, the Commission on Appointments did not act on the appointments.
In his capacity as COMELEC Chairman, Benipayo issued a Memorandum reassigning Matibag to the Law
Department. Matibag requested for Benipayo to reconsider her relief as Director IV of the EID and her
reassignment to the Law Department but was denied. 
Matibag appealed her request for reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc. She filed the instant
petition questioning the appointment and the righ to remain in office of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason
claiming that the ad interim appointments violate the constitutional provisions on the independence of
the COMELEC, as well as on the prohibitions on temporary appointments and reappointments of its
Chairman and members.
ISSUE: 1. Whether or not the assumption of office by Benipayo, Borra and Tuason on the basis of the ad
interim appointments issued by the President amounts to a temporary appointment prohibited by
Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the Constitution
2. Whether or not the ad interim appointments made by former President Arroyo is constitutional

HELD: 1. No. An ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment because it takes effect


immediately and can no longer be withdrawn by the President once the appointee has qualified into
office. The fact that it is subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments does not alter its
permanent character. The Constitution itself makes an ad interim appointment permanent in character
by making it effective until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next
adjournment of Congress. 
the ad interim appointment remains effective until such disapproval or next adjournment, signifying that
it can no longer be withdrawn or revoked by the President. The fear that the President can withdraw or
revoke at any time and for any reason an ad interim appointment is utterly without basis.
Petitioner’s submission that private respondent’s ad interim appointment is synonymous with a
temporary appointment which could be validly terminated at any time is clearly untenable. Ad interim
appointments are permanent but their terms are only until the Board disapproves them.
2. Yes. Evidently, the exercise by the President in the instant case of her constitutional power to make
ad interim appointments prevented the occurrence of the very evil sought to be avoided by the second
paragraph of Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution. This power to make ad interim appointments is
lodged in the President to be exercised by her in her sound judgment. Under the second paragraph of
Section 16, Article VII of n m abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on her part,
which has not been shown in the instant case.
Petition is dismissed for lack of merit.

You might also like