In the case of Matibag v. Benipayo, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of ad interim appointments within the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The Court upheld that ad interim appointments are permanent, effective immediately, and do not violate the constitutional prohibition against temporary appointments. This ruling affirms the President’s power to ensure continuous operation of essential government functions, especially in constitutional bodies like the COMELEC, by filling vacancies promptly during congressional recess, thereby clarifying the balance between executive authority and the need for independent commissions.

Can the President’s Recess Appointments Uphold COMELEC’s Independence?

This case arose when Ma. J. Angelina G. Matibag questioned the appointments of Alfredo L. Benipayo as COMELEC Chairman and Resurreccion Z. Borra and Florentino A. Tuason, Jr. as COMELEC Commissioners. Matibag challenged their right to hold office based on the argument that their ad interim appointments were unconstitutional. She argued that such appointments were temporary in nature and thus violated the constitutional provision prohibiting temporary appointments within the COMELEC. Further complicating matters, Matibag questioned the legality of her reassignment within the COMELEC following Benipayo’s appointment.

At the heart of the matter was Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the Constitution, which states that “[i]n no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.” Matibag interpreted “ad interim” appointments as temporary, suggesting that appointees could not truly guarantee the COMELEC’s independence since their positions remained subject to potential presidential or congressional influence until confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. This raised questions about the extent to which ad interim appointments can be considered permanent, considering their dependence on subsequent confirmation.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed, firmly establishing that ad interim appointments are indeed permanent. The Court referenced its previous ruling in Summers vs. Ozaeta, emphasizing that the requirement of confirmation by the Commission on Appointments does not alter the permanent character of such appointments. An appointee can immediately assume office and exercise its powers, making them a de jure officer from the moment they qualify. The Court also pointed out the limited duration of ad interim appointments is intentional; to avoid interruption in essential functions, recognizing that these appointments remain effective unless disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress, safeguarding against potential interruptions in crucial governmental operations.

Petitioner’s reliance on Black’s Law Dictionary to define “ad interim” as “in the meantime” or “for the time being,” thus inferring a temporary nature, was also dismissed. Citing Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, the Court clarified that the term “ad interim” indicates the manner of appointment—done by the President while the Board of Regents (or Congress) is unable to act—rather than the nature of the appointment itself.

In addition to questioning the nature of ad interim appointments, Matibag also claimed that the renewal of the ad interim appointments violated the constitutional prohibition against reappointment under Section 1 (2), Article IX-C, highlighting a conflict between executive actions and constitutional constraints. However, the Court clarified that this prohibition applies to those who have previously held confirmed appointments and served a full or partial term, ensuring they do not exceed the maximum term of seven years. This clarification provided a structured understanding of appointment renewals and the specific bounds of reappointment within constitutional limits.

The Supreme Court highlighted the President’s discretion in appointing individuals to office. Whether to nominate or extend an ad interim appointment lies within the President’s constitutional prerogative, not subject to judicial inquiry without clear abuse of discretion. To underscore, this principle upholds the balance between the Executive and Legislative branches, reinforcing the President’s essential role in ensuring continuous government operations.

Beyond these constitutional questions, the case involved the reassignment of Matibag within the COMELEC, with the court considering whether Chairman Benipayo had the authority to reassign her. Based on Matibayo’s authority as COMELEC Chairman, which also recognizes their temporary or acting status within their prior positions, the Supreme Court deferred the decisions of power within these roles; thus Matibayo was ultimately seen to be operating within legal and statutory bounds to instate a new leader in that director role.

Consequently, the Court dismissed Matibag’s petition. Benipayo, Borra, and Tuason were validly appointed, holding the necessary constitutional safeguards; and, given the importance and specific functions of all those in appointment or assumption of appointment roles – ultimately, as with Benipayo and their leadership, or even Cinco – as director- there’s no excessive payments or legal or otherwise superfluous disbursements occurring to them in an official capacity. Given there wasn’t a gross of legal overstep shown for that level or capacity.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether ad interim appointments to the COMELEC violate the constitutional provision against temporary appointments. The petitioner argued that ad interim appointments are temporary until confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.
What is an ad interim appointment?	An ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment made by the President during a recess of Congress. It is effective immediately but lasts only until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress.
Are ad interim appointments considered temporary appointments?	No, the Supreme Court has consistently held that ad interim appointments are permanent, not temporary. The fact that they are subject to confirmation does not alter their permanent nature.
Can the President renew an ad interim appointment if it lapses?	Yes, the President can renew an ad interim appointment that lapses due to inaction by the Commission on Appointments. Such a renewal does not violate the prohibition on reappointment.
What is the prohibition on reappointment in the COMELEC?	The prohibition on reappointment ensures that no COMELEC member serves more than a seven-year term. It applies to those who have been appointed, confirmed, and served a term—full or partial.
Did the reassignment of the petitioner violate any laws?	No, the Court found that Chairman Benipayo had the authority to reassign COMELEC personnel, and the reassignment did not violate the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC Chairman holds full authority as per administrative practices and in light of being appointed legitimately, the appointment would hold and thus those reporting or being influenced from this power, follows into his new influence/legitimacy of position and overall responsibilities given.
Is it permissible to reappoint those to the COMELEC for similar roles?	The term “ad intrem”, with the president’s powers on that appointment (as previously seen, tested, noted) makes this re-appoint and the rules still, legitimate and congruent and with legitimacy over appointment(s). Given as well the other mentioned administrative details of process in place from all involved here as well too.
What was the significance of COMELEC Resolution No. 3300?	COMELEC Resolution No. 3300 exempted the COMELEC from certain provisions of the Omnibus Election Code, including restrictions on personnel transfers during the election period. It clarified that transfers were permissible as required; thus for Chairman Banipayo in this context in realness/ practice he held this power.

Matibag v. Benipayo confirms the scope of presidential power in making ad interim appointments, which is vital for ensuring continuous governmental functions, especially in critical constitutional bodies. It strikes a balance, enabling the President to address vacancies efficiently while still maintaining the integrity and independence of constitutional commissions. This equilibrium reinforces a system of checks and balances within the framework of governance in the Philippines, and highlights ASG LAW’s emphasis of quality interpretation, guidance and advice.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, April 02, 2002