Navigating the Ban on Midnight Appointments: A Practical Guide

TLDR: This case clarifies the limits of the constitutional ban on midnight appointments in the Philippines. An “acting” appointee has no legal standing to challenge a new appointment, and the ban primarily targets appointments made for partisan reasons close to an election.

G.R. No. 191560, March 29, 2011

Introduction

Imagine a scenario where a new administration takes over, only to find key positions filled with appointees from the previous government, potentially hindering the new administration’s agenda. This is the core concern addressed by the constitutional ban on “midnight appointments” in the Philippines. The Supreme Court case of Hon. Luis Mario M. General v. Hon. Alejandro S. Urro delves into this issue, specifically examining the appointment of National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) Commissioners near the end of a presidential term. The central legal question is whether these appointments violated the constitutional prohibition against appointments made close to a presidential election.

This case provides a crucial understanding of the scope and limitations of the midnight appointments ban, offering practical guidance for both government officials and those seeking appointments in the public sector.

Legal Context: The Ban on Midnight Appointments

The ban on midnight appointments is enshrined in Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. This provision aims to prevent outgoing presidents from making appointments in the final days of their term that could tie the hands of the incoming administration. The exact wording of the constitutional provision states:

“The President shall not make appointments or designations to any office during the period of two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.”

The key legal principles at play here are the separation of powers, the independence of the executive branch, and the need for a smooth transition of power. The Supreme Court has previously interpreted this provision in cases like Dominador R. Aytona v. Andres V. Castillo, et al., emphasizing that the ban is primarily intended to prevent appointments made for partisan reasons or to influence the outcome of an election.

Key Terms:

• Midnight Appointment: An appointment made by an outgoing president during the prohibited period before elections, often seen as an attempt to undermine the incoming administration.
• Quo Warranto: A legal action challenging a person’s right to hold a public office.
• Certiorari: A legal action seeking judicial review of a lower court’s decision.
• Prohibition: A legal action seeking to prevent a lower court or tribunal from acting beyond its jurisdiction.

Case Breakdown: General vs. Urro

The case revolves around the appointments of Alejandro S. Urro, Constancia P. de Guzman, and Eduardo U. Escueta as Commissioners of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) by then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (PGMA) in March 2010, shortly before the presidential elections. Atty. Luis Mario General, the petitioner, was an acting NAPOLCOM Commissioner who was replaced by Urro. General argued that these appointments violated the constitutional ban on midnight appointments and sought to oust Urro from his position.

Here’s a chronological breakdown of the key events:

• September 20, 2004: PGMA appointed Imelda C. Roces as acting NAPOLCOM Commissioner.
• January 25, 2006: PGMA reappointed Roces as acting NAPOLCOM Commissioner.
• September 2007: Roces died.
• July 21, 2008: PGMA appointed Luis Mario General (petitioner) as acting NAPOLCOM Commissioner in place of Roces. On the same date, PGMA appointed Eduardo U. Escueta as acting NAPOLCOM Commissioner and designated him as NAPOLCOM Vice Chairman.
• March 5 & 8, 2010: PGMA appointed Alejandro S. Urro in place of General, Constancia P. de Guzman in place of Celia Leones, and Escueta as permanent NAPOLCOM Commissioners.
• March 9, 2010: Escueta took his oath of office.
• March 19, 2010: Congratulatory letters were issued to Urro, de Guzman and Escueta.
• March 22, 2010: General received the congratulatory letters and filed the petition.
• March 25 & April 27, 2010: Urro and de Guzman took their oaths of office.
• July 30, 2010: Newly elected President Benigno S. Aquino III issued Executive Order No. 2 (E.O. No. 2) recalling midnight appointments.

The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed General’s petition, finding that he lacked the legal standing to challenge Urro’s appointment. The Court emphasized that General was merely an acting appointee and therefore did not have a clear right to the office. The Court reasoned:

“Since the petitioner merely holds an acting appointment (and an expired one at that), he clearly does not have a cause of action to maintain the present petition. The essence of an acting appointment is its temporariness and its consequent revocability at any time by the appointing authority.”

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the constitutionality of the appointments was not the central issue (lis mota) of the case. The primary issue was whether General had a valid claim to the office, which he did not, given his acting appointment.

The Court also noted that General was estopped from claiming he was permanently appointed, having accepted and served under an acting appointment for a considerable time without protest.

Practical Implications

This ruling has several important implications:

• Acting Appointees Lack Standing: Individuals serving in an acting capacity generally cannot challenge the appointment of their replacements through a quo warranto petition.
• Focus on Partisan Intent: The ban on midnight appointments is primarily aimed at preventing appointments made for partisan reasons or to influence elections.
• Acceptance Matters: Accepting an acting appointment without protest can prevent later claims of a permanent appointment.

Key Lessons:

• If you are offered an acting appointment, understand that it is temporary and can be revoked at any time.
• If you believe you are entitled to a permanent appointment, raise your concerns immediately and in writing.
• Be aware of the timing of appointments relative to upcoming elections and potential challenges based on the midnight appointments ban.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is a midnight appointment?

A: A midnight appointment refers to an appointment made by an outgoing president or other appointing authority during the period shortly before an election or the end of their term, often viewed as an attempt to influence the incoming administration.

Q: Does Executive Order No. 2 automatically invalidate all appointments made by the previous administration?

A: No, E.O. No. 2, issued by President Aquino III, specifically targeted appointments made in violation of the constitutional ban on midnight appointments, as defined in the order.

Q: What is the difference between an acting appointment and a permanent appointment?

A: A permanent appointee can only be removed from office for cause, while an acting appointee can be removed even without cause. An acting appointment is temporary and revocable.

Q: What is a quo warranto petition?

A: A quo warranto petition is a legal action challenging a person’s right to hold a public office.

Q: Can an acting appointee file a quo warranto petition?

A: Generally, no. As this case demonstrates, an acting appointee typically lacks the legal standing to challenge the appointment of their replacement through a quo warranto petition.

Q: What factors does the court consider when determining whether an appointment is a midnight appointment?

A: The court considers the timing of the appointment, the intent behind the appointment (whether it was for partisan reasons), and whether the appointee’s acceptance and assumption of office occurred within the prohibited period.

ASG Law specializes in civil litigation and government regulations. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.