04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Tamondong (petitioners) started with the issuance of E.O. No. 2. a. The present petitioners i. G.R. No. 203372 (Atty. Garafil) Then Solicitor General, Anselmo Cadiz, informed all OSG officers/employees affected by E.O. No. 2 that their appointments had been recalled effective August 7, 2010. Since Garafil’s appointment fell within the definition of midnight appointment under E.O. No. 2, Garafil was removed from the OSG. On August 9, 2010, upon reporting for work, she was apprised of the revocation of her appointment as State Solicitor II due to the implementation of E.O. No. 2.[24] ii. G.R. No. 206290 (Atty. Venturanza) On September 1, 2010, Venturanza received a copy of Department Order (D.O.) No. 566 issued by DOJ Secretary Leila de Lima. D.O. No. 566 designated Senior Deputy State Prosecutor Richard Anthony Fadullon (Fadullon) as Officer in Charge in the Office of the City Prosecutor, Quezon City. On September 15, 2010, Venturanza wrote separate letters (i) to DOJ Sec. de Lima protesting the designation of Fadullon, and (ii) to President Aquino seeking the re-affirmation of his promotion as City Prosecutor. DOJ Sec. de Lima informed Veturanza that he is covered by E.O. No. 2; thus, he should not further perform his functions as Quezon City Prosecutor.[25] Records fail to show if the President acted at all on Veturanza’s letter. iii. G.R. No. 209138 (Villanueva and Rosquita) Rosquita’s appointment was recalled through the October 1, 2010 memorandum of Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa.[26] Villanueva’s and Rosquita’s salaries had also been withheld starting August 1, 2010.[27] iv. G.R. No. 212030 (Atty. Tamondong) In view of the mounting public interest in PGMA’s alleged midnight appointments, Tamondong took another oath of office on July 6, 2010, as an added precaution. Notwithstanding this move, Tamondong was removed from his position as a regular member of the SBMA board of directors effective July 30, 2010.[28] b. The earlier petitions before the Court The petitioners and several others filed separate petitions[29] and motions for intervention[30] before the Court assailing the constitutionality of E.O. No. 2. In a resolution dated January 31, 2012, the Court defined the issues raised in these petitions as follows: 1. Whether the appointment of the petitioners and intervenors were midnight appointments within the coverage of EO 2; elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60717 35/75