04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly i. a. Appointment in its broad sense ? as a process As a process, appointments made by the President[108] undergo three stages: first, the making of the commission,[109] which includes the signing of the appointment papers by the President and its sealing if necessary; second, the issuance of the commission and the release of the transmittal letter, if any; and third, the appointee’s receipt and acceptance of the appointment, which could either be express or implied. In this broad sense, an appointment is a process that is initiated by the acts of the President and culminates with the positive acts of the appointee.[110] This broad interpretation of an appointment is necessary and appropriate in cases where there is no issue as to the validity of the first two stages of appointment, i.e., the signing of the appointment papers, and the issuance of the commission. The main question to be resolved in considering an appointment as a process, is whether or not there was a valid assumption of public office, based on the appointee’s valid acceptance of the appointment through an oath or any positive act. In Javier v. Reyes,[111] the Court upheld the appointment of petitioner Isidro Javier as Chief of Police of Malolos on the finding that no question existed on the regularity of his appointment by the then mayor of Malolos. Compared to his fellow claimant over the position, he was the one who accepted the appointment by taking an oath and subsequently discharging the functions of his office. Although this case does not concern a Presidential appointment, it shows that in cases where there was already a valid act of appointment, the only remaining act to be done is for the appointee to exercise his part in the process so that the appointment will be effective. Consequently, an acceptance merely results from the valid exercise of the appointing authority of his power to appoint. It is an act of the appointee that lies outside the control of the appointing authority and totally depends on the appointee’s discretion. i. b. Appointment in its narrow sense - as an executive act Appointment, as an executive act, is an exercise of power or authority. It is the unequivocal act of designating or selecting an individual to discharge and perform the duties and functions of an office or trust.[112] The appointment is deemed complete once the last act required of the appointing authority has been complied with and acceptance is thereafter made by the appointee in order to render it fully effective.[113] In this narrow sense, appointment is simply an executive act; that the full effectiveness of an appointment requires a positive act from the appointee is not a denial of the existence of the power and the full exercise of the act by the executive himself. Appointment as an executive act, as opposed to a process, is well-established under our laws and jurisprudence. This is referred to as the President’s appointing power. Specifically, this executive power is embodied in the Constitution under Article VII, elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60717 47/75