04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the Philippines is the Executive of the Government of the Philippines, and no other. [149] Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, G.R. No. 192935, December 7, 2010, 637 SCRA 78, 154. [150] Rufino v. Enriga, 528 Phil. 473 (2006). In National Electrification Administration v. Commission on Audit, 427 Phil. 464, 485 (2002), the Court said: Executive officials who are subordinate to the President should not trifle with the President’s constitutional power of control over the executive branch. There is only one Chief Executive who directs and controls the entire executive branch all other executive officials must implement in good faith his directives and orders. This is necessary to provide order, efficiency and coherence in carrying out the plans, policies and programs of the executive branch. [151] Bermudez v. Torres, G.R. No. 131429, August 4, 1999, 311 SCRA 733. [152] Ponencia. [153] Id. [154] Id. at 16. [155] CA Decision in G.R. No. 203372, pp. 15-16; CA Decision in G.R. No. 206290, pp. 23-24. [156] The CA’s ruling implies that a timely issued appointment has an expiration date that coincides with the date of the appointment ban, such that, if the appointee does not act on his appointment before its expiration, there is no longer any appointment that he can accept later on. This implication obviously finds no support both in the language and intent of Section 15, Article VII. [157] However, while the appointee’s acts may be made even after the appointment ban, the constitution presupposes that the appointment made will take effect or the office involved will be vacant prior to the effectivity of the constitutional ban. This is clearly deduced from E.O. No. 2 itself. E.O. No. 2 Section 1b reads: SECTION 1. Midnight Appointments Defined. – The appointments shall be considered as midnight appointments: following xxxx (b) Those made prior to March 11, 2010, but to take effect after said date or appointments to office that would be vacant only after March 11, 2010. [158] This is where the advisability of coursing the appointment through the MRO comes in. [159] In this regard, we cannot totally discount Director Dimaandal’s testimony that elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60717 74/75