04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Cooperative Development Authority, and Commissioner of National Commission on Indigenous Peoples [respectively,] is VALID, the same being a [sic] midnight appointment[s]. SO ORDERED.[38] G.R. No. 212030 (CA-G.R. SP No. 123664) On 31 August 2012, the CA promulgated its Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 123664. The dispositive portion reads as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is hereby DISMISSED. Executive Order No. 2 is hereby declared NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Accordingly, the revocation of Atty. Eddie Tamondong’s appointment as Director of Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority is VALID for being a midnight appointment. SO ORDERED.[39] The Issues for Resolution We resolve the following issues in these petitions: (1) whether petitioners’ appointments violate Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, and (2) whether EO 2 is constitutional. Ruling of the Court The petitions have no merit. All of petitioners’ appointments are midnight appointments and are void for violation of Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. EO 2 is constitutional. Villanueva and Rosquita, petitioners in G.R. No. 209138, did not appeal the CA’s ruling under Rule 45, but instead filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. This procedural error alone warrants an outright dismissal of G.R. No. 209138. Even if it were correctly filed under Rule 45, the petition should still be dismissed for being filed out of time.[40] There was also no explanation as to why they did not file a motion for reconsideration of the CA’s Decision. Midnight Appointments This ponencia and the dissent both agree that the facts in all these cases show that “none of the petitioners have shown that their appointment papers (and transmittal letters) have been issued (and released) before the ban.”[41] The dates of receipt by the MRO, which in these cases are the only reliable evidence of actual transmittal of the appointment papers by President Macapagal-Arroyo, are dates clearly falling during the appointment ban. Thus, this ponencia and the dissent both agree that all the appointments in these cases are midnight appointments in violation of Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. Constitutionality of EO 2 Based on prevailing jurisprudence, appointment to a government post is a process elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60717 10/75