04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly First, Section 15, Article VII only prohibits the President from “making” an appointment within the prohibited period.[39] According to Garafil, an appointment is already complete when the commission is signed by the President, sealed if necessary, and is ready for delivery.[40] Venturanza, Villanueva and Rosquita argue a step further by insisting that their appointments were perfected,[41] or became effective,[42] upon their issuance,[43] which they equate to the dates appearing on their respective appointment papers.[44] Since their appointments bear dates prior to the two-month ban, they claim that they are not midnight appointees.[45] Additionally, Tamondong asserts that since his appointment was only a continuation of his present position, his acceptance and assumption of office also coincided with the date of his appointment letter.[46] The petitioners uniformly assert that the appointee’s acts, even if made within the prohibited period, do not render a “completed” or “perfected” appointment invalid. These subsequent acts are only necessary to make the appointment effective; and the effectivity of an appointment is not material under the constitutional provision since these acts are already beyond the President’s control.[47] Garafil moreover questions the President’s power to interpret Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. She claims that the President has no power to interpret or clarify the meaning of the Constitution.[48] Second, in making a referral to the Office of the President, the petitioners posit that the CA failed to discharge its duty to resolve the issues submitted under the Court’s referral resolution.[49] The petitioners likewise argue that not all “midnight appointments” are invalid,[50] because they must be adjudged on the basis of the nature, character, and the merits of the appointment. Thus, the petitioners aver that notwithstanding their coverage under E.O. No. 2, proof that their appointments were made to buy votes, for partisan reasons, or in bad faith must first be adduced to nullify their appointments.[51] Third, E.O. No. 2 violated the petitioners’ right to security of tenure.[52] THE COMMENT The respondents, represented by the OSG, pray for the dismissal of the petitions. The respondents dispute the presumption of regularity that the petitioners’ appointments enjoy.[53] They claim that Garafil’s and Venturanza’s appointments, in particular, were irregularly made. Garafil’s (including Villanueva’s, Rosquita’s, and Tamondong’s) appointment and transmittal papers did not pass through the MRO in accordance with the usual procedures; Venturanza’s papers, while coursed through the MRO, were released by the OES only after the appointment ban had set in.[54] The respondents further believe that “appointment” under Section 15, Article VII should be construed as a “process” instead of simply an “act.” In imposing a ban on appointments, the Constitution envisions a complete and effective appointment, which means that the appointee must have accepted the appointment elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60717 37/75