04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Sections 14, 15, and 16 and is vested on the President as provided under Section 1, Article VII. A plain reading of the Constitution alone shows that the term “appointment” may pertain to the President’s act of appointment as the President, on his own, has the power to appoint officials as authorized under the Constitution and the pertinent laws. This presidential appointment power should be distinguished from the appointment process that requires the act of the appointee for its efficacy. If these two concepts would be confused with one another, the result could be havoc and absurdities in our jurisprudence every time we resolve a case before us. The President’s power of appointment is sui generis. It is intrinsically an executive act because the filling of an office created by law is an implementation of that law. [114] The power to appoint is the exclusive prerogative of the President involving the exercise of his discretion;[115] the wide latitude given to the President to appoint is further demonstrated by the constitutional recognition that the President is granted the power to appoint even those officials whose appointments are not provided for by law.[116] In other words, where there are offices that have to be filled, but the law does not provide the process for filling them, the Constitution recognizes the power of the President to fill the office by appointment. Any limitation on or qualification to the exercise of the President’s appointment power should be strictly construed and must be clearly stated in order to be recognized. In Osea v. Malaya[117] and in other several cases,[118] the Court held that an appointment may be defined as the selection, by the authority vested with the power, of an individual who is to exercise the functions of a given office. The constitutionally mandated power of the President’s appointing power was statutorily recognized under Section 16, Chapter V, Book III, Title I of the Administrative Code. Book III of the Code pertains to the Office of the President, and Title I relates to the “Powers of the President.” Chapter V, on the other hand, focuses on the President’s “Power of Appointment” and its Section 16 provides: Section 16. Power of Appointment. - The President shall exercise the power to appoint such officials as provided for in the Constitution and laws. Under these terms and structure, the term “appointment” apparently does not automatically equate to a process and pertain to the President’s act or exercise of his power of appointment. Thus, when interpreting the word “appointment” in cases before the Court, we must consider which of the two should be applied considering the factual and legal settings of each case. In the present case, I submit that what is applicable is not the concept of “appointment as a process” but the executive act or the President’s power of appointment. The interpretation of “appointment” in Section 15, Article VII as an executive act rather than as a process finds support in the language of the provision itself. Section 15, Article VII reads: Section 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60717 48/75