04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Among the Four (4) Most Recent Appointments to the Position of Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals,[122] in interpreting Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. In that cited case, the Court was tasked to resolve the correct basis in determining the seniority in the Court of Appeals of the newly appointed justices: whether it should be based on (i) the date the commission was signed by the President, i.e., the date appearing on the face of the document or (ii) the order of appointments as contained in the transmittal letter to the Court.[123] In applying the first option, the Court simply applied the clear letter of the law[124] that seniority should be based on “the dates of their respective appointments.”[125] In closing, the Court said: For purposes of completion of the appointment process, the appointment is complete when the commission is signed by the executive, and sealed if necessary, and is ready to be delivered or transmitted to the appointee. Thus, transmittal of the commission is an act which is done after the appointment has already been completed. It is not required to complete the appointment but only to facilitate the effectivity of the appointment by the appointee’s receipt and acceptance thereof. For purposes of appointments to the judiciary, therefore, the date the commission has been signed by the President (which is the date appearing on the face of such document) is the date of the appointment. Such date will determine the seniority of the members of the Court of Appeals in connection with Section 3, Chapter I of BP 129, as amended by RA 8246. [Italics and emphasis supplied.] The issue before us, however, is not as simple as the issue of seniority of the justices of the CA – a matter that is largely internal to its members. Far more important than this, the issue before us directly relates to the constitutional limitation on the President’s exercise of his appointing power. The applicable law in In Re: Seniority is clearly worded on the proper basis of seniority in the CA, i.e., the date of appointment.[126] This is significantly very much unlike the Constitution’s language that commands the President not to “make appointments.” Thus, the question should be: when do we consider the President to have already made an appointment or exercised his appointing power under Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. Otherwise phrased, we ask: what stage in the appointment process must have been completed before the ban takes effect in order that an appointment may not be considered under the broad category of “midnight appointment” under Section 15, Article VII. ii. Purpose of Section 15, Article VII; in relation with Section 4, Article VII A factor I cannot disregard in our interpretative exercise is the presence of pragmatic considerations[127] underlying Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution that uniquely warrant a deeper and more critical understanding of the whole provision - instead of only a word therein - and of the purpose behind it. These considerations militate not only against a literal interpretation of the phrase “shall not make appointments,” as the CA appear to have shortsightedly ruled, but elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60717 50/75