04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly administration. In elevating the Aytona ruling and its resulting prohibition against midnight appointments to the level of a constitutional provision, the thrust of Section 15, Article VII must be the broadening of the general rule against the exercise of the midnight appointing power and the narrowing of the exception in its favor.[133] A constitutional provision specifically directed only against an outgoing President’s exercise of his appointing power is also an express recognition of the unique and vast powers and responsibilities inherent in the Office of the President[134] that an outgoing President should most judiciously consider. Again, I quote Aytona: Of course, nobody will assert that President Garcia ceased to be such earlier than at noon of December 30, 1961. But it is common sense to believe that after the proclamation of the election of President Macapagal, his was no more than a “caretaker” administration. He was duty bound to prepare for the orderly transfer of authority the incoming President, and he should not do acts which he ought to know, would embarrass or obstruct the policies of his successor. The time for debate had passed; the electorate had spoken. It was not for him to use powers as incumbent President to continue the political warfare that had ended or to avail himself of presidential prerogatives to serve partisan purposes. To be sure, the broad discretion given the appointing power may be limited by the Constitution[135] and by law.[136] Nonetheless, any limitation of the exercise of this broad power is generally strictly construed. Correspondingly, any undue expansion of a textually evident limitation under Section 15, Article VI, would[137] amount to judicial legislation. iii. Nature of the power of appointment Appointment is intrinsically an executive act; it is a discretionary power that must be exercised by the Chief Executive according to his best lights.[138] It involves a question of policy that only the appointing authority can decide. At the presidential level, his or her choice of an appointee involves a very highly political and administrative act of decision making that calls for considerations of wisdom, convenience, utility, and national interests; it is a power that the Constitution or the law has vested in him in his various roles.[139] From the prism of Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, I find it clear that the framers of the Constitution presumed the appointments made before the fixed two-month period preceding the elections to be generally characterized by good faith on the President’s part. The good faith (or lack of it) of the President and his appointee, are matters that do not fall under the specific concern of Section 15, Article VII. b. Combined reading of these considerations In sum, I find the following basic considerations to be relevant in the resolution of the issues before us: first, the definition of appointment in jurisprudence as an executive act (characterizing it as an “unequivocal act” of the appointing power and elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60717 52/75