04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly While I maintain my view that subsequent acts of the appointee need not be made before the ban, none of the petitioners however have shown that their appointment papers (and transmittal letter) have been issued (and released) before the ban. The presumption of regularity of official acts cannot alter the fact that the dates appearing on the petitioners’ appointment papers (March 5, 2010; February 23, 2010; March 3, 2010; March 5, 2010; and March 1, 2010) and transmittal letters (March 8, 2010 and March 9, 2010) only establish that the documents were made or signed on the date indicated, that is, before the ban. It does not establish the fact that it was issued and released on the date indicated.[158] While it would have been normal to indicate the date of issuance of appointment, had the appointments been coursed through the MRO, the absence of that date is something that cannot be the subject of this Court’s speculations.[159] In the case of Garafil, the MRO received her appointment and transmittal papers only on May 13, 2010. The transmittal letter that was turned over to the MRO was already stamped “released” by the OES without showing when the OES actually issued and released the same. In the case of Venturanza, while his appointment papers were sent to the MRO, the MRO released the same only on March 12, 2013 which is the same date the OES forwarded it to the MRO.[160] In short, when his appointment papers were officially issued, the appointment ban was already in effect. In the case of Villanueva and Rosquita, nothing supports their claim that their appointment papers were actually issued on the date appearing on their respective appointment papers. Lastly, in the case of Tamondong, his appointment was not coursed through the MRO. His letter of appointment was only released to him on March 25, 2010, already 14 days beyond the March 11, 2010 reckoning period. Also, it was only on May 6, 2010 that the MRO actually received his appointment papers. I am not unaware that the interpretation above of Section 15, Article VII does not totally foreclose any circumvention of the prohibition against midnight appointment since the President can still “fix” the date of the issuance of the appointment paper. That may be a possibility – a possibility with legal repercussions that the Court is wholly unprepared to indulge in for the moment, for it involves a presumption on factual issues that were never raised nor are even evident in the circumstances of the present case. Nonetheless, the possibility of abuse of power does not argue against its existence nor destroy, diminish, or remove the power; much less does this authorize the Court to depart from its constitutional role of interpreting a textually evident Constitutional provision according to its letter and the spirit that animates it. In view of the foregoing, I vote that the Court RESOLVES to: 1. DISMISS the petition for certiorari in G.R. No. 209138 for technical deficiencies; 2. PARTIALLY GRANT the petition for review on certiorari by declaring the phrase “including all appointments bearing dates prior to March 11, 2010, elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60717 59/75