04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly to accept the position which belongs to the appointee. In fact, Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution is directed only against an outgoing President and against no other. By providing that the President shall not make appointments within the specified period, the Constitution could not have barred the President from doing acts that are not within his power to accomplish as appointing authority, such as the acts required or expected of the appointee. Notably, the appointee’s acts are not even alluded to or mentioned at all in this constitutional provision. By interpreting the term “appointments” as a process, the ponencia effectively undertook judicial legislation by expanding the limitation on the President’s appointment power under Section 15, Article VII; it applied the concept of appointment as a process despite the otherwise clear and unambiguous reference of this constitutional provision to appointment as an executive act. For these reasons, I maintain my position that for an appointment to be valid under Section 15, Article VII, the appointment papers must have already been signed, issued or released prior to the constitutional ban, addressed to the head of the office concerned or the appointee himself. Once this is accomplished, the appointee’s acceptance through an oath, assumption of office, or any positive act need not be done before the constitutional ban. Thus, the phrase in Section 1(a) of E.O. No. 2 that states “including all appointments bearing dates prior to March 11, 2010 where the appointee has accepted, or taken his oath, or assumed public office on or after March 11, 2010” should be held unconstitutional as it unduly expands the scope of the prohibition on presidential appointments under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution. I elaborate on all these arguments in the following discussions. THE CASES Before the Court are three petitions for review on certiorari[1] and one petition for certiorari[2] that have been consolidated because they raise a common question of law, i.e., the validity of the President’s issuance of E.O. No. 2 dated July 30, 2010. The petitioners seek the reversal of the Court of Appeals’ decision[3] that separately dismissed their petitions and upheld the constitutionality of E.O. No. 2. FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS A. The Petitions a. G.R. No. 203372 On February 14, 2010, Atty. Cheloy E. Velicaria-Garafil (Garafil), then a prosecutor at the Department of Justice (DOJ), applied for a lawyer position in the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).[4] In an appointment letter dated March 5, 2010, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (PGMA) appointed Garafil to the position of State Solicitor II at the OSG.[5] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60717 32/75