04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Under this situation, I agree with the ponencia that the President must not only sign the appointment paper but also intend that the appointment paper be issued.[152] I disagree, however, with the ponencia’s position that “the release of the appointment paper through the MRO is an unequivocal act that signifies the President’s intent of its release.”[153] The release of the appointment paper through the MRO is not the only act that can signify the President’s intent. The President may also cause the issuance of the appointment paper and transmittal letter, if any, without the need of forwarding it to the MRO so long as the date of actual issuance or release of the appointment paper (and transmittal letter, if any) can otherwise be established by other means and be proven with reasonable certainty. I also agree with the ponencia that the possession of the original appointment paper is not indispensable to authorize an appointee to assume office. I, however, disagree with its view that “in case of loss of the original appointment paper, the appointment must be evidenced by a certified true copy by the proper office, in this case the MRO.”[154] In case of loss of the original appointment paper, the certification may not only be evidenced by a certified true copy from the MRO but can also be established by other means and be proven with reasonable certainty. c. The extension of Section 15, Article VII to the acts of the appointee is completely unwarranted by the text and intent of the Constitution In upholding E.O. No. 2 that the acts required of the appointee must also be accomplished before the ban, the CA opined that this mandated period banned by the Constitution, no less, should enjoin not only the act of the President in making appointments, but all other acts that would give effect or allow the furtherance of the President’s prohibited act of making appointment within the same prohibited period, if only to breathe life and give full effect to the spirit behind the Constitutional provision limiting the power of the President. This deduction proceeds from the settled rule that an appointment, in order to be effective, requires the acceptance of the appointee. xxxx In requiring that the acceptance of the appointment, i.e., the taking of an oath and the assumption of office, be also done prior to the ban, E.O. No. 2 merely implements in full force the Constitutional considerations of practicality and logic enshrined in the provision on midnight appointments. Since the appointment of the President only becomes effective upon the appointee’s acceptance, it stands to reason that the entire process completing an appointment must be done prior to the Constitutionally set period.[155] What worth is it to prohibit the President from making an appointment that is not effective anyway? It would be useless to prohibit an incomplete and ineffective appointment. To rule otherwise is to make the intent of the Constitutional provision not only purely illusory, but would elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60717 57/75