04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly to 6 vote in favor of the present ponente. Due to the close 8-6 vote, I find it appropriate to simply reiterate in this Concurring and Dissenting Opinion the legal arguments and positions that I had originally submitted to the Court en banc for its consideration. The present consolidated cases stemmed from the petitioners’ presidential appointments that were revoked pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) No. 2, entitled “Recalling, Withdrawing and Revoking Appointments Issued by the Previous Administration in Violation of the Constitutional Ban on Midnight Appointments and for Other Purposes,” issued by President Benigno S. Aquino, III. Directly at issue, as framed and presented by the petitioners and as counter-argued by the respondents, is the validity of Section 1(a) of EO No. 2 in relation with the constitutional ban on midnight appointments under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution. I concur with the ponencia’s findings that the petitions for review on certiorari should be denied and the petition for certiorari should be dismissed as I will discuss below. I object, however, to the ponencia’s arguments and conclusions to support the conclusion that the phrase, “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” in Section 1(a) of E.O. No. 2, is valid. In my view, Executive Order No. 2, by incorporating this phrase, should be declared partially unconstitutional for unduly expanding the scope of the prohibition on presidential appointments under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution. This constitutional provision provides that: “[t]wo months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.” According to the ponencia, the term “appointments” contemplated in Section 15, Article VII pertains to appointment as a process – i.e., from the signing of the appointment, to its issuance and to the appointee’s acceptance – rather than being confined solely to the President’s exercise of his appointing power or to the acts that are under the President’s control in the totality of the appointment process. Under this latter view, only the signing of the appointment and its issuance should be covered by the constitutional ban; when these presidential actions are completed before the ban sets in, then the appointee can take his oath and assume office even after the ban has set in. The plain textual language of Section 15, Article VII is clear and requires no interpretation of the term “appointments.” The prohibition under this constitutional provision pertains to the President’s discretionary executive act of determining who should occupy a given vacant position; it does not cover other actions in the appointment process, specifically, the discretionary determination of whether or not elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60717 31/75