(above) December 30, 1961: in their last few minutes as incumbent President and outgoing Vice-President, respectively, Carlos P. Garcia and Diosdado Macapagal put on an appearance of bonhomie as they prepare to depart for the Quirino Grandstand for Macapagal’s inaugural; within 24 hours Macapagal had voided Garcia’s 350 midnight appointments. Photo lifted from Manolo Quezon blog
No, I am not referring to the shenanigans that GMA during her Presidency. I am referring to Diosdado Macapagal, GMA’s father. Diosdado Macapagal, upon assuming the Presidency in 1961 revoked all the midnight appointments of predecessor Carlos P. Garcia including that of then Central Bank Governor Dominador Aytona.
In that case, newly elected Pres. Diosdado Macapagal voided all the 350 midnight appointments of Pres. Carlos P. Garcia by the issuance of an Administrative Order No. 2 dated December 31, 1961. One of the midnight appointees, Dominador Aytona, contested the Order of Macapagal, which gave birth to the landmark case Aytona vs. Castillo. In that case, the Supreme Court uphold Diosdado Macapagal’s actions laid the landmark doctrine on the banning of midnight appointees.
In that case, the Supreme Court cited reasons why Macapagal voided the appointments.
(1) the outgoing President should have refrained from filling vacancies to give the new President opportunity to consider names in the light of his new policies, which were approved by the electorate in the last elections;
(2) these scandalously hurried appointments in mass do not fall within the intent and spirit of the constitutional provision authorizing the issuance of ad interim appointments;
(3) the appointments were irregular, immoral and unjust, because they were issued only upon the condition that the appointee would immediately qualify obviously to prevent a recall or revocation by the incoming President, with the result that those deserving of promotion or appointment who preferred to be named by the new President declined and were by-passed; and
(4) the abnormal conditions surrounding the appointment and qualifications evinced a desire on the part of the outgoing President merely subvert the policies of the incoming administration.
In the 1935 Constitution from which the Court based its decision, it does not contain an explicit prohibition on a sitting President to make midnight appointments.
The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress of the Philippines, but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress of the Philippines.
Yet in that particular case, the Supreme Court upheld Macapagal’s actions. In the 1987 Constitution however, the doctrine laid down in Aytona is already incorporated under Section 15, Article VII which states,
Section 15. Two 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.
If the Supreme Court then nullified the midnight appointments when there was no prohibition provided for in the Constitution, then with all more reason that Supreme Court of today should have nullified the appointment made by Gloria Arroyo on the vacancy of the Chief Justice.
The pro Corona advocates would say, there is already a decision of the Supreme Court ruling that the ban does not apply to the appointment of the Chief Justice in the Supreme Court even during the election ban period.
With all due respect to the High Court, the decision was erroneous. The Supreme Court was into judicial legislation by interpreting it in a manner contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. In effect, the decision amends the Constitution. According to legal luminaries, an illegal appointment can be revoked.
Lastly, there is no doubt that the appointment of Justice Corona when there is already a President apparent was meant to torpedo the moves of the incoming administration.
As columnist Manolo Quezon wrote in his article “Midnight Appointments”, When a nation embarks on electing its leadership, our Constitution, laws, judicial and historical precedents all emphasize that incumbents must be barred from abusing their powers to give themselves or their partisans undue advantage, thwart the public will, or harass and harm a successor’s administration by tying its hands by means of maliciously-motivated appointments.
The 1962 Supreme Court decision in Aytona vs. Castillo also put into proper perspective the role of an outgoing administration.
It is common sense to believe that after the proclamation of the election of President Macapagal, his was no more than a “care-taker” 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.
It would be very well if President elect Noynoy Aquino should not give up the fight and do what Pres. Diosdado Macapagal did, revoking the midnight appointments by the mere expedient of an executive order.
Reading suggestions: “Midnight appointments” by Manolo Quezon,
