Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 128 views

    Bautista vs. Salonga - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Onilyn Molino
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Commission on Appointments does not have the constitutional authority to review the President's appointment of the Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights. Former President Aquino appointed Mary Concepcion Bautista to the position, but the Commission on Appointments claimed authority to confirm the appointment. However, because the Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights is not one of the positions listed in the Constitution as requiring Commission on Appointments confirmation, the President's appointment of Bautista did not require their review or participation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bautista vs. Salonga - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Onilyn Molino
    128 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Commission on Appointments does not have the constitutional authority to review the President's appointment of the Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights. Former President Aquino appointed Mary Concepcion Bautista to the position, but the Commission on Appointments claimed authority to confirm the appointment. However, because the Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights is not one of the positions listed in the Constitution as requiring Commission on Appointments confirmation, the President's appointment of Bautista did not require their review or participation.

    Original Description:

    Human Rights

    Original Title

    5. Bautista vs. Salonga - Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Commission on Appointments does not have the constitutional authority to review the President's appointment of the Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights. Former President Aquino appointed Mary Concepcion Bautista to the position, but the Commission on Appointments claimed authority to confirm the appointment. However, because the Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights is not one of the positions listed in the Constitution as requiring Commission on Appointments confirmation, the President's appointment of Bautista did not require their review or participation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    128 views1 page

    Bautista vs. Salonga - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Onilyn Molino
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Commission on Appointments does not have the constitutional authority to review the President's appointment of the Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights. Former President Aquino appointed Mary Concepcion Bautista to the position, but the Commission on Appointments claimed authority to confirm the appointment. However, because the Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights is not one of the positions listed in the Constitution as requiring Commission on Appointments confirmation, the President's appointment of Bautista did not require their review or participation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    86439 April 13, 1989

    MARY CONCEPCION BAUTISTA, petitioner,


    vs.
    SENATOR JOVITO R. SALONGA, COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE,
    JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND HESIQUIO R. MALLILLIN, respondents.

    Facts:
    Former President Corazon Aquino appointed Atty. Mary Concepcion Bautista as the acting
    Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights. She then decided to make the appointment
    permanent and forwarded such to the Commission on Appointments (CA) for confirmation.
    Bautista already completed her oath of office before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and
    started to discharge her duties. Thereafter, CA sent a letter to Bautista requiring her to send
    information and documents in connection with confirmation of her appointment. Bautista
    responded that her position as the chairperson of CHR does not require confirmation by CA,
    pursuant to the decision in the case of Sarmient vs. Mison. During the pendency of the issue of
    Bautista’s appointment with the CA, former President Aquino appointed Hesiquio Mallilin as the
    acting chairman of the CHR. Bautista then received a letter from CA disapproving her appointment
    because she refused to be subjected to confirmation by the CA.

    Issue:
    Whether or not CA has constitutional authority to review the President’s appointment of a
    chairperson of CHR.

    Held:
    No. Since the position of Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights is not among the positions
    mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution, appointments to which
    are to be made with the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments, it follows that the
    appointment by the President of the Chairman of the (CHR), is to be made without the review or
    participation of the Commission on Appointments. The Chairman and Members of the Commission
    on Human Rights are among the officers of government whom the President may be authorized by
    law to appoint. Bautista's appointment on 17 December 1988 is an appointment that was for the
    President solely to make.

    You might also like