7a-15 Pimentel VS executive secretary facts: This case was brought on when President Arroyo through Executive Secretary

Ermita issued appointments to respondents as acting secretaries of their respective departments. Several senators filed this petition in Court. After Congress adjourned on Sept. 22, 2004, President Arroyo issued ad interim appointments to same respondents, now as secretaries of the departments to which they were previously appointed in an acting capacity.

issue:
whether or not president's arroyo's appointment of respondents as acting secretaries without the consent of the commission of appointments while congress is in session is constitutional. held: the office of a department secretary may become vacant while congress is in session. since a department is the alter ego of the president, the acting appointee to the office must necessarily have the president's confidence. by the very nature of the office of a department secretary, the president must appoint in an acting capacity a person of her choice even while congress is in session.
section 17, chapter 5, title I, book III of eo 292 states: " the president may temporarily designate an officer already in the government service or any other competent to perform the functions of an office in the executive branch." president can appoint in an acting capacity a person not yet in the government service, as long as the president deems that person competent.

acting appointments are not submitted to the commission appointments, only the ad-interim appointments. the court find no abuse in the present case. the absence of abuse is readily apparent from president's arroyo's issuance of ad interim appointments to respondents immediately upon the recess of congress, way before the lapse of one year. (no abuse kasi ang temporary designation should not exceed one year)) The court, dismiss the present petition for certiorari and prohibition.

additional notes: respondents insist that the president can issue such appointments because no law prohibits such appointments. president arroyo's issuance of acting appointments while congress is in session impairs no power of congress.

additional notes: difference ng ad-interim appointments sa appointments in an acting capacity ad- interim: extended only during recess of congress and submitted to the commission on appointments for confirmation or rejection. acting capacity: extended any time there is vacancy and not submitted to the commission on appointments. July 26, senate and congress commenced their regular session Aug 25 commission on appointments was constituted. president arroyo appointed to respondents as acting secretary before aug 25 mga bandang august 15 to 23.

mootness of the petition: SG argues that the petition is moot because arroyo had extended to respondents ad interim appointments on sept 23 immediately after the recess of congress. however, as an exception to the rule on mootness, courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet evading review. in the present case, the mootness of the petition does not bar its resolution. the question of the constitutionality of the president's appointment of department secretaries in an acting capacity while congress is in session will arise in every such appointment.

Ynot vs IAC facts: petitioner had transported six carabaos in a pump boat from masbate to iloilo and were confiscated by the police station commander for violation of EO no 626-A. he challenged the constitutionality of said EO. considering the merits of the case, the court sustained the confiscation of the carabaos and since they could no longer be produced, court ordered the confiscation of the bond. court also declined to rule on the constitutionality of the executive order, as raise by the petitioner, for lack of authority and also for its presumed validity. issue: 1. w/n SC has jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of the E.O 2. W/n E.O is unconstitutional

held: 1. under the constitution, lower courts can pass upon the validity of a statute in the first instance as the supreme court has jurisdiction to "review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or the rules of court may provide final judgment of lower courts." 2.the carabaos were arbitrarily confiscated by the police station commander, were returned to the petitioner only after he had filed a complaint for recovery and given a supersedeas bond which was ordered confiscated upon his failure to produce the carabaos when ordered by the trial court. the Eo defined the prohibition, convicted the petitioner and immediately imposed punishment which was carried out forthright. the measure struck him at once and pounced upon the petitioner without giving him a chance to be heard, thus denying him elementary fair play. there certainly was no reason why the pffense prohibited by the executive order should not have been proved first in a court of justice, with the accused being accorded all the rights safeguarder to him under the constitution. we find that the challenged measure is invalid exercise of the police power because the method employed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the purpose of the law and is unduly oppressive.

due process is violated because the owner of the property confiscated is denied the right to be heard in his defense and is immediately condemned and punished. wherefore, EO NO. 626-A is hereby declared unconstitutional. except as affirmed above, the decision of the court of appeals is reversed. the supersedeas bond is cancelled and the amount thereof is ordered restored to the petitioner. no costs.