Ramon Binamira vs Peter Garrucho

G.R. No. 92008

FACTS: In this petition for quo warranto, Ramon P. Binamira seeks reinstatement to the Office
of General Manager of the Philippine Tourism Authority from which he claims to have been
removed without just cause in violation of his security of tenure. The petitioner bases his claim
on a memorandum signed by Jose Gonzales, then Minister of Tourism, designating him as the
General Manager of the Philippine Tourism Authority. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner assumed
office in the same date. This, according to the petitioner, was approved by the President when he
was made Vice Chairman of the BOD of PTA, in his capacity as General Manager. Having
discharged his duties, he complains that Garrucho, as the new Secretary of Tourism, and having
taken over as General Manager of PTA, demanded his resignation. Subsequently, the President
Aquino appointed Jose Capistrano as General Manager of the PTA.
ISSUE: Can the petitioner be reinstated to the Office of the General Manager of PTA?
HELD: No. It is not disputed that petitioner was not appointed by the President of the Philippines
but only designated by the Minister of Tourism. There is a clear distinction between appointment
and designation that the petitioner has failed to consider. Appointment may be defined as the
selection, by the authority vested with the power of an individual who is to exercise the functions
of a given office. When completed, usually with its confirmation, the appointment results in a
security of tenure for the person chosen unless he is replaceable at pleasure because of the nature
of his office. Designation, on the other hand, connotes merely the imposition by law of additional
duties on the incumbent official, as in the case before us. It is said that appointment is essentially
executive while designation is legislative in nature.
Designation may loosely be defined as an appointment. However, where the person is merely
designated and not appointed, the implication is that he shall hold office only in a temporary
appointment, which does not confer security of tenure on the person named. The decree clearly
provides that the appointment of the GM of the PTA shall be made by the President of the
Philippines, and not by any other officer. Appointment involves exercise of discretion, which
because of its nature cannot be delegated. Legally speaking, it was not possible for Minister
Gonzales to assume said exercise of discretion. Indeedm even on the assumption that the power
conferred on the President could be validly exercised by the Secretary, we still cannot accept the
act of the latter, as an extension or projection of the personality of the President. The doctrine
that said act was also the Presidents act presuemed the act of the Department Head to be acts of
the President when performed and promulgated in the regular course of business.
The argument that the designation made by Minister Gonzales was approved by President
Aquino through her approbval of the composition of the BOD of the PTA is not persuasive. It
must be remembered that he was included therein as the Vice Chairman only because of his
designation as PTA GM of Gonzales. Such designation, being provisional, could be recalled at
will. With these rulings, the claim of security of tenure must perforce fall to the ground.

ULPIANO P. SARMIENTO III!!! and Juanito Arcilla vs.

Salvador Mison, in his capacity as Commissioner of The Bureau of Customs and Guillermo
Carague, in his capacity as Secretary of The Department of Budget
FACTS: In this petition for prohibition, the petitioners, who are taxpayers, lawyers and members
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and professors of Constitutional Law, seek to enjoin the
respondent Salvador Mison from performing the functions of the Office of the Commissioner of
the Bureau of Customs and the respondent Guillermo Carague, as Secretary of the Department of
Budget, from effecting disbursement in paymet of Misons salaries and emoluments, on the
ground that Misons appointment as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs is unconstitutional
by reason of its not having been confirmed by the Commission on Appointment.
HELD: Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution says: The President shall nominate, and
with the consent of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
or officers of the armed forces from the rank Under the provisions of the 1987 Constitution,
there are four groups of officers whom the President shall appoint. First, the heads of the
executive department, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, officers of the armed
forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain and other officers whose appointment are vested
in him in this constitution; second, all other officers of the government whose appointment are
not otherwise provided for by law; third, those whom the President may be authorized by law to
appoint and fourth, officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in
the President alone.
The first group of officers is clearly appointed with the consent of the Commission of
Appointments. Appointments of such officers are initiated by nominations and, if nomination is
confirmed by the Commission, the President appoints.
The second, third and fourth group of officers are the present bone of contention. Should they be
appointed by the President with or without the consent of the COA? The framers of the 1987
Constitution struck a middle ground by requiring the consent or confirmation of the COA for the
first group of appointment and leaving to the President without such confirmation, the
appointment of the other officers. As a result of the innovations, there are officers whose
appointments require no confirmation of the COA. It is evident that the position of the
Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs is not one of those within the first group of
appointments, which required the consent of the Commission on Appointments.