Bermudes v Executive Secretary Facts Petitioner assailed the validity and

Bermudes v executive secretary facts petitioner

This preview shows page 37 - 39 out of 103 pages.

Bermudes v Executive Secretary Facts: Petitioner assailed the validity and legality of the appointment of private respondent ConradoQuiaoit to the post of Provincial Prosecutor of Tarlac by then President Fidel V. Ramos. A petition for review on certiorari on a pure question of law which prays for the reversal of the Order, dated October 20, 1997, of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 63) of Tarlac, Tarlac, dismissing the petition for prohibition and/or injunction and mandamus , with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of injunction/temporary restraining order, on the grounds that the appointment lacks the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice prescribed under the Revised Administrative Code of 1987- “All provincial and city prosecutors and their assistants shall be appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary” . Petitioner, Oscar Bermudes, the First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Tarlac and Officer-In-Charge of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, was recommended by Justice Secretary TeofistoGuingona, Jr. to become Tarlac’s Provincial Prosecutor. Private respondent ConradoQuiaoit, who was recommended by Representative Jose Yap of the Second Legislative District of Tarlac, won the said position. The basis for claiming such position was to give their take, in contrasting views, on the proper interpretation of a provision in the 1987 Revised Administrative Code. Bermudes refused to vacate Office of Provincial Prosecutor as he claims that the original copy of Quiaoit’s appointment has not yet been released by the Secretary of Justice, even if respondent is already performing his duties and informed the President, Secretary of Justice and the Civil Service Commission of such assumption. Issue: W/N the absence of a recommendation of the Secretary of Justice to the President can be held fatal to the appointment of respondent ConradoQuiaoit. Held: No. The recommendation of the Secretary of Justice and the appointment of the President are acts of the Executive Department itself, and there is no sharing of power to speak of, the latter being deemed for all intents and purposes as being merely an extension of the personality of the President. The power to appoint is, in essence, discretionary. The appointing power has the right of choice which he may exercise freely according to his judgment, deciding for himself who is best qualified among those who have the necessary qualifications and eligibilities. It is a prerogative of the appointing power. Furthermore, the phrase upon recommendation of the Secretary , found in Section 9, Chapter II, Title III, Book IV, of the Revised Administrative Code, should be interpreted, as it is normally so understood, to be a mere advise, exhortation or endorsement, which is essentially persuasive in character and not binding or obligatory upon the party to whom it is made.
Image of page 37
Flores v Drilon Facts: RA 7227, also known as “Bases conversion and development act of 1993”is being assailed as its section 13 (d) gives the president power to appoint the CEO for the office of Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority.
Image of page 38
Image of page 39

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 103 pages?

  • Fall '16
  • President of the United States, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Joseph Estrada

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture