Court can get goods on ‘midnight appointees’

THE Supreme Court has given the Court of Appeals the power to litigate cases of “midnight appointees” of then-President Gloria Arroyo who were later sacked by President Benigno Aquino 3rd.

In a 13-page resolution via en banc session dated January 31, 2012, it allowed the appellate court to receive evidence in connection with the cases.

“It is plain from the foregoing that the just resolution of the matters and issues in these consolidated special civil actions will require the assessment of different factual circumstances attendant in each of the appointments made,” the resolution said.

The High Tribunal en banc pointed out that it was not a trier of facts and could not receive evidence from concerned parties.

“The court is not a trier of facts, and cannot receive and assess the evidence of the parties. We feel compelled, therefore, to refer these cases to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings, including the reception and assessment of the evidence from all the parties,” it said.

As such, “the [appellate court] shall have the authority to resolve all pending matters and applications, and to decide the issues as if these cases have been originally commenced in the Court of Appeals.”

“Wherefore, the court refers these consolidated special civil actions to the [appellate court] for further proceedings and judicious resolution as these cases have been originally commenced in the Court of Appeals,” the resolution said.

Among the six cases being remanded to the appellate court questioning Executive Order 2 of President Aquino were the cases of Board Member Eddie Tamondong of Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, Solicitor Cheloy Garafil, Office of Muslim Affairs chief Bai Omera Dianalan-Lucman, Philippine National Railways General Manager Manuel Andal, Quezon City Prosecutor Dindo Venturanza and Nayong Pilipino chief and lawyer Charito Planas.

The alleged midnight appointees argued that Executive Order 2 violated Section 2b, Article IX of the Constitution by depriving civil service employees of security of tenure.

They said that the President summarily dismissed them without just cause and without compliance with cardinal requirements of due process.

Tamondong, in line with Republic Act 7227 or the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992, said in his petition before the Supreme Court that he was appointed by Mrs. Arroyo as director of Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority for a term of six years (March 2010 to March 2016).

Garafil, then a solicitor at the Office of the Solicitor General, who was sacked by Solicitor General Jose Anselmo Cadiz for being a “midnight appointee” of the former president. –JOMAR CANLAS REPORTER, Manila Times