Arroyo camp: Palace may face SC over Executive Order 2

Malacañang may be questioned before the Supreme Court by several of the 977 so-called midnight appointees over the executive order revoking their appointments. Former Presidential Management Staff (PMS) head and now Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's chief of staff Elena Bautista-Horn on Thursday said the constitutionality of Executive Order 2 is questionable as it is only based on an “interpretation" of the 1987 Constitution. "They [concerned appointees] have a legal recourse, a strong legal basis to stay at their posts. Legal ang appointment (Their appointments were legal), it was an act of the president prior to the prescriptive period," Bautista-Horn said in an interview on dzXL radio. In another interview on GMA News' Unang Hirit, Bautista-Horn reiterated that the Arroyo appointments in question were made within the prescribed period before the March 10 appointment ban.
For the latest Philippine news stories and videos, visit GMANews.TV "Isa rin sa mga tanong ay ang pagpapalawig sa interpretasyon ng Saligang Batas. Ang nililimitahan lang ay ang act of appointment at hindi ang acceptance ng appointment (Another issue is the stretching of the interpretation of the Constitution, which only covers the act of appointment and not the act of acceptance of those appointed)," she said. In the same Unang Hirit interview, Presidential Communications Group official Herminio Coloma said "the time of reckoning for midnight appointees in EO 2 is March 11. Pero isinama sa iterpretasyon ang act of acceptance hindi lamang ang appointment (In the EO2 covers the act of acceptance of those appointed.) "Magkasama ang appointment at acceptance. Wala tayong pag-uusapang appointment kundi tinatanggap. Ano pa ang silbi ng appointment kung 'di tinatanggap. Pero sana ang mamamayani ay ang spirit of the law," he added. In the dzXL interview, Bautista-Horn urged the 977 affected appointees to question Palace’s move before the high court, saying the EO might set a bad precedent. “Ang maganda, dalhin ng mga affected na tao sa Korte Suprema, hindi dahil kapit tuko sila, o ayaw sumunod sa EO, kundi, magiging precedent ito. Dapat tiyakin na legal ang ginawa ng Malacañang (Those affected should question the EO 2 before the SC, not because they want to hang on to their posts, but because the EO might set a bad precedent. They must make sure Malacañang’s orders are legally firm)," she said. “Return the right of interpreting the law to the Supreme Court. You cannot have just anyone interpreting the law," she added, referring to Malacañang's interpretation of what the Constitution says about midnight appointments. In a separate interview on dzXL, Coloma said that while Malacañang expects EO 2 to be challenged in court, midnight appointees are advised to comply with the EO for now. Coloma warned the appointees against disrupting government services by insisting on staying while their prospective court cases are pending. “Maari rin yan. Sana lang ay gawin nilang lahat ang naaayon sa batas. Huwag tayo lumikha ng ligalig gawin nating mahinahon ang pagsunod sa kautusan na ito (We expect some appointees to question the EO in court. But we hope their actions will be lawful. Let us not disrupt government services and let us be sober in our actions)," he said. On Wednesday, Malacañang made public Executive Order 2, which revoked “midnight appointments" made by the administration of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. EO 2, signed by President Benigno Simeon Aquino III on July 30, laid out three conditions that constitute midnight appointments made by Mrs. Arroyo and other appointing authorities. These are appointments made on or after March 11, 2010 and also those before March 11, 2010 where the appointee has accepted, or taken his oath, or assumed public office on or after March 11, 2010. It also includes "anticipated appointments," or those made before March 11 but took effect after that day, or appointments to positions that became vacant only after March 11. [See: Malacañang revokes Arroyo 'midnight appointments'] Bureaucracy 101 In the radio interview, Bautista-Horn advised President Aquino’s legal think tank to take courses on the bureaucracy, noting its first executive orders and memorandum circulars had been questionable. She said that as an administrative rule, two memorandum circulars cannot have the same number – referring to Memorandum Circular 1, which the Palace eventually revised. “Ang mga basic rules sa bureaucracy di napag-aralan (The Palace did not even study the basic rules of bureaucracy)," she said. The head of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) agreed with Bautista-Horn’s comments, adding Malacañang did not consult with the agency before issuing Executive Order 2. CSC head Francisco Duque III, who also served as Health Secretary during the Arroyo administration, said the Constitution speaks not of the date of assumption but the date of the appointment. “It does not speak of date of assumption or acceptance but only speaks of the date of appointment," Duque said in an interview on dwIZ radio. He also said a CSC circular dating back to as far back as 1998 had given appointees 30 days to accept or reject an appointment. “Di kami nakonsulta. Kung kami tinawagan, madali kaming kausapin (We were not consulted. We would have helped had we been given the chance to)," he added. On the other hand, Malacañang expects no disruption of government services with the departure of the midnight appointees, saying the next-in-rank can take over. “May normal na proseso to prevent the disruption of service. Maasahan natin mag-appoint ng kapalit lalo sa mahalaga at sensitibong mga position (There are normal processes to prevent the disruption of services. We can expect this even from sensitive agencies)," Coloma said. — LBG,/VVP, GMANews.TV