SC junks petition vs Arroyo appointee in Napolcom

The Supreme Court has junked a petition challenging the legality of the appointment of Alejandro Urro as National Police Commission (Napolcom) commissioner in March 2010. In a 24-page unanimous decision, the Supreme Court did not dwell on whether Urro was a "midnight appointee" of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Instead, the high tribunal ruled that Luis Mario General had no authority to question Urro's appointment as his replacement. General had argued that Urro should be removed from his post because President Benigno Aquino III's Executive Order No. 2 had revoked the so-called midnight appointments made by the Arroyo administration. The constitutionality of EO 2 is being challenged before the Supreme Court by several Arroyo appointees. In ruling on the General versus Urro case, the high court ruled that the matter does not fall under the ambit of Executive Order No. 2. "Both parties dwelt lengthily on the issue of constitutionality of the respondents' appointments in light of EO No.2 and the subsequent filing before the Court of several petitions questioning this Executive Order," said the ruling written by Associate Justice Arturo Brion. "The parties, however, appear to have overlooked the basic principle in constitutional adjudication that enjoins the Court from passing upon a constitutional question, although properly presented, if the case can be disposed of on some other ground," the ruling added. General vs Urro General is seeking the ouster of Urro, who replaced him as Napolcom commissioner on March 5, 2010. General argued that Urro was Arroyo's "midnight appointee" because he took his oath of office after March 10. The 1987 Constitution prohibits an incubment president from making "midnight appointments" two months before the elections and until he or she steps down from office. For last year's May 10 elections, Arroyo was not allowed to appoint officials from March 10 to June 30. However, instead of ruling on whether Urro was a midnight appointee, the Supreme Court dismissed General's arguments because of the "staggering of terms of office" in the Napolcom. It also said from General cannot question Urro's appointment because the former was only a temporary appointee and that his term had already lapsed as early as July 2009. "Thus, as the law now stands, the petitioner's [General's] claim that the appointment of an acting Napolcom Commissioner is not allowed based on the staggering of terms of office does not even have any statutory basis," the court opined. The SC said that there is a "wide latitude of the President's appointing authority (and the strict construction against any limitation on or qualification of this power) , the prohibition on the President from issuing an acting appointment must either be specific, or there must be a clear repugnancy between the nature of the office and the temporary appointment." General also alleged that his removal from office amounted to an abuse of his temporary appointment that would entitle him to the incidental benefit of reinstatement. The SC ruled: "His [General's] appointment ipso facto expired on July 21, 2009 when it was not renewed either in an acting or a permanent capacity. With an expired appointment, he technically now occupies no position on which to anchor his quo warranto petition." – VVP/MRT, GMA News