President's power to appoint ARMM OICs assailed in SC oral arguments

Republic Act No. 10153, the law postponing the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) to 2013, is unconstitutional because it allows President Benigno Aquino III to appoint regional officers-in-charge who will serve until duly elected ones assume office that year. This was asserted by the lawyers for the petitioners who pointed out the possible legal infirmities of RA 10153, which was made into law last June 30. The ARMM elections were originally scheduled August 8, 2011. The positions covered by the ARMM polls are regional governor, regional vice governor, and members of the Legislative Assembly. During the oral arguments before the Supreme Court en banc (full court) on Tuesday, veteran lawyer and former University of the Philippines law dean Pacifico Agabin and House Minority Leader Edcel Lagman said that giving the President the power to appoint OICs in ARMM runs contrary to the spirit of the 1987 Constitution, which grants sovereignty to the region. Agabin added that the President's power to appoint OICs already constitutes controlling powers, when he is merely accorded supervisory powers by the Charter. Lagman said there is no need to appoint OICs because the incumbent ARMM governor, vice governor, and Legislative Assembly members can retain their positions in holdover capacity until the May 2013 elections — as provided by the Organic Act of ARMM or Republic Act No. 9054. He added that as prescribed by the Constitution, the President cannot designate appointees to the said posts, which are elective and not appointive in nature. "An appointed OIC is not elective. The mandate does not come from the electorate, but bestowed by the appointing power, who is the president. An appointive OIC is not representative of constituent political units," Lagman said. "There will be no vacancies because of holdover positions. The holdover positions hold the electoral will [of ARMM residents] because the incumbents continue to exercise their electoral mandate," the lawmaker added. He then underscored: "The appointment of OICs violates the constitutional provision, which grants the president only powers of supervision and not of control. To ensure that those are faithfully executed, the appointment of OICs is an unconstitutional expansion of presidential power of supervision to the more potent power of control." Peace talks with MILF In his opening statement, Lagman also questioned whether President Aquino's secret meeting with Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) chair Al Haj Murad in Japan last week had something to do with his administration's plan to appoint OICs in ARMM. "At the moment, we are unaware of the relevance or repercussions of the secret talks of President Aquino with the MILF, the government's agenda for postponing the ARMM elections and appointing OICs of the president," Lagman said. He added that he is wary that "partisans of the MILF" are being considered as OICs "to possibly prop up the resumption of peace negotiations." He did not discuss the matter further. 'Super-majority' and plebiscite Both Lagman and Agabin also argued that RA 10153, which they said amended the Organic Act of ARMM or RA 9054, should be voided because it was not subjected to a plebiscite among ARMM voters. RA 9054 provides that any amendment or revision of the act "shall become effective only when approved by a majority of the vote cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose." Section 1, Article 17 of RA 9054 also provides that the Organic Act "may be reamended or revised by the Congress of the Philippines upon a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate voting separately." Agabin received tough grilling from Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco, who queried on whether all of Congress’ amendments to RA 9054 should be subjected to a plebiscite. "So the power of Congress to legislate is subject to a condition and they should obtain a majority vote in a plebiscite?" asked Velasco. Agabin responded in the affirmative. "Congress gave back to the people their right to legislate, so it’s consonant with democratic principle," he said. "So Congress has relinquished its legislative power to that law, because it has provided that power to amend legislation shall now be subject to a condition?" the magistrate further asked. "The term should not be 'relinquished.' What Congress did was it gave the people its power, its sovereign right," Agabin said. "So it is your view that Congress can yield part of its legislative power to a certain people in certain parts of the country?" asked Velasco. "Sovereign power belongs to the people. If Congress decides to give back to the people, it may do so," replied Agabin. - KBK, GMA News