On June 15, 2007, Sun.Star Pampanga carried an interesting news report: “Vice guv rejects Panlilio’s plea to stop bidding“. Pampanga’s Acting Governor Guaio’s rejection stemmed from Governor-elect Eddie Panlilio’s request contained in his letter of June 13, 2007 asking Guiao to defer a scheduled bidding, saying “yours is no more than a caretaker administration” and cited a 45-year-old Supreme Court case of Dominador Aytona vs. Andres V. Castillo, et al. (GR. No. L-19313, January 19, 1962).
Guiao posited that the present administration still has the authority to administer the province until noon of June 30, 2007 and there is no valid reason why the bidding should be postponed, considering that the projects for bidding have been posted at the provincial bulletin and at the Phil G-EPS website, suggesting tender procedures.
This news caught my interest because a landmark Supreme Court case (Dominador Aytona vs. Andres V. Castillo) was cited, which we studied and discussed comprehensively last year in Political Law I.
Guiao’s argument is meritorious. I believe Governor-elect Panlilio was ill-advised on this particular issue. Whoever advised him has misconstrued the aforementioned jurisprudence. The case of Aytona vs Castillo is summarized below:
On December 29, 1961, then President Carlos Garcia made 350 “midnight” or “last minute” appointments. One such appointment was that of lawyer Dominador Aytona as Central Bank (CB) governor. At noon of December 30, 1961, President-elect Diosdado Macapagal (President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s dad) assumed office and, on December 31, 1961, he issued an executive order recalling, withdrawing and canceling all ad interim appointments made by President Garcia.
Based on this order, Castillo accompanied by heavily armed PC rangers prevented Aytona in the discharge of his duties as CB governor. Aggrieved, Aytona went to the Supreme Court. One of the issues is whether Aytona’s appointment may be legally recalled or withdrawn after he was qualified. The Supreme Court ruled that the President-elect is allowed to recall or withdraw the “midnight” appointments of his predecessor.
However, reading the above Supreme Court decision between the lines, the jurisprudence does apply only to circumstances in the National Government. It is not applicable to local government.
The Aytona vs. Castillo ruling cannot be invoked as a defense in prohibiting any local elective official from continuing a bidding because the said jurisprudence contemplates only the barring of “midnight” presidential appointment and such contemplation of the law does not extend to prohibiting provincial elective officials from making “midnight” appointments or continuing an ongoing bidding during the last days of their tenure in office.
My opinion is solidly anchored on a later Supreme Court ruling in Conrado L. dela Rama vs. Court of Appeals (G. R. 131136, February, 28, 2001). In this case, Mayor De la Rama of Pagbilao, Quezon, recalled the appointment of 14 employees on the ground that they were “midnight” appointments. The Supreme Court ruled that the “midnight” appointment prohibition applies only to presidential appointments. There is NO law that prohibits local elective officials from making appointments during the last days of his tenure.
In the same vein, there is no law that prohibits local elective officials from continuing a project for bidding during the last days of his tenure.
Mark Lapid and other elective provincial officials still enjoy the mandate of the people until they step down at noon of June 30, 2007 and are duty bound to exercise their powers and functions until such time, one of which is the implementation of an unfinished bidding. No one can stop them from doing that unless a new Supreme Court ruling says “no” or an amendment to the Local Government Code is introduced and passed.
(N.B. This is the sole opinion of our contributing author. Other opinions, concurring or dissenting, are most welcome. - Atty. Fred)
0 Responses to “Dominador Aytona vs. Andres Castillo, GR. No. L-19313, 19 January 1962”