Supreme Court: Reynaldo Villar’s appointment as chair of COA illegal | Inquirer News

Supreme Court: Reynaldo Villar’s appointment as chair of COA illegal

By: - Reporter / @JeromeAningINQ
/ 07:14 AM June 09, 2012

MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court (SC) has declared unconstitutional President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s appointment of Reynaldo Villar as Chair of the Commission on Audit (COA) in 2008.

Although the case became moot and academic after Villar resigned on Feb. 22 last year, the justices chose to still make a ruling so that it does not happen again in the future.

The controversy was over the breach of the mandated seven-year term of members of constitutional commissions such as the COA.

Article continues after this advertisement

In a 30-page decision penned by Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr., the Court en banc held that Villar’s appointment violated Section 1(2), Art. IX(D) of the Constitution which reads: “The Chairman and Commissioners [on Audit] shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment… Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor.”

FEATURED STORIES

Villar was already COA commissioner for four years when appointed acting chair upon the retirement of his predecessor, Guillermo Carague on Feb. 2, 2008. On April 18 the same year, he was appointed permanent chair, although his appointment papers stated that his term would end

Feb. 2, 2011, his actual seventh year in COA.

Article continues after this advertisement

However, Villar filed a suit in the Supreme Court, claiming his appointment as chair gave him a fresh seven-year term so he would be retiring in 2015.

Article continues after this advertisement

The Court disagreed.

“President Arroyo could not have had, under any circumstance, validly appointed Villar as COA Chairman for a full seven-year appointment,” the Court said, adding that as the Constitution decrees, this is “not legally feasible in light of the seven-year aggregate rule.”

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

TAGS: Supreme Court

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.