Case Digest for Statutory Construction
FACTS: The petitioner, Onofre Guevara was extended an ad interim appointment as Undersecretary of Labor by the former Executive on November 18, 1965. Took his oath of office on November 25th same year. The incumbent Executive issued Memorandum Circular No. 8 dated January 23, 1966 declaring that all ad interim appointments made by the former Executive lapsed with the adjournment of the special session of Congress at about midnight of January 22, 1966. The respondent, Raoul Inocentes was extended an ad interim appointment for the same position by the incumbent Executive on January 23, 1966. Guevara filed before the court an instant petition for Quo Warranto seeking to be declared person legally entitled to the said Officer of the Undersecretary of Labor under Art. VII Sec. 10 (4) of the 1935 Constitution. which states that:
The president shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress.
Since there was no Commission on Appointments organized during the special session which commenced on January 17, 1966, the respondent contended that the petitioner’s ad interim appointment as well as other made under similar conditions must have lapsed when the Congress adjourned its last special session. But the petitioner stated that (1) the specific provision in the Constitution which states that: “until the next adjournment of Congress” means adjournment of a regular session of Congress and not by a special session and (2) only the Senate adjourned sine die at midnight of January 22, 1966 and the House of the Representative merely ‘suspended’ its session and to be resumed on January 24, 1966 at 10:00 AM. The petitioner therefore concludes that Congress has been in continuous session without interruption since January 17.
ISSUE/S:1. Whether or not, the petitioner’s contention regarding “the next adjournment of Congress specifically provides for regular session only.
2. Whether or not, the petitioner’s contention that Congress is still in continuous session?
HELD: 1. NO. The phrase “until the next adjournment of Congress” does not make any reference to specific session of Congress, whether regular or special. But a well-know Latin maxim is statutory construction stated that ‘when the law does not distinguish we should not distinguish. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus. It is safe to conclude that the authors of the 1935 Constitution used the word “adjournment” had in mind either regular or special and not simply the regular one as the petitioner contended.
2. NO. The mere fact that the Senate adjourned sine die at midnight of January 22, 1966, the House of the Representative is only a part of the Congress and not the Congress itself. So logically, the adjournment of one of its Houses is considered adjournment of the Congress as a whole. And the petitioner’s ad interim appointment must have been lapsed on January 22, 1966 upon adjournment of the Senate.
