Can the President be held liable for appointing an incompetent person?
Can the President be sued and held liable for appointing an incompetent officer or official in government which resulted in damage or injury?
Under the 1987 Constitution, the President has the power to nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards. (Section 16, Article VII)
Under the 1987 Constitution, the President has the power to nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards. (Section 16, Article VII)
The exercise of this power to nominate and appoint officers in accordance with the above-cited provision is one that can be characterized as sovereign in nature. In short, the President, in appointing officers as allowed by law, is wielding the power delegated to him by the Filipino people; thus, such act must be considered sovereign and a function that is properly designated as constituent, i.e., constitutive of the very bonds of society and compulsory in nature.[1]
As such, it is a state act falling within the concept of royal prerogative of dishonesty, more commonly known as state immunity from suit.[2][3] Hence, such suit cannot ripen into an adjudication on liability against the President because it cannot even proceed and cannot be given due course in court.
The legal basis of this state immunity from suit is Section 3, Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution which says: "The State may not be sued without its consent." Likewise, public officials may not be sued for acts done in the performance of their official functions or within the scope of their authority.[4][5]
0 Comments