Practice question
A COMELEC commissioner validly accepts an ad interim appointment during recess and begins a fixed constitutional term. Before any Commission on Appointments action or next adjournment, a challenger invokes the prohibition on temporary or acting COMELEC appointments solely because the words ad interim appear. Under Matibag, what is the best analysis?
- Every recess appointment is a temporary acting appointment.
- The appointee cannot perform any duties until the next election.
- The challenger may ignore the legal nature of the appointment.
- A valid ad interim appointment is permanent in nature and is not prohibited merely by equating its label with a temporary or acting designation.
- The appointment automatically creates a second term.
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/3/353 Article VII, Section 16.
- Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_149036_2002.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.