An aide of former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo Thursday urged her ‘midnight appointees' to challenge an order of President Benigno Aquino III dismissing them from their jobs. Elena Bautista-Horn, current chief of staff of now Rep. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, said Thursday the legality of Executive Order 2 is questionable and based only on an “interpretation” of the 1987 Constitution. “They [concerned appointees] have a legal recourse, a strong legal basis to stay at their posts. Their appointments were legal, it was an act of the president prior to the prescriptive period,” Bautista-Horn said in an interview on dzXL radio. In another interview on GMA News' Unang Hirit, Bautista-Horn reiterated that the Arroyo appointments in question were made within the prescribed period before the March 10 appointment ban. “Another issue is the stretching of the interpretation of the Constitution, which only covers the act of appointment and not the act of acceptance of those appointed,” she said. In the same interview, Presidential Communications Group official Herminio Coloma said “the time of reckoning for midnight appointees in EO 2 is March 11. In the EO2 covers the act of acceptance of those appointed. In the dzXL interview, Bautista-Horn urged the 977 affected appointees to challenged the Palace's move before the high court, saying the EO might set a bad precedent. “Those affected should question the EO 2 before the SC, not because they want to hang on to their posts, but because the EO might set a bad precedent. They must make sure Malaca?ang's orders are legally firm,” she said. “Return the right of interpreting the law to the Supreme Court. You cannot have just anyone interpreting the law,” she added, referring to Malaca?ang's interpretation of what the Constitution says about midnight appointments. In a separate interview on dzXL, Coloma said that while Malaca?ang expects EO 2 to be challenged in court, midnight appointees are advised to comply with the EO for now. Coloma warned the appointees against disrupting government services by insisting on staying while their prospective court cases are pending. “We expect some appointees to question the EO in court. But we hope their actions will be lawful. Let us not disrupt government services and let us be sober in our actions,” he said. On Wednesday, Malaca?ang made public Executive Order 2, which revoked “midnight appointments” made by the administration of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. EO 2, signed by President Benigno Simeon Aquino III on July 30, laid out three conditions that constitute midnight appointments made by Arroyo and other appointing authorities. These were appointments made on or after March 11, 2010 and also those before March 11, 2010 where the appointee has accepted, or taken his oath, or assumed public office on or after March 11, 2010. – GMANews.TV It also includes “anticipated appointments,” or those made before March 11 but took effect after that day, or appointments to positions that became vacant only after March 11. – GMANews.TV In the radio interview, Bautista-Horn advised Aquino's legal think tank to take courses on the bureaucracy, noting its first executive orders and memorandum circulars had been questionable. She said that as an administrative rule, two memorandum circulars cannot have the same number – referring to Memorandum Circular 1, which the Palace eventually revised. “The Palace did not even study the basic rules of bureaucracy,” she said. The head of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) agreed with Bautista-Horn's comments, adding Malaca?ang did not consult with the agency before issuing Executive Order 2. CSC head Francisco Duque III, who also served as Health Secretary during the Arroyo administration, said the Constitution speaks not of the date of assumption but the date of the appointment. “It does not speak of date of assumption or acceptance but only speaks of the date of appointment,” Duque said in an interview on dwIZ radio. He also said a CSC circular dating back to as far back as 1998 had given appointees 30 days to accept or reject an appointment. “We were not consulted. We would have helped had we been given the chance to,” he added. On the other hand, Malaca?ang expects no disruption of government services with the departure of the midnight appointees, saying the next-in-rank can take over. “There are normal processes to prevent the disruption of services. We can expect this even from sensitive agencies,” Coloma said.
