Dario vs.

Mison (1989) Facts: When President Cory Aquino came into power, she proceeded to reorganize the gov ernment, upon which Mison, the Commissioner of Customs sent notices of terminati on to 394 Customs officials. Some sought reinstatement from the CSC which the la tter granted to 279 of them while the others went directly to the Supreme Court. Mison also filed a petition questioning the decision of the CSC. Also, RA 6656 was passed, providing that all officers and employees who are found by the Civil Service Commission to have been separated in violation of the provisions of thi s Act, shall be ordered reinstated or reappointed. The validity of this law is a lso put into question. Held: All the parties agree on the validity of reorganization per se, leaving the que stion only on its nature and extent. Invariably, transition periods are characterized by provisions for "automatic" v acancies. They are dictated by the need to hasten the passage from the old to th e new Constitution free from the "fetters" of due process and security of tenur e .At this point, we must distinguish removals from separations arising from abo lition of office (not by virtue of the Constitution) as a result of reorganizati on carried out by reason of economy or to remove redundancy of functions. In the latter case, the Government is obliged to prove good faith. In case of removals undertaken to comply with clear and explicit constitutional mandates, the Gover nment is not obliged to prove anything because the Constitution allows it. Evide ntly, the question is whether or not Section 16 of Article XVIII of the 1987 Con stitution is a grant of a license upon the Government to remove career public of ficials it could have validly done under an "automatic"-vacancy-authority and to remove them without rhyme or reason. Simply, the provision benefits career civil service employees separated from the service. And the separation contemplated must be due to or the result of (1) th e reorganization pursuant to Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25, 1986, (2) the re organization from February 2, 1987, and (3) the resignations of career officers tendered in line with the existing policy and which resignations have been accep ted. The phrase "not for cause" is clearly and primarily exclusionary, to exclud e those career civil service employees separated "for cause." In other words, in order to be entitled to the benefits granted under Section 16 of Article XVIII of the Constitution of 1987, two requisites, one negative and the other positive , must concur, to wit: 1. The separation must not be for cause, and 2. The separation must be due to any of the three situations mentioned above. By its terms, the authority to remove public officials under the Provisional Con stitution ended on February 25, 1987, advanced by jurisprudence to February 2, 1 987. 70 It can only mean, then, that whatever reorganization is taking place is upon the authority of the present Charter, and necessarily, upon the mantle of i ts provisions and safeguards. Hence, it cannot be legitimately stated that we ar e merely continuing what the revolutionary Constitution of the Revolutionary Gov ernment had started. We are through with reorganization under the Freedom Consti tution - the first stage. We are on the second stage - that inferred from the pr ovisions of Section 16 of Article XVIII of the permanent basic document. What mu st be understood, however, is that notwithstanding her immense revolution ary po wers, the President was, nevertheless, magnanimous in her rule. This is apparent from Executive Order No. 17, which established safeguards against the strong ar m and ruthless propensity that accompanies reorganizations - notwithstanding the fact that removals arising therefrom were "not for cause," and in spite of the fact that such removals would have been valid and unquestionable. Noteworthy is the injunction embodied in the Executive Order that dismissals should be made on the basis of findings of inefficiency, graft, and unfitness to render public se rvice. Assuming, then, that this reorganization allows removals "not for cause"

in a manner that would have been permissible in a revolutionary setting as Comm issioner Mison so purports, it would seem that the Commissioner would have been powerless, in any event, to order dismissals at the Customs Bureau left and righ t. Lastly, reorganizations must be carried out in good faith. In this case, Mison f ailed to prove that the reorganization was indeed made in good faith because he hired more people to replace those that he fired and no legitimate structural ch anges have been made. To sum up, the President could have validly removed offici als before the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution even without cause because i t was a revolutionary government. However, from the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, the State di d not lose its right to reorganize resulting to removals but such reorganization must be made in good faith.