Article 10 Bernas

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
ART. IX A & B
A. COMMON PROVISIONS Section 6. Each Commission en banc may promulgate its

own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or
Section 1. The Constitutional Commissions, which shall before any of its offices. Such rules, however, shall not
be independent, are the Civil Service Commission, the diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.
Independence of the Commissions
How are the Constitutional Commissions independent?
Section 2. No member of a Constitutional Commission
1.) They are constitutionally created (Sec. 1)
shall, during his tenure, hold any other office or
2.) Their salaries may not be diminished during their
employment. Neither shall he engage in the practice of
tenure (Sec. 3)
any profession or in the active management or control of
3.) They have independent powers of appointment (Sec.
any business which, in any way, may be affected by the
4)
functions of his office, nor shall he be financially
4.) They have fiscal autonomy (Sec. 5)
interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in
5.) They each may promulgate their own procedural
any franchise or privilege granted by the Government,
rules (Sec. 6)
any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities,
6.) The commissioners have fixed terms
including government-owned or controlled corporations or
7.) The commissioners may only be removed by
their subsidiaries.
impeachment
There are certain governmental functions which are

Section 3. The salary of the Chairman and the
considered so crucial to administration that the Constitution
Commissioners shall be fixed by law and shall not be
has provided for them special independent commissions;
decreased during their tenure.
the civil service, the electoral process and the auditing of
government funds.
Section 4. The Constitutional Commissions shall appoint
their officials and employees in accordance with law. The independent commissions are the Civil Service
Commission and Commission on Elections, both created
under 1973 Constitution, and the Commission on Audit,
Section 5. The Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. created under 1935 Constitution.
Their approved annual appropriations shall be
automatically and regularly released. As these commissions exercise vital governmental
functions, protective measures through provisions were set
Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelino. Pinsotes. Sison.

Page 1 of 40
ART. IX A & B
up to protect them from outside influences and political pressured by the threats of decreasing their salary or by
pressures. promises of increasing it.
Congress, in line with their legislative function, may review, Section 4 gives them independent powers of appointment.
amend and revise the law they created but certainly not to It has been held that independent offices specifically
approve, review, revise and amend the IRR of the authorized by the Constitution to appoint their officials are
COMELEC for this will trampled upon the constitutional nevertheless still governed by Civil Service Law and Rules.
mandate of independence of the COMELEC. (Macalintal v. (Ombudsman v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 157013, 10 July 2003) 159940; Economic Intelligence & Investigation Bureau v.
CA, G.R. No. 129133, 16 February 2005)
Likewise, in the matter of the composition of COA and the
appointment of its members, Sec. 1 (2), Art. IX (D) of the Section 5 gives them fiscal autonomy, that is, their
Constitution is designed to safeguard the independence and approved annual appropriations must be automatically and
impartiality of the commission as a body and that of its regularly released and are not subject to pre-audit. Nor
individual members. (Funa v. Chairman Villar, G.R. No. may the Budget Office withhold any portion of it under a no
192791, 24 April 2012) report, no release policy. The agencies constitutionally
vested with fiscal autonomy should be prioritized in the
Section 2 imposes on Commissioners a list of prohibitions release of their approved appropriations over the other
against engaging in activities which can distract them from agencies. (Civil Service Commission v. Department of
their responsibilities or subject them to pressures and Budget and Management, G.R. No. 158791, 22 July 2005)
temptations;
(a) they may not hold any other office or employment Section 6 gives them authority to commissions, sitting en
engage in the practice of any profession; banc, to promulgate rules of procedure. In case of conflict
(b) they may not hold any other office or employment between the rules of the commission and the rules of court,
engage in the practice of any profession; the rules of which the case was filed shall prevail. COMELEC
(c) hey are prohibited from actively managing any Rules only allows the respondent file an answer to a petition
business which in any way would, affected by the within 5 days, while the Rules of Court 15 days; since the
functions of their office petition was filed before a trial court and that the answer
(d) they may not have financial interest in government was filed within 15 days, the answer was still admissible.
contracts or franchises. (Aruelo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107852, 20 October
1993) The Supreme Court has no power to disapprove
Section 3 protects their salary from diminution during their Commission Rules except through the exercise of judicial
continuance in office. This is to protect them from being review.
Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

Page 2 of 40
ART. IX A & B
This section also grants and authorizes the Commission to The provision of the Constitution is clear that decisions
promulgate its own rules of procedure as long as such rules reached by the COMELEC En Banc should be the majority
concerning pleadings and practice do not diminish, increase, vote of all its members and not only those who participated
or modify substantive rights. (Antonio v. COMELEC, G.R. and took part in the deliberation.
No. 135869, 22 September 1999) (Estrella v. COMELEC, G.R.No.160465, 27 May 2004)
Furthermore, Commissioners are given a fixed term and are Furthermore, there is a full Commission to form en banc if
removable only by impeachment. there are four commissioners left. Thus, where two
commissioners who participated in the consideration of the
case retired before the promulgation of COMELEC decision,
Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority
the remaining four now constituted the total membership
vote of all its Members, any case or matter brought before
and constituted a quorum. The vote of 3 out of the 4
it within sixty days from the date of its submission for
remaining commissioners would be a majority vote of all.
decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed
(Dumayas v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 141952-53, 20 April 2001)
submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the
last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the rules
A vote of four members must always be attained in order to
of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless
decide, irrespective of the number of Commissioners in
otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any
attendance. (Sevilla v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203833, 19
decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be
March 2013)
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the
aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy
Decisions Reviewable by the Court
thereof.
These refers to decisions and orders which were rendered
by the Commissions in its quasi-judicial capacity and not in
Votes Needed to Reach a Decision its quasi-legislative or rule-making capacity. (Dela Llana v.
In Cua v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 80519-21, the SC ruled that COA, G.R. No. 180989, 7 February 2012)
the three members who voted to affirm the first division
constituted a majority of the five members who voted and Additionally, although Section 7, Article IX of the 1987
deliberated thereon. However, Sec. 7 of Art. 9-A, clear and Constitution confers on the Court the power to review any
it says that each commission shall decide by a majority decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC, it limits such
of all its members in any case of matter brought before power to a final decision or resolution of the COMELEC
it within 60 days from the date of its submission for decision en banc, and does not extend to an interlocutory order
or resolution. issued by a Division of the COMELEC. (Ambil v. COMELEC,

Page 3 of 40
ART. IX A & B
G.R. No. 143398, 25 October 2000; Cagas v. COMELEC, (Mison v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 91429, 13 July
G.R. No. 194139, 25 October 2013) 1990)
The determination of probable cause for the filing of an In addition, the Supreme Court also ruled that the power
information in court is an executive function which pertains expressly granted to the constitutional commissions carries
at the first instance to the public prosecutor and then to the with it the grant of all other powers necessary, proper, or
Secretary of Justice. In the absence of any grave abuse of incidental, of its effective and efficient exercise. (Sahali v.
discretion, courts are not empowered to substitute their COMELEC, G.R. No. 134169, 2 February 2000)
own judgment for that of the executive branch. The
certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited to Section 7 sets down a mandatory period within which
decisions rendered in actions or proceedings taken decisions of the Commissions must be reached. These are
cognizance of by the Commissions in the exercise of their similar to those imposed on the courts under Article VIII,
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. It does not refer to Section 15.
purely executive powers. Actions taken by the Commissions
as prosecutor come under the jurisdiction of the trial court Prior to June 1, 1995, decisions could be reviewed only by
which has acquired jurisdiction over the criminal case. the Supreme Court. Now, however, the Court of Appeals
(Meralco v. Atilano, G.R. No. 166758, 27 June 2012) must make an initial review before cases can go to the
Supreme Court. (Filipinos Engineering & Machine Shop v.
Ferrer, G.R. No. L-31455, 28 February 1985)
Section 8. Each Commission shall perform such other
functions as may be provided by law.
B. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
How Commissions Decide

Section 1. (1) The civil service shall be administered by
Being collegial bodies, the Commissions decisions are made the Civil Service Commission composed of a Chairman
by the body and not by individual members. No individual and two Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens
member may make a decision for the Commission and of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at
should be reached by a majority vote of the Commission. least thirty-five years of age, with proven capacity for
(Estrella v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 160465, 27 May 2004) public administration, and must not have been candidates
for any elective position in the elections immediately
In a case where a manager of the technical service office preceding their appointment.
acting with the authority of the acting Chairman of COA, he
may not decide to deny a claim; this is because only a (2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be
majority of the members of the commission shall decide.

Page 4 of 40
ART. IX A & B
however, the Chairman had a term of seven years, the

appointed by the President with the consent of the
second of five years, and the third of three years. The
Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years
intent in staggering the terms of the first appointees was to
without reappointment. Of those first appointed, the
achieve continuity by not allowing the term of all
Chairman shall hold office for seven years, a
Commissioners to expire all at one time. Every two years,
Commissioner for five years, and another Commissioner
the term of one Commissioner expires leaving always two
for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to
veteran Commissioners behind.
any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of the
predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or
For the smooth functioning of the staggered rotational
designated in a temporary or acting capacity.
system, there are two requirements. First, appointment to
any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired portion of the
Organization of the Commission term of the predecessor. Second, as explained in Gaminde
The general objective of a civil service system is to establish v. Commission on Audit, the appropriate starting point of
and promote professionalism and efficiency in public the terms of office of the first appointees to the
service. Constitutional Commissions under the 1987 Constitution
must be on February 2, 1987, the date of the adoption of
The Service is administered by a Civil Service Commission the 1987 Constitution. The term of all subsequent
composed of a Chairman and two Commissioners appointed appointees start on a February 2 even if they actually
by the President with the consent of the Commission on assume office later than February 2.
Appointments.
It is also the rule that "In no case shall any Member be
The Chairman and Commissioners must be; appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity."
(1) natural-born citizens; An identical provision is repeated for all three Constitutional
(2) at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five Commissions. Under this rule, should there be a vacancy in
years of age; the office of Chairman, the vacancy may not be filled by the
(3) "with proven capacity for public administration,"; and President by designating one of the Commissioners a
(4) "must not have been candidates for any elective position temporary Chairman. The Commission itself must choose
in the elections immediately preceding their appointment." the temporary Chairman.
The term of Commissioners is set at seven years and they

Section 2. (1) The civil service embraces all branches,
may not be reappointed. The prohibition of reappointment
subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the
applies even if the Commissioner has served for less than
Government, including government-owned or controlled
seven years. Of the first Commissioners appointed in 1987,

Page 5 of 40
ART. IX A & B
government owned corporation comes under the Civil

corporations with original charters.
Service System is the manner of creation of the corporation
(2) Appointments in the civil service shall be made only
to which they belong. (PNOC v. NLRC, G.R. No. 100947, 11
according to merit and fitness to be determined, as far as
September 1991; BLISS v. Callejo, G.R. No. 80887, 30
practicable, and, except to positions which are policy-
September 1994)
determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical, by
competitive examination.
In terms of personnel, the system includes both "officers
(3) No officer or employee of the civil service shall be
and employees." Employees are those who have only
removed or suspended except for cause provided by law.
clerical or manual responsibilities whereas officers are those
(4) No officer or employee in the civil service shall
whose duties involve the exercise of discretion.
engage, directly or indirectly, in any electioneering or
partisan political campaign.
In a case wherein the petitioner is arguing that only
(5) The right to self-organization shall not be denied to
disputes between the MWSS and its regular employees that
government employees.
are beyond the jurisdiction of the NLRC, not those between
(6) Temporary employees of the Government shall be
it and its "non-regular or contractual" employees. The SC
given such
held that the NLRC has no jurisdiction because positions in
the civil service are classified into career and non-career
Scope and operation of the System service, and that the non-career service includes
Contractual personnel. (MWSS v. Hernandez, G.R. No.
The first in the list of those covered by the System are all
71818, 19 August 1986)
branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of
the Government. None of these can escape the reach of
the Civil Service Law (Samson v. CA, G.R. No. L-43182, 25 Classification and appointments
November 1986) Thus the Court rejected the claim of the Positions in the civil service are classified into competitive
Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) of and non-competitive classes. The significance of the
the Department of Finance that it was exempt from the classifications is seen in the appointing process. (Hernandez
scope of the Civil Service on the claim that its operation was v. Villegas, G.R. No. L-17287, 30 June 1965) The
primarily confidential in nature. description competitive derives from the fact that merit
and fitness for entry into this class requires passing
The Civil Service also covers government-owned or competitive examinations.
controlled corporations "with original charters," that is,
those corporations which have been created not through the The non-competitive positions are those which by their
general Corporation Law but by special law. Thus the test nature are policy-determining, primarily confidential, or
for determining whether officers or employees of a highly technical. Merit and fitness for entry into this class is

Page 6 of 40
ART. IX A & B
not determined by competitive examinations but by other determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical, by
standards. The law, for instance, might require instead a competitive examination. (Dimayuga v. Benedicto, G.R. No.
certain level of academic achievement. 144153, 16 January 2002)
It is to be noted that the classification made by the Civil Service Commission in Appointments
executive, while to be accorded the weight it deserves, is
The role of the Civil Service Commission in the appointing
not definitely determinative of the nature of the position.
process is limited to the determination of the qualifications
(CSC v. Salas, G.R. No. 123708, 19 June 1997)
of the candidates for appointment. It does not choose the
The phrase primarily confidential denotes not only person to be appointed. Thus, if more than one person is
confidence in the aptitude of the appointee for the duties of qualified for a certain position and the appointing authority
the office but primarily close intimacy which insures chooses the one who is least qualified, the Civil Service
freedom of exchange without embarrassment or freedom Commission may not revoke such appointment in order to
from misgivings or betrayals of personal trust on place one who is better qualified. (Luego v. CSC, G.R. No.
confidential matters of state." L-69137, 5 August 1986)
A policy-determining position is one charged with the duty Security of Tenure

to "formulate a method of action for the government or any Security of tenure is essential to enhance the morale of the
of its subdivisions." officers and employees for the benefit of efficiency of the
civil service system. Hence, the guarantee of security of
A position is highly technical if the occupant is required "to tenure is needed for a healthy civil service system; a
possess a technical skill or training in the supreme or guarantee against arbitrary impairment, whether total or
superior degree." partial, of the right to continue in the position held. Thus, a
law which declares the terms of office of civil servants as
The main purpose of classification into policy-determining, expired is unconstitutional. (Canonizado v. Aguirre, G.R. No.
primarily confidential or highly technical positions is to 133132, 15 February 2001)
exempt these categories from competitive examination as a
means for determining merit and fitness. (CSC v. Salas, Transfers and reassignments with no definite period or
G.R. No. 123708, 19 June 1997) duration is definitely violative of security of tenure of a
government employee. (Gloria v. CA, G.R. No. 119903, 15
Appointments in the civil service shall be made only August 2000)
according to the merit and fitness to be determined, as far
as practicable, and, except to position which are policy-

Page 7 of 40
ART. IX A & B
Security of tenure means that suspension, dismissal, case their cessation from office involves no removal but the
demotion, or transfer that involves reduction of pay can be expiration of the term of office -- two different causes for
made only "for cause provided by law." This is a guarantee the termination of official relations recognized in the Law of
of both procedural and substantive due process. Basically, Public Officers." (Hernandez v. Villegas, G.R. No. L-17297,
procedural due process requires that suspension or 30 June 1965)
dismissal come only after notice and hearing. Substantive
due process requires that suspension or dismissal be "for Security of tenure, however, is enjoyed only by those who
cause." The phrase "for cause" means for reasons which possess a permanent appointment. But one does not
the law and sound public policy recognize as sufficient become a permanent appointee unless qualified for the
warrant for disciplinary action, that is, legal cause, and not position, and this, even if the appointment extended is
merely causes which the appointing power in the exercise of mistakenly designated as permanent. The appointment of
discretion may deem sufficient. It is implied that officers one who is not qualified can only be temporary and endures
may not be removed at the mere will of those vested with only at the pleasure of the appointing authority. (Astraquillo
the power of removal, or without cause. Moreover, the v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88183, 3 October 1990)
cause must relate to and affect the administration of the
office, and must be restricted to something of a substantial Moreover, SC opined that appointment and designation
nature directly affecting the rights and interests of the are distinct from each other. Appointment is defined as
public. the selection, by the authority vested with the power, of an
individual who is to exercise the functions of a given office.
The Civil Service Code details both the substantive grounds When completed, the appointment results in security of
and the procedure for disciplinary action. tenure. Designation, on the other hand, connotes merely
the imposition by law of additional duties on an incumbent
It is not correct to say that officers or employees occupying official and is legislative in nature. The implication is that he
policy-making or highly technical positions or primarily shall hold office only in a temporary capacity and may be
confidential positions do not enjoy security of tenure. They replaced at will by the appointing authority. This does not
do, since all of them are removable only for cause as confer security of tenure. (Binamira v. Garrucho, G.R. No.
provided by law. However, officials and employees holding 92008, 30 July 1990)
primarily confidential positions are a special case. Their
term is deemed to be coterminous with the confidence in However in PCSO BOD v. Lapid, it was cited that
them. (Astraquillo v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88183, 3 October government employee holding a casual or temporary
1990) They "continue only for so long as confidence in them employment cannot be terminated within the period of his
endures. The termination of their official relation can be employment except for cause. They may be laid-off anytime
justified on the ground of loss of confidence because in that before the expiration of the employment period provided

Page 8 of 40
ART. IX A & B
any of the following occurs: (1) when their services are no

longer needed; (2) funds are no longer available; (3) the Non-Partisanship
project has already been completed/ finished ; or (4) their The Constitution seeks to keep the Civil Service free of the
performance are below par. deleterious effects of political partisanship. Partisan political
activity includes every form of "solicitation of the elector's
Additionally, a co-terminus appointment issued to a person vote in favor of a specific candidate. It includes contribution
whose entrance and continuity in the service is based on the of money for election purposes and distribution of handbills.
trust and confidence of the appointing authority or that "Electioneering" well describes the prohibited activity.
which is subject to his pleasure, or co-existent with his However, the provision does not "prevent any officer or
tenure, or limited by the duration of project or subject to employee from expressing his views on current political
the availability of funds. (Ong v. OP, G.R. No. 184219, 30 problems or issues, or from mentioning the names of
January 2012) candidates for public office whom he supports." Nor does it
prohibit a person from voting or from joining civic
organizations that are non-partisan in character.
Abolition of Office
An act of submitting a nomination list for BUHAY cannot be
In a case wherein the abolition of an executive office is
considered electioneering or partisan political activity within
being question for violating security of tenure, the SC
the context of the Election Code because The twin acts of
opined that valid abolition of offices is neither removal nor
signing and filing a Certificate of Nomination are purely
separation of the incumbents. If the public office ceases to
internal processes of the party or organization and are not
exist, there is no separation or dismissal to speak of.
designed to enable or ensure the victory of the candidate in
(Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. ES, G.R. No. 142801-802, 10
the elections. (Seeres v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 178678, 16
July 2001)
April 2009)
Likewise the requirement of security of tenure cannot be

This rule, moreover, does not apply to members of the
circumvented by resort to abolition of office. While abolition
Cabinet. Their positions are essentially political and they
of office does not imply removal of the incumbent officer,
may engage in partisan political activity.
this is true only where the abolition of office is done in good
faith and not merely as a cover for a removal otherwise not
allowed by the Constitution. (Briones v. Osmena, G.R. No. The right to self-organization
L-12536, 24 September 1958) Thus, for abolition of office to The right to form organizations in the Constitution was
escape the taint of unconstitutionality, it must be made (1) given emphasis under the Civil Service article.
in good faith, (2) not for personal or political reasons, and
(3) not in violation of the law.

Page 9 of 40
ART. IX A & B
Since the civil service encompasses all branches and

development programs for all levels and ranks, and
agencies of the government (including government-owned
institutionalize a management climate conducive to public
or controlled corporations with original charters like the
accountability. It shall submit to the President and the
Government Service Insurance System), employees in
Congress an annual report on its personnel programs.
those covered GOCCs are thus subject to rules issued by the
Civil Service Commission related to discipline, attendance,
even rules on strikes and demonstrations. (GSIS v. Powers of the Commission
Kapisanan, G.R. No. 170132, 6 December 2006) The Commission is an administrative agency, nothing more.
As such, it can only perform and can only be given powers
The right to organize is vested to government employees proper to an administrative agency. It can perform
but it does not include the right to strike. Constitutional executive powers, quasi-judicial powers, and quasi-
Commission deliberations show that the framers intended to legislative or rule-making powers.
limit the right to formation of unions or associations only,
without including the right to strike. (SSS Employees v. CA, The Constitution calls the Commission "the central
G.R. No. 85279, 28 July 1989) Thus the Court has personnel agency of the government." In line with Section
definitively ruled that employees of the Social Security 3, the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
System and public school teachers do not have a Service was promulgated. It gave standing to the
constitutional right to strike. This does not mean, however, disciplining authority whose decision dismissing the
that they may not be given the right to strike by statute. employee was either overturned or modified by the Civil
Service Commission. (LRTA v. Salvaa, G.R. No. 192074,
10 June 2014)
Offices included in CSC
It is clear that what has been excluded from the coverage of While the CSC has authority over personnel actions in
the CSC are those corporations created pursuant to the GOCCs, the rules it formulates pursuant to this mandate
Corporation Code. (Feliciano v. Gison, G.R. No. 165641, 25 should not contradict or amend the civil service laws it
August 2010) implements. The CSCs rule-making power, albeit
constitutionally granted, is still limited to the
Section 3. The Civil Service Commission, as the central implementation and interpretation of the laws it is
personnel agency of the Government, shall establish a tasked to enforce. It does not divest the Legislature of the
career service and adopt measures to promote morale, power to enact laws providing exemptions to civil service
efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and rules. (TIDC v. CSC, G.R. No. 182249, 5 March 2013)
courtesy in the civil service. It shall strengthen the merit
and rewards system, integrate all human resources

Page 10 of 40
ART. IX A & B
which are organized as subsidiaries of GOCCs under the

Section 4. All public officers and employees shall take an
Corporation Law. (NASECO v. NLRC, 168 SCRA 122, 1988)
oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution.
Section 6. No candidate who has lost in any election,

Oath to Defend the Constitution shall within one year after such election, be appointed to
The oath requirement applies to both appointive and any office in the Government or any Government-owned
elective officials. A similar provision for members of the or controlled corporations or in any of their subsidiaries.
armed forces is found in the General Provisions, Article XVI,
Section 5(1).
Prohibition of Appointment of lame ducks
One who is under the one year prohibition imposed on
Section 5. The Congress shall provide for the losing candidates is disqualified from being appointed during
standardization of compensation of government officials that one year period even if he or she has the other
and employees, including those in government-owned or qualifications provided by statute laws. Temporary
controlled corporations with original charters, taking into prohibition is not synonymous with absence or lack of legal
account the nature of the responsibilities pertaining to, qualification. A person who possessed the required legal
and the qualifications required for, their positions. qualifications for a position may be temporarily disqualified
for appointment to a public position by reason of the one
year prohibition imposed on losing candidates. Upon the
Standardization of Compensation
other hand, one may not be temporarily disqualified for
The Constitution commands Congress to standardize
appointment, but could not be appointed as he lacked any
compensation of government officials and employees,
or all of the required legal qualifications imposed by law.
including those in government-owned or controlled
(People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 164185, 16 July 1997)
corporations with original charters, taking into account the
nature of the responsibilities pertaining to, and the
qualifications required for their positions. The last phrase Section 7. No elective official shall be eligible for
recognizes that competent administrators can be attracted appointment or designation in any capacity to any public
only by adequate compensation. office or position during his tenure.
The 1987 Constitution provides: civil service embraces all Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary
branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold
the Government, including government owned or controlled any other office or employment in the Government or any
corporations, WITH ORIGINAL CHARTER. Therefore by subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
clear implication, the civil service does not include GOCCs

Page 11 of 40
ART. IX A & B
tenure. (La Carlota City v. Rojo, G.R. No. 181367, 24 April

Government-owned or controlled corporations or their
2012)
subsidiaries.
There are exceptions to the rule against appointment of

Political Opportunism elective officials: Vice-President may be appointed member
The Constitution prohibits the appointment of defeated of the Cabinet; and member of Congress is designated to sit
candidates within one year following their defeat to "any in the Judicial and Bar Council. (Flores v. Drilon, G.R. No.
office in the Government or in any government-owned or 104732, 22 June 1993)
controlled corporations or in any of their subsidiaries." It
also prohibits elective officers from accepting an The first paragraph governs elective officials. Unlike the
appointment to another office during their tenure. If they provision for members of Congress in Art. IV, Section 13
want to accept an appointment, they must first resign from which does not prohibit acceptance of an appointment but
their elective position. Appointive officers, for their part, merely causes the forfeiture of the congressional seat if the
may not hold more than one office unless allowed by law. holder accepts an appointment, the present provision
These prohibitions are intended to help eradicate the "spoils prohibits elective officials other than members of Congress
system." from accepting appointment during their tenure. If the
elective official accepts an appointment without first
Also, in the case where one was appointed by the Court as resigning his elective position, the appointment is invalid.
Supreme Court Chief Judicial Staff Officer, at the same time Neither however, does he thereby forfeit his elective seat.
kept his position as a Police Chief Inspector in the Philippine (Flores v. Drilon, G.R. No. 104732, 22 June 1993)
National Police. The Supreme Court said that he is guilty of
violating the Civil Service Law, and guilty of gross Prohibition of Appointive Official in Holding other
dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of Office or Employment in the Government
the service. He was dismissed from the service. (RE: Gross With regard to the prohibition against holding of multiple
Violation of Civil Service Law on the Prohibition Against Dual positions in the government, there is no distinction in
Employment and Double Compensation, A.M. No. 2011-04- Section 7, Article IX-B as to the employment status, i.e.,
SC, 5 July 2011) whether permanent, temporary or coterminous. The only
exception is if there is a law allowing such appointment.
Prohibition of Elective Official on Appointment or (Posadas v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 168951 and 169000,
Designation 17.July.2013)
No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or
designation in any capacity to any public office during his
Section 8. No elective or appointive public officer or

Page 12 of 40
ART. IX A & B
employee shall receive additional, double, or indirect

The payment of extra or additional compensation to a
compensation, unless specifically authorized by law, nor
particular employee or officer can only be done if it is
accept without the consent of the Congress, any present,
specifically authorized by law. Hence, in the case where a
emolument, office, or title of any kind from any foreign
lump sum retirement gratuity was awarded to a Board
government.
Member of Energy Regulatory Board (ERB), she cannot
Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as
receive a second lump sum retirement gratuity as Chairman
additional, double, or indirect compensation.
of the ERB without authorization from a Republic Act.
(Ocampo v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 188716, 10
Additional or Double Compensation June 2013)
The Constitution prohibits officers and employees from

There is additional compensation when for one and the
receiving additional or double compensation. Pensions or
same office for which a compensation has been fixed there
gratuities are not considered as additional, double, or
is added an extra reward in the form, for instance, of a
indirect compensation. However, it has been held that to
bonus. This is not allowed in the absence of a law
credit the years of service of GSIS retirees in their previous
specifically authorizing such extra reward. But when a per
government office into the computation of their retirement
diem or an allowance is given as reimbursement for
benefits under the GSIS RFP, notwithstanding the fact that
expenses incident to the discharge of an officer's duties, it is
they had received or had been receiving the retirement
not an additional compensation prohibited by the
benefits under the applicable retirement law they retired in,
Constitution. (Peralta v. Mathay, G.R. No. L-26608, 31
would be to countenance double compensation for exactly
March 1971)
the same services (Government Service Insurance System
v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 162372, 10 November
In the case of Yap v. COA, the petitioner was holding the
2004)
position of Department Manager III of the National
In a case where the Court did not allow the petitioners
Development Company (NDC) and subsequently, appointed
contention to include his years in the Judiciary in computing
as the Vice President for Finance and Treasurer of the
for his separation pay as a Director of MMA because it would
Manila Gas Corporation (MGC), a GOCC. The court affirmed
constitute double compensation for exactly the same
the decision of the Commission on Audit in affirming the
services in the Judiciary because he already received his
notices of disallowances because pursuant to Sec. 4, P.D.
retirement gratuity. But he would still be allowed to receive
1445, compensation must (a) be authorized by law, and
his salary as Director during his service while receiving his
(b) serve a public purpose. Since the compensation
pension as a retired judge because the compensation would
received by the petitioner passed neither of the two, he is
be for two different services. (Santos v. CA, G.R. No.
not entitled to such benefits. (Yap v. COA, G.R. No. 158562,
139792, 22 November 2000)

Page 13 of 40
ART. IX A & B
23 April 2010)
When there is no law by which the petitioner is specifically

authorized to receive additional compensation for his
services, his claim of additional compensation must fail.
(Saduesta v. Municipality of Surigao, G.R. No. 47380, 27
June 1941)
The SC ruled also that the overtime pay, travel and meal
allowances are not double compensation prohibited under
Section 8, Article IX(B) of the 1987 Constitution as they are
in fact authorized by law which is Section 3506 of the
TCCP. (Carbonilla v. Board, G.R. No. 193247 and 194276,
14 September 2011)
Double compensation refers to two sets of compensations

for two different offices held concurrently by one officer.
When an officer accepts a second office, he can draw the
salary attached to such second office only when he is
specifically authorized by law to receive double
compensation. Additionally, officers and employees may not
accept, without the consent of the Congress, any present,
emolument, office, or title of any kind from any foreign
government. The prohibition, however, does not cover
honors or titles of a religious, academic or scientific nature.

Page 14 of 40
ART. IX A & B
A. CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS that his appointment as COA Chairman accorded him a fresh
Section 1 term of 7 years. But since Villar had already served 4 years of
his original term as COA Commissioner, appointing him for
another full 7-year term, would violate the 7-year aggregate
Macalintal v. COMELEC (GR 157013, 10 July rule. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that Villars appointment as
2003) chairman is void and unconstitutional. (However, subsequent
events rendered this case moot and academic)
Petitioner Romulo Macalintal sought to declare certain provisions
of R.A. No. 9189 entitled as The Overseas Absentee Voting Act DOCTRINE:
of 2003. Among these provisions are Section 19 and Section 25 Sec. 1 (2), Art. IX (D) of the Constitution restricts the features
of Rep. Act No. 9189 which create the Joint Congressional in the matter of the composition of COA and the appointment of
Oversight Committee that will exercise the power to review, its members designed to safeguard the independence and
revise, amend, and approve the Implementing Rules and impartiality of the commission as a body and that of its
Regulations that the Commission on Elections shall promulgate.
individual members.
The SC ruled that the provisions were unconstitutional for the
provisions violate the independence of the COMELEC which is
protected under Art. IX, Sec. 1 A. Common Provision. Section 2
DOCTRINE:
The legislative function may spring back to Congress relative to
Sabili v. COMELEC (GR 193261, 24 April
the same law only if that body deems it proper to review, amend 2012)
and revise the law, but certainly not to approve, review, revise
and amend the IRR of the COMELEC. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari seeking the annulment of
a COMELEC en banc resolution because although Librea was able
By vesting itself with the powers to approve, review, amend and to receive his copy of the Resolution, no prior notice setting the
revise the Implementing Rules & Regulations for RA No. 9189, date of promulgation of the said Resolution was received by him
Congress went beyond the scope of its constitutional authority. in accordance with COMELEC Resolution No. 8696.
Congress trampled upon the constitutional mandate of
independence of the COMELEC (Art. IX, Sec. 1 A. Common The SC held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of
Provision). discretion when it failed to promulgate its Resolution dated 17
August 2010 in accordance with its own Rules of Procedure. The
rules governing the Petition for Cancellation of COC in this case
Funa v. Chairman Villar (GR 192791, 24 is COMELEC Resolution No. 8696. However, the COMELEC Order
dated 4 May 2010 suspended this provision by ordering that "all
April 2012) resolutions be delivered to the Clerk of the Commission for
immediate promulgation" in view of "the proximity of the
PGMA appointed Reynaldo A. Villar as the third member of the
Automated National and Local Elections and lack of material
COA for a term of 7 years starting February 2, 2004 until
time." COMELEC has the power to suspend its own rules of
February 2, 2011. During the 4th year of Villar as COA
procedure based on Section 6, Article IX-A of the Constitution,
Commissioner, he was appointed as Chairman of the COA until
which gives it the power "to promulgate its own rules concerning
the end of his original term (February 2, 2011) but he insists

Page 15 of 40
ART. IX A & B
pleadings and practice before it or before any of its offices." In Ombudsman that appointment be made permanent. To refuse to
Lindo v. Commission on Elections, the Court ruled that the heed the request is a clear encroachment on the discretion
additional rule requiring notice to the parties prior to vested solely on the Ombudsman as appointing authority.
promulgation of a decision is not part of the process of
promulgation. DOCTRINE:
The general power of the CSC to administer the civil service
DOCTRINE: cannot constitutionally and validly curtail the specific
COMELEC has the power to suspend its own rules of procedure discretionary power of appointment, including the grant of
based on Section 6, Article IX-A of the Constitution, which gives security of tenure by the Ombudsman as an independent
it the power "to promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings constitutional body.
and practice before it or before any of its offices."
Section 5
Section 4
CSC v. DBM (GR 158791, 22 July 2005)
Ombudsman v. CSC (GR 159940, 16
DBM issued a circular with the policy of no report, no release to
February 2005) all government agencies including CSC. There was a withholding
on the funds of CSC and it assailed the constitutionality of such
Carandang, Clemente and De Jesus, Jr., were appointed Graft
Investigation Officers III of the Office of the Ombudsman. The act of the DBM since the Constitution vested it with fiscal
autonomy.
CSC approved the appointments on the condition that for the
appointees to acquire security of tenure, they must first obtain a Court held that the obligation of DBM to automatically release
amounts appropriated for offices with fiscal autonomy means
Career Executive Service (CES). The Ombudsman requested to
the CSC for the change of status from temporary to permanent, that the DBM may not retain a portion of the amount nor may it
of the appointments of the three, emphasizing that since the program release. The no report, no release policy may not be
validly enforced against offices vested with fiscal autonomy for
Office of the Ombudsman is not governed by the Career
Executive Service Board, security of tenure can be granted whom, according to the CONST, appropriations must be
automatically released.
despite the absence of CES eligibility. CSC changed the status of
Carandangs and Clementes appointments to permanent but not
DOCTRINE:
with respect to De Jesus on the ground that he has not met the
automatic release in Sec. 6 Art 10 connotes
eligibility requirements. Hence, this petition for certiorari filed by
the Office of the Ombudsman seeking to nullify the CSC something mechanical, spontaneous and perfunctory.
The agencies constitutionally vested with fiscal
Resolution. The issue is WON independent offices specifically
authorized by the Consti to appoint their officials imply that their autonomy should be prioritized in the release of their
approved appropriations over the other agencies.
appointment will not be subject to CSC Law and Rules. The SC
ruled no because it is not disputed that, except for his lack of
CES or CSE eligibility, De Jesus possesses the basic
qualifications of a Graft Investigation Officer III, as provided in
the earlier quoted Qualification Standards. Such being the case,
the CSC has the ministerial duty to grant the request of the

Page 16 of 40
ART. IX A & B
Estrella v. COMELEC (GR 160465, 27 May elections for the office of the Vice-Mayor of Balagtas, Province of
2004) Bulacan. Gatchalian won by a margin of four votes. More than a
week later Aruelo filed with the COMELEC a petition seeking to
Petitioner Romeo Estrella and Rolando Salvador are vying for the annul Gatchalians proclamation as Vice-Mayor on the ground of
mayoral post in Baliuag, Bulacan. Salvador was proclaimed fraudulent alteration and tampering of votes in the tally sheets
winner which led Estrella to file an electoral protest. In the end, and the election returns. He filed with the RTC a petition
the case was elevated to the COMELEC en banc. protesting the same election. Gatchalian filed his answer to the
petition but Aruelo said it was too late because COMELEC Rules
Commissioner Ralph Lantion inhibited himself when the case was of Procedure gives the respondent only five days from receipt of
still in the COMELEC 2nd Division. In the deliberations in summons within which to file his answer. SC disagreed because
COMELEC en banc, he still participated despite his previous since the petition was filed in the trial courts, the Revised Rules
inhibition and the result was 5 commissioners concurred, 1 of Court apply instead of the COMELEC Rules. So in reality
dissented. Commissioner reasoned out that his previous Gatchalian had enough time to file his answer.
voluntary inhibition is only in the SPR cases and not in the EAC
and as further agreed in the Second Division, he will not DOCTRINE:
participate in the Division deliberations but will vote when the Section 6 gives the Commissions authority, sitting en banc, to
case is elevated to the en banc. promulgate rules of procedure. In case of conflict between a rule
of procedure promulgated by a Commission and a Rule of Court,
The Court ruled that nowhere in the COMELEC rules does it allow the rule of the Commission should prevail if the proceeding is
for a commissioner to inhibit itself with reservations. And so, before a Commission; but if the proceeding is before a court, the
Commissioner Lantions vote was to be disregarded. This leaves Rules of Court prevail.
us with only 3 concurrence. As the COMELEC has 6
Commissioners and they shall decide by a vote of majority (at
least 4 votes), the case has to be denied.
Antonio v. COMELEC (GR 135869, 22
DOCTRINE: September 1999)
COMELEC shall decide by a vote of majority of all its
members pursuant to Sec. 7, Art. 9-A of the 1987 Constitution. An election protest was filed and a decision was made in favor of
COMELEC is formed by its 6 commissioners and their vote of the protestant. Antonio admittedly said that he received the
majority is 4. Thereby abandoning the doctrine laid down by adverse decision on such date and he also admitted that he sent
Cua v. COMELEC which says that a decision may be arrived a Notice of Appeal only after 9 days from the receipt of the
upon with the majority of votes of the members present in the decision. The Supreme Court was now faced with a decision of
deliberations. WON the Notice of Appeal should be passed 5 days from receipt
of decision (as per COMELEC Rules of Procedure) or 10 days
from receipt of decision (as per Omnibus Election Code and RA
6679). The Supreme Court ruled that it should be 5 days from
Section 6 the receipt because the COMELEC is mandated to promulgate its
own rules of procedure.
Aruelo v. CA (GR 107852, 20 October 1993)
DOCTRINE:
Aruelo and Gatchalian were rival candidates in the May 11, 1992
No less than the 1987 Constitution (Article IX-A, Section 6)

Page 17 of 40
ART. IX A & B
grants and authorizes this Commission to promulgate its own

rules of procedure as long as such rules concerning pleadings DOCTRINE:
and practice do not diminish, increase, or modify substantive The three members who voted to affirm the first division
rights. constituted a majority of the five members who voted and
deliberated thereon.
Section 7 However, Sec. 7 of Art. 9-B, is clear and it says that each
commission shall decide by a majority of all its members in any
case of matter brought before it within 60 days from the date of
Cua v. COMELEC, 156 SCRA 582 (1987) its submission for decision or resolution. The decision in Cua v.
COMELEC obviously contradicts the said provision.
The first division of Comelec rendered a 2-1 decision favoring
the petitioner but nevertheless suspended his proclamation as
winner in the lone congressional district of Quirino due to the Mison v. COA, 187 SCRA 445 (1990)
lack of the unanimous vote required by the procedural rules in
Comelec Resolution No. 1669. The Commissioner of Customs rendered a decision declaring the
illegal the seizure by elements of the Philippine Navy of the M/V
Section 5 of the said resolution states that, A case being "Hyojin Maru" a vessel of Japanese registry, and ordered the
heard by it shall be decided with the unanimous concurrence of release of the vessel and its cargo. However, such vessel sank
all three Commissioners and its decision shall be considered a while yet in the custody of the Bureau of Customs. So the
decision of the Commission. If this required number is not private respondent filed a claim with the Commission of Audit for
obtained, as when there is a dissenting opinion,the case may be the payment of the value of the vessel. Espiritu, Manager,
appealed to the Commission En Banc, in which case the vote of Technical Service Office of the COA, acting thereon "by authority
the majority thereof shall be the decision of the Commission. of the Acting Chairman," denied the claim. Acting COA Chairman
Francisco S. Tantuico affirmed the decision. Subsequently, when
Petitioner contends that the 2-1 decision of the first division was the Commission on Audit was been fully constituted with the
a valid decision despite the resolution stated above because of appointment of the Chairman and two members, Chairman
Art. IX-A,Section 7 of the Constitution. He argues that this Eufemio C. Domingo, acting FOR THE COMMISSION,
applies to the votings of the Comelec both in division and reconsidered decision and declared that the vessel sank while in
En Banc. illegal custody of the Bureau of Customs, which should have pre-
eminently taken adequate measures to preserve it but did not.
Respondent, on the other hand, insists that no decision was The issue before the Court is W/N the Commission on Audit
reached by the first division because the required unanimous committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering its Decision
vote was not obtained. It was also argued that no valid reversing the decision made by Espiritu and Tantuico which is
decision was reached by the Comelec En Banc because allegedly final and executory. The Court ruled that the Espiritu
only three votes were cast in favor of the petitioner and decision was void ab initio because as a manager of the
these did not constitute the majority of the body technical service office of the COA, he had no power to render
and promulgate a decision of or for the Commission and that the
The SC ruled in favor of the petitioner that the 2-1 decision of decision made by Chairman Domingo was concurred in by
the first division was a valid decision under Article IX-A, Section Commissioner Fernandez satisfying the constitutional
7 of the Constitution. requirement for collegial action. Thus, Commission on Audit did

Page 18 of 40
ART. IX A & B
not commit grave abuse of discretion in rendering its Decision. Ambil v. COMELEC (GR 143398, 25 October
2000)
DOCTRINE:
As clearly set out in the Constitution, the power was lodged in Petitioner and private respondent were candidates for the
the Commission on Audit, composed of a Chairman and two position of Governor. Ambil was declared as winner. Ramirez
Commissioners. Thus, it was the Commission, as a collegial filed an election protest which was assigned to the comelec first
body, had the jurisdiction to decide any case brought before it. division. On Feb 24, 2000, petitioner and respondent received a
purported resolution in favor of private respondent promulgated
on Feb 14, 2000 and signed by Commissioners Guidani,
Desamito, and Tangcango. The First Division later declared that
Mateo v. CA (GR 113219, 14 August the parties should ignore the resolution since it was not yet
1995) promulgated. But petitioner Ambil filed a motion to cancel
promulgation challenging the validity of the purported Guiani
The Board Members (including Mateo) of Morong Water District resolution. The issue before the court is WON the SC can review
(MOWAD) suspended and later dismissed Edgar Sta. Maria, this. The SC ruled No because Sec 7 Art iX is interpreted to
MOWAD General Manager. Sta. Maria filed a petition which mean final orders, rulings and decisions of the COMELEC
Mateo moved to dismiss. RTC denied the motion to dismiss and rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
the Motion for Reconsideration. This is a petition assailing the powers.
jurisdiction of RTC over a case involving the dismissal of an
employee of a quasi-public corporation. DOCTRINE:
The Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari, an
The SC granted the petition. It held that RTC has no jurisdiction. interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a Division of the
The rule is that the hiring and firing of employees of govt-owned Commission on Elections
and controlled corporations are governed by the provisions of
the Civil Service Law and Rules and Regulations. RTCs have no
jurisdiction to entertain cases involving dismissal of officers and
employees covered by the Civil Service Law.
Dumayas v. COMELEC (GR 141952-53, 20
DOCTRINE:
April 2001)
The party aggrieved by a decision, ruling, order, or action of an
agency of the government involving termination of services may Dumayas and Bernal were rival candidates and there were
appeal to the CSC within 15 days. Thereafter, he could go on allegations of violation of election laws by Bernal. The Second
certiorari to SC under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court if he seeks Division of COMELEC rendered its resolution favoring Dumayas
to appeal. Sec. 7 Art. IX-A of the Constitution provides: so Bernal moved to elevate the case to COMELEC en banc. While
Sec. 7. .Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law,
pending, Dumayas was declared the Mayor pursuant to the
any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought decision of the Second Division to allow the MBC to promulgate a
to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the party within thirty days winner. Bernal assailed the promulgation because the decision of
from receipt of a copy thereof. the Second Division is not yet final and executory. Since
COMELEC en banc reversed the former decision, Dumayas
assails the fact that there were 2 Commissioners who retired
before the promulgation of the decision so there needs to be

Page 19 of 40
ART. IX A & B
another voting. Prior to June 1, 1995, only the Supreme Court may review
Commissions decisions by certiorari under Rule 65. The clause,
Court held that the votes of the 2 retired Commissioners are otherwise provided in this constitution under Sec. 7, Art. 9-A
merely considered withdrawn and only the votes of the gave way for the Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95,
remaining commissioners would be properly considered. pursuant to R.A. 7902, that judgments or final orders of quasi-
However, unless the withdrawal of votes would affect the result judicial agencies may be appealed to the Court of Appeals within
of the votes, there is no reason for declaring the decision a 15 days from notice thereof.
nullity. The remaining votes are 3-1 in favor of Bernal, and the
remaining 4 Commissioners still constitute a quorum. Thus, 3
out of 4 is still a majority. Meralco v Atilano (27 June 2012)
DOCTRINE: MERALCO filed a complaint for estafa against respondents for
There is no decision until the draft is signed and promulgated. falsely pretending that they possess power, influence, and
Hence, if a Commissioner signs a decision but retires before the qualifications to buy the commercial papers (CPs) of the Lopez
decision is promulgated, his vote does not count even if it was Group/ Prosecutor Dennis R. Pastrana dismissed MERALCOs
he who penned the decision. complaint for insufficiency of evidence. MERALCO filed a petition
for certiorari with the CA, which CA dismissed. SC affirmed CAs
decision because the determination of probable cause is not a
Fil. Engr. & Machine Shop v. Ferrer, 135 judgment that can be substituted by the Court in the absence of
a grave abuse of discretion.
SCRA 25 (1985)
COMELEC Commissioners issued an Invitation Bid Call No. 127 DOCTRINE:
calling for the submission of sealed proposals for the The certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited to
manufacture and delivery of voting booths for the 1969 national decisions rendered in actions or proceedings taken cognizance of
elections. COMELEC rejected Acme Steel manufacturing by the Commissons in the exercise of their adjudicatory or
Companys bid because their sample was too heavy and instead quasi-judicial powers. It does not refer to purely executive
recommended Filipinos Engineering and Machine Shop be powers. Actions taken by the Commissions as prosecutor come
awarded the contract. But after ocular inspection, Acme got the under the jurisdiction of the trial court which has acquired
contract with conditions that it improves the sample it jurisdiction over the criminal case.
submitted. Filipinos filed an injunction with the CFI which was
denied. The determination of probable cause for the filing of an
information in court is an executive function which pertains at
The issue now is whether the CFI has jurisdiction to take the first instance to the public prosecutor and then to the
cognizance over a suit involving a COMELEC order. The court Secretary of Justice. In the absence of any grave abuse of
ruled that it has been consistently held that it is the Supreme discretion, courts are not empowered to substitute their own
Court and not the Court of First Instance which has exclusive judgment for that of the executive branch.
jurisdiction to review on certiorari final decisions, orders or
rulings of the COMELEC relative to the conduct of elections and
enforcement of election laws.
DOCTRINE:

Page 20 of 40
ART. IX A & B
Dela Llana v. COA (GR 180989, 7 February DOCTRINE:

2012) Although Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution confers
on the Court the power to review any decision, order or ruling of
Several circulars were enacted by COA lifting and reinstating the the COMELEC, it limits such power to a final decision or
pre-audit duty to be done in all government offices and resolution of the COMELEC en banc, and does not extend to
agencies. Petitioner here is now contending that COA is an interlocutory order issued by a Division of the
mandated to pre-audit government offices and a mere circular COMELEC.
cannot lift such constitutionally mandated powers. The Supreme
Court faced with a writ of certiorari decided in favor of COA and The remedy is to seek the review of said interlocutory order
stated that a writ of certiorari can only be raised when COA during the appeal of the decision of the Division.
committed grave abuse of discretion by lifting the pre-audit
duty. It is discussed by this court that a certiorari petition refers
to decisions and orders which were rendered by the COA in its
Sevilla v. COMELEC (GR 203833, 19 March
quasi-judicial capacity and not quasi-legislative powers.
2013)
DOCTRINE:
Decisions and orders of the COA are reviewable by the court via Sevilla and So were candidates for the position of Punong
certiorari. However, these refers to decision and orders which Barangay. Sevilla was proclaimed as the winner but
were rendered by the COA in its quasi-judicial capacity and not subsequently, So filed an election protest with the MeTC but it
in its quasi-legislative or rulemaking capacity. was denied so he filed a petition for certiorari with the Comelec,
alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the MeTC
Judge. The Comelec Second Division granted So's petition. The
Comelec en banc, by a vote of 3-3, affirmed the Comelec
Cagas v. COMELEC, 663 SCRA 644 (2012) Second Division's ruling. The Court ruled that the vote is not
valid because a vote of four members must always be attained
Petitioner Douglas R. Cagas was proclaimed the winner for the in order to decide, irrespective of the number of Commissioners
gubernatorial race for the province of Davao del Sur. in attendance.
Respondent Claude P. Bautista, his rival, filed an electoral
protest alleging fraud, anomalies, irregularities, vote-buying and DOCTRINE:
violations of election laws, rules and resolutions. The protest was The vote of four (4) members must always be attained in order
raffled to the COMELEC First Division. Subsequently, the to decide, irrespective of the number of Commissioners in
COMELEC First Division denied the special affirmative defences
attendance.
and also the motion for reconsideration. Thus, Bautista file a
petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
However, the SC opined that it does not have the power to Reblora v AFP (GR 195842, 18 June 2013)
review on certiorari an interlocutory order issued by a Division of
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision
the COMELEC for Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution
only extend to final decision or resolution of the Comelec and Resolution of the Commission on Audit (COA) which denied
en banc, not of a division, certainly not an interlocutory the Rebloras claim for additional retirement benefit. Petitioner
retired after a total of 34 years of active service as a
order of a division. (citing Ambil v. COMELEC)
Commander in the Philippine Navy.

Page 21 of 40
ART. IX A & B
effective and efficient exercise of the power expressly

THE SC dismissed the petition because Reblora availed of the granted.
wrong remedy. The SC stated that decisions and resolutions of
the COA are reviewable by this Court, not via an appeal by
certiorari under Rule 45, as is the present petition, but thru a
special civil action of certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule
B. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
65 of the Rules of Court. The difference of an appeal under Rule
45 and a special civil action under Rule 64 to Rule 65 is the
Section 1
permissible scope of inquiry of each. Unless there was grave
abuse of discretion, simple errors of judgment committed by the
COA cannot be reviewed even by the SC. The petition does not Gaminde v. COA (GR 140335, 13 December
allege any grave abuse of jurisdiction.
2000)
DOCTRINE:
Gamindes appointment as Commissioner of CSC was confirmed
The decisions and resolutions of the COA are reviewable by this
for a term expiring on Feb 2, 1999. She sought to clarify this
Court thru a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 64 in expiry date and the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel opined that
relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court only if there was grave
her term is until Feb 2, 2000. She exceeded the expiration of her
abuse of discretion or jurisdictional error. Simple errors of
term so the Court resolved that her term indeed expired on Feb.
judgment committed by the COA cannot be reviewed even by
2, 1999 because the starting point of counting was on Feb. 2,
the SC.
1987 and computing based on what the CONST provided on the
interval, her term of office already expired on Feb. 2, 1999.
Sahali v. COMELEC, 688 SCRA 552 DOCTRINE:

The term of the 1st appointees under the 1987 CONST
Sadikul Sahali and private respondent Matba ran for the position started on Feb 2, 1987. The extension of the term of the
of governor in the Province of Tawi-Tawi while Ruby and private old Commissioners simply meant that they used up a
respondent Usman ran for the position of Vice-Governor in the portion of the tenure to which the new appointees were
2010 elections. Petitioners Sadikul and Ruby were proclaimed as entitled.
the duly elected governor and vice-governor. Matba and Usman The starting point is always Feb 2 even if the appointee
actually took office after Feb 2. Through this rotational
filed an election protest. Comelec First Division approved and
system the staggering of the terms is preserved.
ordered to conduct a technical examination. Sadikul and Ruby Term v. Tenure: Term means the time during the
argued that there are no published rules governing the technical officer may claim to hold office as of right, and fixes the
examination of election paraphernalia. The SC ruled that the interval after which the several incumbents shall succeed
Comelec can order this in the efficient exercise of the powers one another. The tenure represents the term during
granted to them. which the incumbent actually holds the office.
DOCTRINE: The express grant of power to the COMELEC

to resolve election protests carries with it the grant of all
other powers necessary, proper, or incidental to the

Page 22 of 40
ART. IX A & B
Section 2 CA ruled that Salas cannot be dismissed on the ground of loss of

confidence because he is not a confidential employee. The CA
EIIB v. CA (GR 129133, 25 November ruling set aside a CSC resolution and ordered the reinstatement
of respondent Salas with full back wages for having been
1998)
illegally dismissed by the PAGC. CA also held that Section 16 of
The Civil Service Commission required the Economic Intelligence Presidential Decree No. 1869 has thus been superseded by
Investigation Bureau to submit to the CSC all their Section 2(1), Article 9-B of the 1987 Constitution.
appointments, whether career or non-career. EIIB refused to do
so citing as bases P.D. 1458 and LOI No. 7. Due to EIIBs
SC agreed with CA that Salas is not a confidential employee
continued refusal to comply, CSC cited them with direct
contempt, which was affirmed by the CA. because the nature of his office does not involve close intimacy
with the appointing authority. But SC did not fully agree with CA
The issue before the court is whether or not the EIIB is within that PD1869 Section 16 has been fully repealed. Section 16,
the ambit of CSC and the court ruled in the affirmative. Sec. insofar as it exempts PAGCOR positions from the provisions of
2(1), Art. 9-B of the 1987 Constitution states that all Civil Service Law and Rules, has been amended or repealed by
government agencies are embraced by the Civil Service
the 1987 Constitution and Administrative Code. But the part of
Commission. Section 17, Chapter 4, Title II, Book IV of the
1987 Administrative Code provides that the EIIB is a Section 16 which provides that "all employees of the casino and
government agency operating under the Department of Finance related services shall be classified as confidential appointees"
and thus, embraced by the Civil Service. P.D. 1458 and LOI No. remains effective.
7 only exempt the EIIB from the Civil Service Rules and
Regulations but not from the Civil Service Law. DOCTRINE:
Section 2 is the basis for classifying positions in the civil service
DOCTRINE: into the competitive and non-competitive positions. It is the
The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, nature and not just the label of the position which makes it non-
instrumentalities, agencies of the Government, including competitive.
government-owned or controlled corporations with original
charter. The classification made by the executive, while to be accorded
the weight it deserves, is not definitely determinative of the
Consequently, these offices must submit to the CSC all their nature of the position.
appointments, whether career or non-career.
The principal significance of the classification is in relation to the
appointing process. The primary purpose of classification into
CSC v. PAGCOR (GR 123708, 19 June 1997) policy-determining, primarily confidential or highly technical
positions is to exempt these categories from competitive
Salas was appointed as Internal Security Staff (ISS) member examination as a means for determining merit and fitness.
and assigned to the casino at the Manila Pavilion Hotel. His
employment was terminated by Philippine Amusement and
Gaming Corporation (PAGC) Board of Directors due to loss of
confidence. Salas was allegedly found engaging in proxy betting.

Page 23 of 40
ART. IX A & B
Canonizado v. Aguirre (GR 133132, 25 another position in MIST is a violation of his security of tenure.
January 2000) The Court answered YES because transfers and reassignments
with no definite period or duration is definitely violative of
Petitioners were members of the National Police Commission
(NAPOLCOM). They were separated from office by virtue of security of tenure of a government employee.
RA8551, or the PNP Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998."
They challenged the law as a violation of their security of DOCTRINE:
tenure. The Court, pointed out that RA8551 effected a Transfers and reassignments with no definite period or duration
reorganization of the Philippine National Police, not of the is definitely violative of security of tenure of a government
NAPOLCOM which had supervisory authority over the National employee.
Police. The Court saw in RA8551 no change in the basic
structure of the NAPOLCOM nor in its lines of control, authority,
and responsibility. Neither was there a reduction in its
membership, nor a consolidation or abolition of the offices Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. ES (GR
constituting the organization. No bona fide reorganization of the 142801-802, 10 July 2001)
NAPOLCOM having been mandated by Congress, RA8551,
insofar as it declared the terms of office of the petitioners as In the year 2000, President Estrada issued an E.O 101
expired was struck down for being constitutionally infirm. deactivating the EIIB FOR the fact that the designated functions
of the EIIB are already being performed by the other existing
DOCTRINE:
agencies. Thereafter, he created the Presidential Anti-
Basic in a healthy civil service system is a guarantee of security
Smuggling Task Force Aduana, which EIIB employees claim to
of tenure, a guarantee against arbitrary impairment, whether
total or partial, of the right to continue in the position held. be essentially the same as EIIB. He subsequently ordered the
Thus a law which declares the terms of office of civil servants employees of EIIB to be separated from the service through the
as expired is unconstitutional. issuance of E.O 223.
The employees of EIIB, through the Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB,

Gloria v. CA (GR 119903, 15 August invoked the Supreme Courts power of judicial review in
2000) questioning the said orders. EIIB employees maintained that
that the abolition violates their constitutional right to security of
Icasiano was appointed Schools Division Superintendent,
tenure andthe deactivation of EIIB was done in bad faith
Division of City Schools, Quezon City, by then President Cory
because four days after its deactivation, President Estrada
Aquino. On 1994, Secretary Gloria (petitioner) recommended to
created the Task Force Aduana.
the President of the Philippines that the petitioner be
reassigned as Superintendent of the Marikina Institute of
The SC ruled that it is not violative of Section 2(3), Article IX-B
Science and Technology (MIST) to fill up the vacuum created by
of the Philippine Constitution for since there is no bad faith in
the retirement of its former Superintendent.
the abolition of EIIB.
Icasiano tried to appeal the reassignment but to no avail. The

Valid abolition of offices is neither removal nor separation of the
issue before the Supreme Court is whether his reassignment to

Page 24 of 40
ART. IX A & B
incumbents. If the public office ceases to exist, there is no Miranda v. Carreon (GR 143540, 11
separation or dismissal to speak of. April 2003)
Vice Mayor Navarro, while serving as Acting Mayor because of
DOCTRINE: the suspension of Mayor Miranda, appointed respondents to
Valid abolition of offices is neither removal nor separation of the various permanent positions in the city government. However,
incumbents. If the public office ceases to exist, there is no when Mayor Miranda resumed his office, he formed a three-man
separation or dismissal to speak of. special performance audit team, to conduct a personnel
evaluation audit to those who were appointed during his
suspension. After which, the audit submitted a report stating
that respondents were found wanting in their performance.
Dimayuga v. Benedicto (GR 144153, 16 Thus, three months after, Mayor Miranda issued an order
January 2002) terminating respondents services because they performed
poorly during the probationary period.
Dimayuga was appointed in a permanent capacity to the position
of Executive Director II of the TRB. At that time, she was Respondents appealed to the CSC, contending that being
excluded from the coverage of the CESA so Dimayuga was able employees on probation, they can be dismissed from the service
to occupy the position. However, due to change in on the ground of poor performance only after their probationary
administration, she was replaced by another appointee by period of six months, not after three (3) months. Thereafter,
Former President Estrada. She is now alleging that her CSC issued a Resolution reversing the order of Mayor Miranda
appointment was permanent. The Supreme Court dismissed the and ordering that the respondents be reinstated to their former
petition because a person who does not have the requisite positions with payment of back wages. This was appealed by
qualifications for the position cannot be appointed to it in the petitioner to the CA and which the CA rendered a Decision
first place or, only as an exception to the rule, may be appointed affirming in toto the CSC Resolution.
to it merely in an acting capacity in the absence of appropriate
eligible. The appointment extended to him cannot be regarded The SC affirmed the decision of CA, citing Section 2(3), Article
as permanent even if it may be so designated. If a career IX-B, 1987 Constitution and stating that Civil Service Law
executive officer's security of tenure pertains only to his rank provides specific grounds for dismissing a government officer or
and not to his position, with greater reason than that petitioner employee from the service. Among these grounds are
herein, who is not even a CESO eligible. inefficiency and incompetence. These grounds can only be
determined after the passage of sufficient time, hence, the
DOCTRINE: probationary period of six (6) months for the respondents.
Appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to Indeed, to be able to gauge whether a subordinate is inefficient
the merit and fitness to be determined, as far as practicable, or incompetent requires enough time on the part of his
and, except to position which are policy-determining, primarily immediate superior within which to observe his performance.
confidential, or highly technical, by competitive examination.
DOCTRINE:
Section 2(3), Article IX-B, 1987 Constitution provides that no
officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed
or suspended except for cause provided by law.

Page 25 of 40
ART. IX A & B
Seeres v. COMELEC (GR 178678, 16 The SC dismissed the petition. The NHC v. Juco should not be
April 2009) given retroactive effect that is to cases before its promulgation
on January 1985. To do so would be oppressive to Credo and
In 1999, private respondent Robles was elected president and other employees similarly situated. Under the 1973 Constitution,
chairperson of BUHAY, a party-list group duly registered with but prior to the ruling in NHC v. Juco, this Court recognized the
COMELEC. She continued to be the president during the 2001, applicability of the Labor Code over disputes involving terms and
2004, and 2007 elections. The petitioner alleged that Robles, conditions of employment in GOCCs, among them is NASECO.
being the Acting Administrator of the LRTA, was into a partisan
political activity which civil service members were enjoined from DOCTRINE:
engaging in. But the Court ruled that Robles' act of submitting a The 1987 Constitution provides: civil service embraces all
nomination list for BUHAY cannot be considered electioneering or branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the
partisan political activity within the context of the Sec. 79(b) of Government, including government owned or controlled
the OEC. Also, petitioner was unable to cite any legal provision corporations, WITH ORIGINAL CHARTER.
that prohibits his concurrent positions of LRTA President and
acting president of a party-list organization or that bars him
from nominating. Thus, the COMELEC did not commit GADALEJ Samson v. CA,145 SCRA 654 (1986)
in declaring the respondent Robles as the duly authorized
representative of BUHAY. AO No. 3, issued by Mayor Samson of Caloocan City, summarily
terminated the services of respondent Talens who held position
DOCTRINE: of Asst. Sec. to the Mayor on the ground of lack and loss of
An act of submitting a nomination list for BUHAY cannot be confidence and appointing Liwag to the position. RA No. 2260
considered electioneering or partisan political activity within the declares the position of secretaries to city mayors non-
context of the Election Code. competitive and this was interpreted by Mayor Samson as to
include the position of Asst. Sec. to the Mayor. Respondent
The twin acts of signing and filing a Certificate of Nomination are asked that the administrative order be recalled as he was
purely internal processes of the party or organization and are permanently appointed to a classified position in the city
not designed to enable or ensure the victory of the candidate in government and that in accordance with Section 32 of the Civil
the elections. hat his position as Assistant Secretary to the Mayor was not
covered by Sec. Service Law, he can be removed only for cause
and after due process has been observed. The issue is WON
NASECO v. NLRC, 168 SCRA 122 (1988) Talens position as asst. Secretary is non-competitive. The court
ruled no because only secretaries are classified as non-
Eugenia Credo was the Chief of Property and Records of competitive under section 5 of RA 2260. Secretaries and Asst.
NASECO. Credo was administratively charged for her non- Secretaries are two different things.
compliance with a memorandum. Credo was terminated by
NASECO after deliberations; the former filed a complaint a with DOCTRINE:
the NLRC alleging that she was illegally dismissed. The NLRC As a general rule, position in all branches, subdivisions and
ruled in favor of Credo ordering her reinstatement and payment instrumentalities of the governmentalities of the government,
of backwages. NASECO argues that NLRC has no jurisdiction to including those in goccs, belong to the competitive service. The
order her reinstatement. only exceptions are those expressly declared by law to be in the
non-competitive service and those which are policy-determining,

Page 26 of 40
ART. IX A & B
primarily confidential or highly technical in nature. term has already expired and expiration of term does not fall
under the ambit of security of tenure. Thus, he was validly
directed to relinquish his position.
Hernandez v. Villegas, 14 SCRA 544
DOCTRINE:
(1965)
Person/s appointed to a position they are not qualified to are at
Villegas was appointed Director of Security and was sent to best, temporary appointments. When required to relinquish his
study abroad when he went back to the Philippines he was office, the appointee may not complain that he was being
demoted to Arrastre Superintendent. Villegas assailed this removed in violation of his security of tenure. The appointees
demotion and the Court held that the Court do not need to term depends on the will of the one who wields the power of
consider the position of Director of Security as confidential appointment which is the President. They are not protected by
because whatever it is, it is subject to Art 9-B Sec 2 (1) that "No security of tenure.
officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or
suspended except for cause. (1935 CONST version) Villegas
removal is, therefore without cause. Briones v. Osmea, 104 Phil. 588 (1958)
DOCTRINE: Concepcion Briones is a first grade civil service eligible. On

The distinction between competitive and noncompetitive January 5, 1956, City Mayor Osmena passed a resolution
positions is significant only for purposes of appointment. creating 35 positions in the City Mayor's office. The next month,
the Municipal Board passed an Ordinance abolishing 15 positions
in the City Mayor's office, among others. Among the positions
Achacoso v. Macaraig (GR 93023, 13
abolished were those occupied by petitioner Briones. The City
March 1991) Mayor approved the Ordinance. The Court of First Instance (CFI)
Petitioner Thomas Achacoso was appointed as Administrator of of Cebu decided in favor of the petitioners and declared the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. He was directed abolition of their offices null and void for lack of approval of the
by the President to file a courtesy resignation which he the Department Head, as required by an Executive Order. It ordered
petitioner complied with. When the Secretary of Labor requested the defendants to reinstate the petitioners and pay back their
the petitioner to surrender the office, the latter refused saying salaries. SC agrees with CFI's ruling, but on different grounds.
that he was illegally dismissed, in contravention to his security
SC's ground is that Civil Service officials enjoy security of tenure
of tenure attached to his being Administrator of POEA.
as provided by the Constitution.
The court ruled while it is true that a POEA Administrator enjoys
the security of tenure, Achacoso as the Administrator does not DOCTRINE:
as he is not qualified to the position when he was appointed. The requirement of security of tenure cannot be circumvented
Part III, Article IV, Integrated Reorganization Plan as by resort to abolition of office. While abolition of office does not
approved by P.D. 1 and amended by P.D. 336 and P.D. 337 imply removal of the incumbent officer, this is true only where
provides that the President, in exceptional cases, may appoint the abolition of office is done in good faith and not merely as a
persons who are not qualified to certain positions in an acting cover for a removal otherwise not allowed by the Constitution.
capacity. As it will only be a temporary appointment, the
President may dismiss the appointee whenever he pleases. His

Page 27 of 40
ART. IX A & B
Mayor v. Macaraig (G.R. 87211, 5 March

1991) Designation, on the other hand, connotes merely the
imposition by law of additional duties on an incumbent official
Several petitions were filed asking for the declaration of RA 6715 and is legislative in nature. The implication is that he shall hold
as unconstitutional for making all other government positions office only in a temporary capacity and may be replaced at will
vacant. The Supreme Court ruled that such provision in RA 6715 by the appointing authority. This does not confer security of
is declared unconstitutional because it can be conceded that the tenure.
power to simply pronounce those offices vacant and thereby
effectively remove the appointees and the occupants from the DOCTRINE:
civil service would constitute, on its face, an infringement of the Designation does not confer security of tenure. On the other
constitutional guarantee of security of tenure, and will have to hand, in order to have a security of tenure in appointment, the
be struck down on that account. appointment must be valid. The law requires that that the
manager be appointed by the President to be valid.
DOCTRINE:
No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or Luego v. CSC, 143 SCRA 327 (1986)
suspended except for cause provided by law.
Felimon Luego was appointed Administrative Officer II which
was described as permanent but the CSC approved it as
Binamira v. Garrucho (GR 92008, 30 July temporary. Subsequently, CSC found that Felicula Tuozo was
1990) better qualified than the petitioner for the position and,
accordingly, directed her to be appointed. The petitioner invokes
Petitioner Binamira was designated as General Manager of the his earlier permanent appointment. The Court ruled that the
Philippine Tourism Authority by Tourism Minister Gonzales. CSCs power is limited only to the non-discretionary authority of
determining whether or not the person appointed meets all the
In 1990, Pres. Aquino sent Garrucho, the new Secretary of required conditions laid down by the law. It had no authority to
Tourism, a memorandum designating him concurrently as revoke the petitioners appointment simply because it believed
General Manager, effective immediately, until the President can that one is better that the other because it would constitute an
appoint a person to serve in the said office in a permanent encroachment on the discretion vested solely in the appointing
capacity. As such, Binamiras resignation was demanded by authority who was the City Mayor. On the issue of permanency
respondent Garrucho. of the appointment, the appointing authority indicated that it
was permanent, as he had the right to do so, and it was not for
Garrucho having taken over as General Manager of the PTA in CSC to reverse him and call it temporary.
accordance with this memorandum, the petitioner filed this
action against him to question his title. DOCTRINE:
The CSCs power is limited only to the non- discretionary
SC opined that appointment and designation are distinct authority of determining whether or not the person appointed
from each other. Appointment is defined as the selection, by meets all the required conditions laid down by the law.
the authority vested with the power, of an individual who is to
exercise the functions of a given office. When completed, the
appointment results in security of tenure.

Page 28 of 40
ART. IX A & B
Santiago v. CSC, 178 SCRA 733 (1989) DOCTRINE: Non-Career Service appointments to the Foreign
Customs Commissioner extended a permanent appointment to Service are made on "bases other than those of the usual
test of merit and fitness utilized for the career service;"
Santiago as Collector of Customs III which was approved by the
CSC. However, Jose protested the same before the CSC Merit This being so, their "tenure was coterminous with that of the
appointing authority or subject to his pleasures"
Systems Promotion Board (Board) on the ground that he was
next-in-rank to the said position. Initially, the Board ruled in
favor of Santiago, but on appeal, revoked Santiagos
appointment, and instead appointed Jose to the same.
SSS Employees v. CA, 175 SCRA 686
Consequently, CSC affirmed the ruling because it found Jose (1989)
more qualified to the said position.
SSSEA went on a strike against SSS since it failed to act on their
SC held that there is no mandatory requirement in the Civil demands. SSS filed for damages against SSSEA because the
Service Law that persons next in rank are entitled to preference strike barricaded the entrance of the building preventing other
appointment. The appointing power has the prerogative and employees from reporting for work. They also assailed the right
discretion as to who is best qualified for the position and to of SSS Employees to strike.
apply the one next-in-rank would impose a rigid formula which
would limit his power. In this case, it was within the discretion of Court held that although government employees have the right
the Customs Commissioner to appoint Santiago, with the latter to organize, it does not include the right to strike. CSC even
having complied with the minimum qualifications and standards issued a Circular which emphasized that in the absence of any
of fitness to the position. legislation allowing government employees to strike, recognizing
their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of the right, they
DOCTRINE: are prohibited from striking.
The power to appoint is a matter of discretion. The appointing
power has a wide latitude of choice as to who is the best DOCTRINE:
qualified for the position. To apply the next in rank rule The right to organize does not include the right to strike.
peremptorily would impose a rigid formula on the appointing Court ruled that SSS employees do not have a
power, contrary to the policy of the law that the appointing constitutional right to strike. This does not mean,
authority is granted discretion and prerogative of choice of the however, that they may not be given the right to strike
one he deems fit for appointment. by statute.
Astraquillo v. Manglapus (GR 88183, 3 Aquino v. CSC (GR 92403, 22 April 1992)
October 1990) Petitioner Victor Aquino was made Officer-in-Charge of the
Division Supply Office until private respondent Leonarda de la
Petitioners Astraquillo, Glang and Melchor were appointed as Paz was appointed as the Supply Officer I in the DECS Division
ambassadors, respectively, in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), of San Pablo City. Petitioner filed a protest on the ground that de
Kuwait, and Moscow. Petitioners were terminated by authority la Paz is not qualified to the position. Later on, the appointment
of the President. The issue is if they could be terminated without of de la Paz was revoked by DECS and immediately had Aquino
just cause. The SC ruled yes because they fall under the replace her. De la Paz brought the matter to the Civil Service
category of Non-Career Service. Commission and restored de la Paz to her position.

Page 29 of 40
ART. IX A & B
for councilor of the Municipality of Kananga, Leyte and filed for

The crux of the case is whether the CSC committed GADALEJ in certificate of candidacy for the position, and assumed office. The
revoking the appointment of Aquino and reinstating de la Paz as Legal Department rendered an opinion that Manuel Pineda
Supply Officer I. The court held that the CSC did not make an should be ipso facto resigned upon filing of his CoC pursuant to
error in its decision. Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code. The Labor Arbiter and
National Labor Relations Commission ruled that Pinedas
It has been held that the CSC has no authority to revoke an dismissal was illegal and he must be reinstated because GOCCs
appointment as such would constitute encroachment on the are not covered under the Civil Service Law. SC says they were
authority to which the appointment power is vested. It cannot correct that GOCCs are not covered under the Civil Service Law
replace an appointee on the ground that it another person is BUT GOCCs without an original charter are still covered under
more qualified for a particular position, as this ground does not the Omnibus Election Code. Section 66 of the Omnibus Election
fall under for a cause or any of the valid grounds provided for Code applies to officers and employees in GOCCs, even those
by Sec. 19 (6) of the Civil Service Law. However, when the organized under general laws on incorporation and do not have
private respondent was permanently appointed and the an original charter. Thus Pinedas dismissal was legal.
appointment completed, security of tenure was attached. CSC
did not replace the appointee of a substitute of its choice, it DOCTRINE:
merely restored the private respondent de la Paz to her previous The mandatory coverage of the Civil Service System does not
position. cover all GOCCs under the 1987 Constitution. The Civil Service
Law only covers GOCCs with original charters, meaning those
DOCTRINE: corporations which have been created by special law and not
The security of tenure as provided for by Article IX-B, Section through the general corporation law. Thus the test for
2 par. (3) of the 1987 Constitution attaches upon the determining whether officers and employees of a government
completion of the appointment. The appointment is complete owned corporation comes under the Civil Service System is the
when the last act required of the appointing power, or that the manner of creation of the corporation to which they belong.
acts of the head of an office making the appointment and the
Commissioner of CSC necessary to make the appointment Note: The moment a corporation ceases to be government
complete has been performed. The appointing power cannot controlled, and is privatized, then it ceases to fall under the Civil
effect an appointees removal indirectly by rescinding or Service.
revoking his appointment after it is complete.
The CSC has no authority to revoke an appointment as such Lapinid v. CSC (GR 96298, 14 May 1991)
would constitute encroachment on the authority to which the
appointment power is vested. Petitioner Lapinid was appointed in the Philippine Port Authority.
This was contested by respondent Junsay because he said he
has preferential right over the position appointed to Lapinid. The
PNOC v. NLRC (GR 100947, 31 May Supreme Court is now faced with the issue of whether the CSC
can replace an appointed official for someone who is better and
1993)
more qualified than the incumbent one. The Supreme Court said
Respondent Manuel Pineda was employed with the PH National that NO because this will violate the right of the people to
Oil Co. Energy Development Corp. (PNOC-EDC) as a clerk on security of tenure and because this is a political question which
1981. On 1989 his employment was terminated because he ran the Courts cannot dwell on it.

Page 30 of 40
ART. IX A & B
GOCCs are governed by the civil service law and civil service
DOCTRINE: rules and regulation and not the Labor Code.
If he does, then the appointment cannot be faulted on the
ground that there are others better qualified who should have Positions in the civil service are classified into career and non-
been preferred. career service, and that the non-career service includes
Contractual employees.
MWSS v. Hernandez, 143 SCRA 602 BLISS v. Callejo, 237 SCRA 271 (1994)
(1986) Bliss (Bliss Development Corporation) filed with the Department
of Labor a petition for certification its election. Department of
MWSS was haled before the Arbitration Branch, NCR of NLRC on Labor dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction because
charges of willful failure to pay wage differentials, allowances allegedly, BDC's stocks is owned by the HSDC, a wholly-owned
and other monetary benefits to its contractual employees government corporation. Therefore, BDC is subject to Civil
numbering 2,500 or so. MWSS argued that it is a GOCC, thus Service law, rules and regulations. With the issuance of E.O.
the NLRC has no jurisdiction, and assuming the contrary 180, Bureau of Labor Relations directed the petitioner to register
arguendo, the terms and conditions of the complainants who are in accordance with Sec. 7 of E.O. 180 which provides that
all contractual employees are governed by their respective Government employees' organizations shall register with the
contracts. Civil Service Commission and the Department of Labor and
Employment. The Court held that since BDC is a government-
The LA argued that while controversies respecting terms and owned corporation created under the Corporation Law, it is
conditions of employment between MWSS and its regular governed by the Labor Code and not by the Civil Service Law.
employees are not within the jurisdiction of the NLRC, said The Constitutional provision provides that the Civil Service
controversies do fall within the competence of the NLRC if they embraces GOCCs with original charter; and, therefore, the
involve non-regular or contractual employees of the MWSS Civil Service does not include government-owned or controlled
corporations which are organized as subsidiaries of government-
The SC held that the NLRC has no jurisdiction because GOCCs owned or controlled corporations under the general corporation
are governed by the civil service law and civil service rules and law. Hence, Executive Order No. 180 does not apply to it.
regulation and not the Labor Code.
DOCTRINE:
The argument of the Labor Arbiter that it is only disputes The Constitutional provision provides that the Civil Service
between the MWSS and its regular employees that are beyond embraces GOCCs with original charter; and, therefore, the
the jurisdiction of the NLRC, not those between it and its "non- Civil Service does not include government-owned or controlled
regular or contractual" employees, is sophistical. There is no corporations which are organized as subsidiaries of government-
legal or logical justification for such a distinction. Indeed, it is owned or controlled corporations under the general corporation
ruled out by the fact that positions in the civil service are law.
classified into career and non-career service, and that the
non-career service includes Contractual personnel.
DOCTRINE:

Page 31 of 40
ART. IX A & B
Grino v. CSC, 194 SCRA 458 (1991) hence he may not be dismissed on the ground of loss of
Sixto Demaisip, a provincial lawyer, and some legal officers were confidence. In so ruling, the appellate court applied the
removed by Gov Grio. They contented that they were illegally "proximity rule". This court ruled that the CA correctly
removed or suspended by the governor. CSC ruled in favor with applied the proximity rule and that Salas is not a
them. Gov Grio filed a petition for review on the decision of confidential employee Taking into consideration the
CSC. nature of his functions.
The SC held that the position of provincial officer is a position DOCTRINE:
that is primarily confidential. It was stated in the Cadiente ruling The nature of a position is what determines if a position is
that services of a legal officer as primarily confidential and is primarily confidential.
deemed terminated upon loss of confidence. In such position
there is no removal or dismissal rather an expiration of term,
which is the cessation of confidence. So the CSC is wrong in its PCSO BoD v. Lapid (GR 191940, 12 April
decision that Arandela was illegally dismissed because his term
just merely expired. 2011)
Lapid, a Teller of PCSO, was found guilty of misconduct and was
DOCTRINE:
dismissed. She contends that there was no substantive evidence
Sec.2(2) Art. IX-B provides that:
of her misconduct so there is no just cause to dismiss her.
Appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to
Court held that her dismissal on the ground that she was a
merit and fitness to be determined, as far as practicable, and,
casual employee is not a just cause to dismiss her since there is
except to positions which are policy-determining, primarily
a provided expiration of her employment period.
confidential, or highly technical, by competitive examination.
DOCTRINE:
Even if Arandelas position as a provincial attorney has already
A casual employee may be laid-off anytime before the
been classified as one under the career service and certified as
expiration of the employment period provided any of the
permanent by the Civil Service Commission cannot conceal or
following occurs:
alter its highly confidential nature. It being primarily confidential
(1) when their services are no longer needed;
position, its term ends upon the loss of confidence.
(2) funds are no longer available;
(3) the project has already been completed/
finished ; or
CSC v. Salas, 274 SCRA 414 (1997) (4) their performance are below par.
Salas was appointed Security staff but was terminated for being
engaged in proxy betting. Salas appealed to PAGCOR but was
denied on the ground that, as a confidential employee,
GSIS v. Kapisanan, 510 SCRA 622
respondent was not dismissed from the service but his There was a four-day October 2004 demonstration/mass action
term of office merely expired. On appeal, the CSC in front of the GSIS main office. It was an outcry against
affirmed the decision of the MSPB. On Sept 1995, the CA petitioner Garcia and his management style. Respondents
rendered its questioned decision with the finding that participated in the mass action. CA ruled that Garcias filing of
herein respondent Salas is not a confidential employee, administrative charges against 361 KGM members is tantamount

Page 32 of 40
ART. IX A & B
to grave abuse of discretion. SC disagreed. They ruled that since created pursuant to a special law and are governed primarily by
the civil service encompasses all branches and agencies of the its provisions.
government (including GOCCs with original charters like the
GSIS), employees in those covered GOCCs are thus subject to DOCTRINE:
rules issued by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) related to In relation to the Civil Service Commission discussion, it is
discipline, attendance, even rules on strikes and demonstrations. clear that what has been excluded from the coverage of the CSC
What respondents participated in amounts to a prohibited are those corporations created pursuant to the Corporation
concerted activity which is prejudicial to public service. What Code.
they did was not a peaceful strike related to the right to form
associations and the right to engage in strike in the private
sector. TIDC v. CSC (GR 182249, 5 March 2013)
DOCTRINE: De Guzman was appointed on a permanent status as Financial
They ruled that since the civil service encompasses all branches Management Specialist IV of TIDCORP which was disallowed by
and agencies of the government (including GOCCs with original CSC because the position was not included in the DBMs Index of
charters like the GSIS), employees in those covered GOCCs are Occupational Service, as stated in CSC Memorandum Circular.
thus subject to rules issued by the Civil Service Commission TIDCORPs appealed the invalidation since Section 7 of RA 8494
(CSC) related to discipline, attendance, even rules on strikes and exempts TIDCORP from existing laws on compensation, position
demonstrations. classification and qualification standards, and is thus not bound
by the DBMs Index of Occupational Service.
Feliciano v. Gison, 629 SCRA 103 (2010) SC ruled that the appointment was valid due to exemption. The
1987 Constitution created CSC as the central personnel agency
LMWD filed a petition for tax exemption for some of their water of the government mandated to establish a career service and
supply equipment and a motor vehicle. DOF granted the tax promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness,
exemption of the equipment but assessed the tax on the motor progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil service. As an
vehicle. LMWD then filed a reconsideration for the tax exemption administrative agency, the CSCs quasi-legislative power is
however the DOF denied their request stating that tax subject to the same limitations applicable to other administrative
exemption privileges of GOCCs had already been withdrawn by a bodies. The rules that CSC formulates must not override, but
former Executive Order. However, LMWD filed a petition in the must be in harmony with, the law it seeks to apply and
CTA in which it was also denied, then filed another petition in implement. The CSCs rule-making power, albeit constitutionally
the CA, which produced the same decision. LMWD is now granted, is still limited to the implementation and interpretation
contending before the Supreme Court of whether water districts of the laws it is tasked to enforce. CSCs constitutional authority
are private corporations with a special charter or GOCCs with a over the civil service does not divest the Legislature of the
general charter. power to enact laws providing exemptions to civil service rules.
Supreme Court ruled that LMWD is indeed a GOCC because DOCTRINE:

obviously, LWDs are not private corporations because they are The CSCs rule-making power, albeit constitutionally granted, is
not created under the Corporation Code. LWDs are not still limited to the implementation and interpretation of
registered with the SEC. LWDs have no articles of incorporation, the laws it is tasked to enforce. CSCs constitutional authority
no incorporators, and no stockholders or members. They are over the civil service does not divest the Legislature of the

Page 33 of 40
ART. IX A & B
power to enact laws providing exemptions to civil service rules. expressly and CESB Resolution No. 870 impliedly.
DOCTRINE:
Ong v. OP, 664 SCRA 413 (2012) EO 3, in its whereas clause, specifically mentions that
appointments in the CESO is violative, not only to the
Samuel Ong was appointed as Director III by the President. His constitutional ban on midnight appointments, but also to the
appointment was co-terminus with the appointing authority. On constitutional mandate that these appointments should primarily
December 1, 2004, the PGMA appointed Victor A. Bessat as NBI be within the confidence of the executive.
Director III as replacement of the petitioner. Ong sought that his
removal from the position of NBI Director III and his Section 2, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution states that
replacement by Bessat be declared as null and void. However, "appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to
merit and fitness to be determined, as far as practicable, and,
since Ong's appointment was only temporary and co-terminus, except to positions which are policy-determining, primarily
the Court ruled that his appointment can be terminated at the confidential, or highly technical, by competitive examination."
pleasure of the appointing authority.
DOCTRINE: LRTA v. Salvaa (GR 192074, 10 June

Jurisprudence dictates that a temporary appointee can be
removed even without cause and at a moment's notice.
2014)
LRTA determined that Salvana lied about having gone to the
An appointment may also be co-terminous which shall be issued hospital when she was on sick leave. Salvana was found guilty
to a person whose entrance and continuity in the service is by the LRTA of Dishonesty, Falsification of Official Document,
based on the trust and confidence of the appointing authority or Grave Misconduct, Gross Insubordination, and Conduct
that which is subject to his pleasure, or co-existent with his Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Salvana appealed
tenure, or limited by the duration of project or subject to the to the CSC which modified that she was only guilty of simple
availability of funds. dishonesty. LRTA appealed. The issue is WON the LRTA, as
represented by its Administrator, has the standing to appeal the
modification by the Civil Service Commission of its decision. The
Section 3 SC ruled yes based on Section 4 Revised Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
Sana v. CESB (GR 192926, 15 November DOCTRINE:

2011) The parties adversely affected by a decision in an administrative
case who may appeal shall include the disciplining authority
Petitioner assails the validity of E.O. 883 which granted the whose decision dismissing the employee was either overturned
Career Executive Service Officer (CESO) rank to eligible lawyers or modified by the Civil Service Commission.
in the executive branch, and Career Executive Service Board
Resolution No. 870 for violating Section 15, Article VII of the
Constitution.
SC dismissed the petition on the ground of its mootness since

President Aquino had already issued EO 3 revoking EO 883 Section 4

Page 34 of 40
ART. IX A & B
the position remain valid and the emoluments he received he

People v. Sandiganbayan (GR 164185, 23 may keep.
July 2008)
DOCTRINE:
Villapando won as Mayor in Palawan while Tiape, relative of his Art. 9-B of the Constitution has two parts; first paragraph is a
wife, lost in another municipality so he designated Tiape as prohibition meant for elective officials and gives no exception to
Municipal Administrator right after his lost. the general rule while the second paragraph provides a
prohibition which applies to appointive official with the exception
The validity of this designation was assailed and the Court held of those recognized in the Constitution (President as head of
that it was not valid since the COST expressly provides that economic and planning agency; the VP who may be appointed
there is a 1-yr prohibition on those who lost the elections from Member of the cabinet; and a member of the Congress who may
being appointed in any government position. be designated ex officio member of the JBC).
DOCTRINE:
The purpose of the prohibition of appointment of lame RE: Gross Violation of Civil Service Law on
ducks is the extirpation of the spoils system. the Prohibition Against Dual
Legal disqualification cannot be read as excluding
temporary disqualification in order to exempt therefrom Employment and Double Compensation
the legal prohibitions. (A.M. No. 2011-04-SC, 5 July 2011)
Where the law does not distinguish, the courts should
not distinguish. (statcon) Eduardo Escala was appointed by the Court as SC Chief Judicial
Staff Officer, Security Division, Office of Administrative Services
(OAS), at the same time kept his position as a Police Chief
Section 5 Inspector in the PNP. The SC said that he is guilty of violating
the Civil Service Law, and guilty of gross dishonesty and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service. He was dismissed
Flores v. Drilon (GR 104732, 22 June
from the service.
1993)
The constitutionality of Sec. 13(d) of R.A. 7227 which appoints DOCTRINE:
Olongapo City Mayor Franklin Drilon as the chairman and chief Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of
executive officer of the Subic Bay Authority. Petitioners argue his position, so appointive official shall hold any other office or
that this provision is repugnant to (a) Sec. 7 (1), Art. 9-B of the employment in the government or any subdivision, agency or
Constitution; (b) Sec. 16, Art. 7 of the Constitution; and and (c) instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
Sec. 261 (g) of the Omnibus Election Code. controlled corporation or their subsidiaries.
The court held that the provision is indeed unconstitutional as it

is in violation of Art. 9-B of the Constitution which prohibits
elective officers to hold other positions in the government or
GOCCs without any exception. Respondent Franklin Drilons
appointment was made null and void but his acts when he held

Page 35 of 40
ART. IX A & B
La Carlota City v. Rojo (GR 181367, 24 UP TMC Director. Shortly after, Dr. Posadas worked on a TMC
April 2012) Project, funded at Dr. Posadas initiative by the Canadian
International Development Agency (CIDA).
Atty. Rojo tendered his resignation as a member of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod, then the next day, accepted the On Oct. 5, 1995, Dr. Posadas attended an event in China. Before
appointment as Sanggunian Panlungsod Secretary. His he left, Dr. Posadas formally designated Dr. Dayco as OIC in his
resignation and acceptance is now being questioned on the absence. On his last day as OIC Chancellor, Dr. Dayco appointed
grounds that the appointment was made during election ban and Dr. Posadas as project director of the TMC Project from Sept.
that his resignation was not valid because there was no quorum 18, 1995 to Sept. 17, 1996 and as a consultant.
when they accepted his resignation.
The SC opined that the appointment of Dr. Posadas as TMC
The Supreme Court ruled that there is indeed a quorum. As Project Director falls within the prohibition against holding of
contended by the petitioners, the Vice-Mayor is indeed part of multiple positions since there is no distinction in Section 7,
the quorum count. The Senate deliberations on the proposed Article IX-B as to the employment status, i.e., whether
Local Government Code show the intent of the Legislature to permanent, temporary or coterminous. The only exemption is if
treat the vice-mayor not only as the presiding officer of the there is a law allowing such appointment. However, petitioners
sanggunian, but also as a member of the sanggunian. In the failed to cite any law to justify Dr. Posadas' holding of
same manner that under the Local Government Code of 1991, concurrent positions as Chancellor and TMC Project Director.
the provincial vice-governor, the city vice-mayor, and the
municipal vice-mayor, as presiding officers of the Sangguniang DOCTRINE:
Panlalawigan, Sangguniang Panlungsod, Sangguniang Bayan, There is no distinction in Section 7, Article IX-B as to the
respectively, are members of their respective sanggunian. employment status, i.e., whether permanent, temporary or
Hence, it is clear that the vice-mayor, as presiding officer, is coterminous.
part of the entire membership of the sanggunian, which must be
taken into account in computing the quorum.
Section 8
DOCTRINE:
No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or Santos v. CA (GR 139792, 22 November
designation in any capacity to any public office during his
tenure. 2000)
The petitioner is a retired Judge. Pursuant to R.A. No. 910, as
amended, he received his retirement gratuity and has been
Posadas v. Sandiganbayan (GR 168951 regularly receiving a monthly pension. Subsequently, he was
and 169000, 17 July 2013) appointed Director III of the Traffic Operation Center of the
Metro Manila Authority. Upon the enactment of R.A. No. 7924,
Dr. Posadas was Chancellor of UP Diliman starting Nov. 1, 1993 his service would automatically cease but he would still be
to Oct. 31, 1996. On June 1995, UP established the UP entitled to separation benefits for every year of service in the
Technology Management Center (UP TMC), which nominated Dr. MMA under the said law. The Court did not allow the petitioners
Posadas as Project Director. He declined the nomination contention to include his years in the Judiciary in computing for
resulting in the designation of Professor Jose Tabbada as acting his separation pay because it would constitute double

Page 36 of 40
ART. IX A & B
compensation for exactly the same services in the Judiciary

because he already received his retirement gratuity under R.A GSIS v. COA (GR 162372, 19 October
910, as amended. But he would still be allowed to receive his 2011)
salary as Director III of MMA during his service while receiving
his pension as a retired judge because the compensation would GSIS Retirement Financial Plan was enacted. Dimagiba, the
be for two different services. corporate auditor of GSIS sought the assistance of COA in
determining the legality of the said Plan in so far as it has
DOCTRINE: adopted the best features of the two retirement schemes, the 5-
A retiree receiving pension or gratuity can continue to receive year lump sum payment and the monthly pension. COA ruled
such pension or gratuity even if he accepts another government that it was prohibited. Dimagiba informed Garcia (Gen. Manager
position to which another compensation is attached. of GSIS) that was disallowing in audit the portion of retirement
benefits granted under the GSIS RFP, or the excess of the
Crediting the years of service from previous employment in the benefits due the retirees. Garcia argued that COAs counsel had
computation of the separation pay for the present employment no authority to declare the resolution of the GSIS Board of
even if the retirement benefits from the previous employment Trustees as null and void. In summary, the issue is WON the
had already been received, would constitute double GSIS RFP amounts to double compensation. The court said yes
compensation for exactly the same services. because (see doctrine)
DOCTRINE:
Benguet State University v. COA (GR To credit the years of service of GSIS retirees in their previous
169637, 8 June 2007) government office into the computation of their retirement
benefits under the GSIS RFP, notwithstanding the fact that they
Congress passed RA 8292, providing for uniform compensation had received or had been receiving the retirement benefits
of officials of Chartered State Universities and Colleges. Pursuant under the applicable retirement law they retired in, would be to
to the law, the Board of Regents of BSU passed a Resolution countenance double compensation for exactly the same services
which granted rice subsidy and health care allowance to its
employees.
Dimagiba v Espartero (GR 154952, 16
The Petition is dismissed on the ground that RA 8292 only grants July 2012)
the Board to disburse funds only for the purposes of instruction,
research, extension or other programs/projects of the university Petitioners were employees of LIVECOR who entered into a Trust
or college. Under the maxim of ejusdem generis, other Agreement with SIDCOR. They were designated to concurrently
programs/projects does not include incentives such as rice operate with SIDCOR. When they separated with LIVECOR, they
subsidies and health care allowances, as these benefits are not were given a separation package. Since they consequently
one of instruction, research or extension. cannot operate in SIDCOR, they were also separated from
SIDCOR who wanted to grant them gratuity packages.
DOCTRINE:
When a law says that money generated by a school may be used The validity of the gratuity pay from SIDCOR as a double
for "other programs/projects of the university or college," such a compensation was assailed.
law is not authorization for giving additional or double
compensation. Court held that it would be a double compensation because they

Page 37 of 40
ART. IX A & B
were not really an employee of SIDCOR, their job with them was Sadueste v. Municipality of Surigao, 72
just an extension of their job in LIVECOR so the exception Phil. 482 (1941)
mentioned in the second paragraph of Sec 8 Art 9-B is not
applicable to the gratuity pay that would be given to the
petitioners. Zacarias De Sadueste is a district engineer for the Province of
Surigao. He was designated as Sanitary and Waterworks
DOCTRINE: Engineer for the same province with an additional
In the absence of an express legal exception, pension or gratuity compensation. However, the municipality of Surigao failed to
laws should be construed as to preclude any person from provide the necessary appropriation for his services. The
receiving double compensation.
petitioner contended that his additional compensation is valid
pursuant to Section 1916 of the Administrative Code but the
PEZA v. COA (GR 189767, 3 July 2012) GAA of 1936 expressly repealed such provision. Also, there is
no law by which the appellant is specifically authorized to
The per diems received by undersecretaries in their ex officio receive additional compensation for his services as Sanitary and
capacity as members of the PEZA Board of Directors for every
Waterworks Engineer, his claim therefore must fail.
board meeting are being assailed in this case. Even after the
issuance of Notices of Disallowance by the PEZA Auditor, the
payment of emoluments still continued. DOCTRINE:
There being no law by which a person is specifically authorized
The court ruled that the per diems paid to members of the PEZA to receive additional compensation, he shall not be allowed to
Board was indeed unconstitutional and has no legal basis. Sec. receive such.
11 of R.A. 7916 authorizing such per diems was deleted in the
amendatory law, R.A. 8748. Also, the undersecretaries
The purpose of the Constitution is to prohibit generally payment
performing in their ex officio capacity during such board
meetings should not anymore receive emoluments as the of additional or double compensation except in individual
mentioned act is attached to their respective principal function. instances where the payment of such additional compensation
They are already adequately compensated in their respective appears to be not only just but necessary.
Departments.
DOCTRINE:
Sec. 8, R.A. 9-B specifically prohibits any elective or appointive
public officer or employee shall receive additional, double, or
indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by law.
Officials acting in their ex officio capacity shall not anymore
receive any emoluments as such function comes along with their
principal function.

Page 38 of 40
ART. IX A & B
Carbonilla v. Board; OP v. Board (GR Peralta v. Mathay, 38 SCRA 296

193247 and GR 194276, 14 September (1971)
2011)
Petitioner, Pedro G. Peralta is a trustee of the GSIS. A
The Bureau of Customs issued CAO 1-2005 amending CAO 7-92 Resolution granted petitioner an optional retirement gratuity of
which was approved by the Department of Finance regarding P40, 336.07. He was not able to collect a total sum of
the overtime pay of Customs personnel in NAIA proposing its P7,032.26 (cost of living allowance, incentive bonus;
adjustment from the exchange rate of P25 to US$1 to the then Christmas bonus). Auditor General Ismael Mathay did not
exchange rate of P55 to US$1. Respondent Board of Airline pass the items in audit and ruled they should be deducted from
Representatives (BAR) objected to the increase because it goes gratuity since they are considered additional compensation of
against Section 8 Article IX(B) of the Constitution which Trustees remuneration is fixed by law in the form of per diem
prohibits an appointive public officer or employee from of P25.00 for every board meeting of GSIS. This is an
receiving additional, double or indirect compensation, appeal. The issue is if the abovementioned are really prohibited
unless specifically authorized by law. to be paid to the trustee. The SC ruled yes because It is
prohibited under Article IXB- Section 8 of the Consti. Petitioner
The SC held that CAO 1-2005, CAO 7-92, and Sec. 3506 of the as a trustee of GSIS is an officer of the government, and
TCCP are constitutional because BOC employees rendering cannot receive additional or double compensation unless
overtime services are not receiving double compensation for specifically authorized by law.
the overtime pay, travel and meal allowances provided for
under CAO 7-92 and CAO 1-2005. Section 3506 provides that DOCTRINE:
the rates shall not be less than that prescribed by law to be "No officer or employee of the government shall receive
paid to employees of private enterprise. The overtime pay, additional or double compensation unless specifically authorized
travel and meal allowances are payment for additional work by law."
rendered after regular office hours and do not constitute double
compensation prohibited under Section 8, Article IX(B) of the
1987 Constitution as they are in fact authorized by law or NEA v. CSC, 611 SCRA 14 (2010)
Section 3506 of the TCCP.
Some employees of NEA were designated to an electric
cooperative under NEA. This designation was assailed on the
DOCTRINE:
ground that they also receive additional compensation.
The overtime pay, travel and meal allowances are not double
Court held that although the designation itself is legal, the
compensation prohibited under Section 8, Article IX(B) of the
additional compensation is in violation of the Constitution and
1987 Constitution as they are in fact authorized by law which is
NEAs own charter which does not provide for such practice.
Section 3506 of the TCCP.
The designation of NEA employees was to protect the interest
of NEA so their duty is an extension of their regular duty under
NEA, allowing for additional compensation would be violative of
Sec 8 Art 9-B of the CONST.

Page 39 of 40
ART. IX A & B
Ocampo v. COA (GR 188716, 10 June

DOCTRINE: 2013)
Since there is no provision allowing for the additional
Ocampo assumed as Board Member of Energy Regulatory Board
allowances in the charter of NEA, such practice is violative of its
on March 4, 1996. She retired under EO 172 Creating the
own charter and the Constitution.
Energy Regulatory Board in relation to RA 1568 An Act to
Provide Life Pension to the Auditor General and the Chairman
or any Member of the Commission on Elections. She availed of
Yap v. COA, 619 SCRA 154 (2010) the five year lump sum benefit and the corresponding monthly
pension to be paid out for the reminder for the reminder of her
Petitioner Ramon Yap was holding the position of Department
life. Then she was appointed as Chairman of the Energy
Manager III of the National Development Company (NDC) and
Regulatory Board on with a term of 4 years. She sought
subsequently, appointed as the Vice President for Finance and
retirement under the same law EO 172. She claims to also
Treasurer of the Manila Gas Corporation (MGC), a GOCC. He is
receive retirement benefits as ERB chair and member. Court
given compensation and benefits separately by virtue of his two
ruled that Ocampo is not entitled to a second lump sum
positions. The Corporate Auditor of MGC issued notices of
retirement gratuity as RA1568 only allows payment of a single
disallowances against the petitioner saying that the double
gratuity and a single annuity out of a single compensable
allowances the petitioner receives is against Sec. 7(2) and Sec.
requirement.
8, Art. 9-B of the 1987 Constitution.
DOCTRINE:
The court affirmed the decision of the Commission on Audit in
The Constitution requires specific authority given to a particular
affirming the notices of disallowances because pursuant to Sec.
employee or officer for the payment of extra or additional
4, P.D. 1445, compensation must (a) be authorized by law,
compensation.
and (b) serve a public purpose. Since the compensation
received by the petitioner passed neither of the two, he is not
entitled to such benefits.
DOCTRINE:
Pursuant to Sec. 8, Art. 9-B, no elective or appointive official
shall receive additional compensation unless specifically
authorized by law. This is to manifest a commitment to the
fundamental principle that a public office is a public trust
(Peralta v. Mathay). unless specifically authorized by law
means that the President, under certain circumstances, may
authorize double compensation.

Page 40 of 40

Article 10 Bernas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article 10 Bernas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

A. COMMON PROVISIONS Section 6. Each Commission en banc may promulgate its

There are certain governmental functions which are

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelino. Pinsotes. Sison.

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

How Commissions Decide

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

however, the Chairman had a term of seven years, the

The term of Commissioners is set at seven years and they

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

government owned corporation comes under the Civil

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

A policy-determining position is one charged with the duty Security of Tenure

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

any of the following occurs: (1) when their services are no

Likewise the requirement of security of tenure cannot be

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

Since the civil service encompasses all branches and

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

which are organized as subsidiaries of GOCCs under the

Section 6. No candidate who has lost in any election,

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

tenure. (La Carlota City v. Rojo, G.R. No. 181367, 24 April

There are exceptions to the rule against appointment of

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

employee shall receive additional, double, or indirect

The Constitution prohibits officers and employees from

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

When there is no law by which the petitioner is specifically

Double compensation refers to two sets of compensations

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

grants and authorizes this Commission to promulgate its own

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

Dela Llana v. COA (GR 180989, 7 February DOCTRINE:

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

effective and efficient exercise of the power expressly

Sahali v. COMELEC, 688 SCRA 552 DOCTRINE:

DOCTRINE: The express grant of power to the COMELEC

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

Section 2 CA ruled that Salas cannot be dismissed on the ground of loss of

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

The employees of EIIB, through the Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB,

Icasiano tried to appeal the reassignment but to no avail. The

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

DOCTRINE: Concepcion Briones is a first grade civil service eligible. On

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

Mayor v. Macaraig (G.R. 87211, 5 March

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

for councilor of the Municipality of Kananga, Leyte and filed for

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

Agapito. Bitoin. De Castro. Deyto. Francia. Pelio. Pinsotes. Sison.

Supreme Court ruled that LMWD is indeed a GOCC because DOCTRINE: