CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v.

DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT

482 SCRA 233 (2005), EN BANC (Carpio Morales, J.)

Automatic release of approved annual appropriations to Civil Service

Commission, a constitutional commission which is vested with fiscal
autonomy, should thus be construed to mean that no condition to fund
releases to it may be imposed.

FACTS: The total funds appropriated by General Appropriations Act of 2002

(GAA) for Civil Service Commission (CSC) was P285,660,790.44. CSC
complains that the total funds released by Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) was only P279,853,398.14, thereby leaving an
unreleased balance of P5,807,392.30.

CSC contends that the funds were intentionally withheld by DBM on the
ground of their no report, no release policy. Hence, CSC filed a petition for
mandamus seeking to compel the DBM to release the balance of its budget
for fiscal year 2002. At the same time, it seeks a determination by this Court
of the extent of the constitutional concept of fiscal autonomy.

ISSUE: Whether or not DBMs policy, no report, no release is constitutional

HELD: DBMs act of withholding the subject funds from CSC due to revenue
shortfall is hereby declared unconstitutional.

The no report, no release policy may not be validly enforced against offices
vested with fiscal autonomy is not disputed. Indeed, such policy cannot be
enforced against offices possessing fiscal autonomy without violating Article
IX (A), Section 5 of the Constitution, which provides that the Commission shall
enjoy fiscal autonomy and that their approved appropriations shall be
automatically and regularly released.

The Court held in the case of, Batangas v. Romulo, automatic release in
Section 6, Article X of the Constitution is defined as an automatic manner;
without thought or conscious intention. Being automatic, thus, connotes
something mechanical, spontaneous and perfunctory. As such the LGUs are
not required to perform any act to receive the just share accruing to them
from the national coffers.

By parity of construction, automatic release of approved annual

appropriations to petitioner, a constitutional commission which is vested with
fiscal autonomy, should thus be construed to mean that no condition to fund
releases to it may be imposed. This conclusion is consistent with the
Resolution of this Court which effectively prohibited the enforcement of a
no report, no release policy against the Judiciary which has also been
granted fiscal autonomy by the Constitution.

Furthermore, the Constitution grants the enjoyment of fiscal autonomy only

to the Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, of which petitioner is one,
and the Ombudsman. To hold that the CSC may be subjected to withholding
or reduction of funds in the event of a revenue shortfall would, to that extent,
place CSC and the other entities vested with fiscal autonomy on equal footing
with all others which are not granted the same autonomy, thereby reducing
to naught the distinction established by the Constitution.

Brillantes vs Yorac Case Digest

G.R. No. 93867, December 18, 1990

FACTS:

President Corazon Aquino appointed Comelec Associate Commissioner

Haydee Yorac as Acting Chairman of the Commission on Elections, in place of
Chairman Hilario B. Davide, who had been named chairman of the fact-
finding commission to investigate the December 1989 coup d etat attempt.
Petitioner Sixto Brillantes, Jr. questioned the appointment in view of the
status of the COMELEC as an independent constitutional body and and the
specific provision of Article IX-C, Section 1(2) of the Constitution that (I)n no
case shall any Member (of the Commission on Elections) be appointed or
designated in a temporary or acting capacity. Brillantes further argued that
the choice of the acting chairman should not come from the President for
such is an internal matter that should be resolved by the members
themselves and that the intrusion of the president violates the independence
of the COMELEC as a constitutional commission. He cites the practice in this
Court, where the senior Associate Justice serves as Acting Chief Justice in the
absence of the Chief Justice. No designation from the President of the
Philippines is necessary.

The Solicitor General argues that no such designation is necessary in the case
of the Supreme Court because the temporary succession cited is provided for
in Section 12 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. A similar rule is found in Section 5
of BP 129 for the Court of Appeals. There is no such arrangement, however, in
the case of the Commission on Elections. The designation made by the
President of the Philippines should therefore be sustained for reasons of
administrative expediency, to prevent disruption of the functions of the
COMELEC.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the designation of an Acting Chairman of COMELEC is

unconstitutional

HELD:

Yes. The appointment of Yorac as Acting Chairman of the COMELEC is

unconstitutional.

Article IX-A, Section 1, of the Constitution expressly describes all the

Constitutional Commissions as independent. Although essentially executive
in nature, they are not under the control of the President of the Philippines in
the discharge of their respective functions. Each of these Commissions
conducts its own proceedings under the applicable laws and its own rules and
in the exercise of its own discretion. Its decisions, orders and rulings are
subject only to review on Certiorari by this Court as provided by the
Constitution in Article IX-A, Section 7.
The choice of a temporary chairman in the absence of the regular chairman
comes under that discretion. That discretion cannot be exercised for it, even
with its consent, by the President of the Philippines.

A designation as Acting Chairman is by its very terms essentially temporary

and therefore revocable at will. No cause need be established to justify its
revocation. Assuming its validity, the designation of the respondent as Acting
Chairman of the Commission on Elections may be withdrawn by the President
of the Philippines at any time and for whatever reason she sees fit.

It is true, as the Solicitor General points out, that the respondent cannot be
removed at will from her permanent position as Associate Commissioner. It is
no less true, however, that she can be replaced as Acting Chairman, with or
without cause, and thus deprived of the powers and perquisites of that
temporary position.

The Constitution provides for many safeguards to the independence of the

Commission on Elections, foremost among which is the security of tenure of
its members. That guaranty is not available to the respondent as Acting
Chairman of the Commission on Elections by designation of the President of
the Philippines.

The lack of a statutory rule covering the situation at bar is no justification for
the President of the Philippines to fill the void by extending the temporary
designation in favor of the respondent. This is still a government of laws and
not of men. The problem allegedly sought to be corrected, if it existed at all,
did not call for presidential action. The situation could have been handled by
the members of the Commission on Elections themselves without the
participation of the President, however well-meaning.

MANILA PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, FIDEL FABABIER MERLIN

ANONUEVO, MINDA GALANG and other teacher-members so numerous
similarly situated vs. HON. PERFECTO LAGUIO JR

A "mass action" was undertaken by some 800 public school teachers, among
them members of the petitioning associations to "dramatize and highlight"
the teachers' plight resulting from the alleged failure of the public authorities
to act upon grievances that had time and again been brought to the latter's
attention. The petition alleges in great detail the character and origins of
those grievances as perceived by the petitioners, and the attempts to
negotiate their correction.

ISSUE: Are employees in the public service prohibited from forming unions
and holding strikes?

HELD: Employees in the public (civil) service, unlike those in the private
sector, do not have the right to strike, although guaranteed the right to self-
organization, to petition Congress for the betterment of employment terms
and conditions and to negotiate with appropriate government agencies for
the improvement of such working conditions as are not fixed by law.

Public school teachers have the right to peaceably assemble for redress of
grievances but NOT during class hours, for then this would be a strike, which
is illegal for them.

SSS Employee Asso. v CA 175 SCRA 686 (July 28, 1989)

Facts: The petitioners went on strike after the SSS failed to act upon the
unions demands concerning the implementation of their CBA. SSS filed
before the court action for damages with prayer for writ of preliminary
injunction against petitioners for staging an illegal strike. The court issued a
temporary restraining order pending the resolution of the application for
preliminary injunction while petitioners filed a motion to dismiss alleging the
courts lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Petitioners contend that
the court made reversible error in taking cognizance on the subject matter
since the jurisdiction lies on the DOLE or the National Labor Relations
Commission as the case involves a labor dispute. The SSS contends on one
hand that the petitioners are covered by the Civil Service laws, rules and
regulation thus have no right to strike. They are not covered by the NLRC or
DOLE therefore the court may enjoin the petitioners from striking.

Issue: Whether or not SSS employers have the right to strike

Whether or not the CA erred in taking jurisdiction over the subject

matter.

Held: The Constitutional provisions enshrined on Human Rights and Social

Justice provides guarantee among workers with the right to organize and
conduct peaceful concerted activities such as strikes. On one hand, Section
14 of E.O No. 180 provides that the Civil Service law and rules governing
concerted activities and strikes in the government service shall be observed,

subject to any legislation that may be enacted by Congress referring to

Memorandum Circular No. 6, s. 1987 of the Civil Service Commission which
states that prior to the enactment by Congress of applicable laws concerning
strike by government employees enjoins under pain of administrative
sanctions, all government officers and employees from staging strikes,
demonstrations, mass leaves, walk-outs and other forms of mass action
which will result in temporary stoppage or disruption of public service.
Therefore in the absence of any legislation allowing govt. employees to strike
they are prohibited from doing so.

In Sec. 1 of E.O. No. 180 the employees in the civil service are denominated
as government

employees and that the SSS is one such government-controlled corporation

with an original charter, having been created under R.A. No. 1161, its
employees are part of the civil service and are covered by the Civil Service
Commissions memorandum prohibiting strikes.

Neither the DOLE nor the NLRC has jurisdiction over the subject matter but
instead it is the Public Sector Labor-Management Council which is not granted
by law authority to issue writ of injunction in labor disputes within its
jurisdiction thus the resort of SSS before the general court for the issuance of
a writ of injunction to enjoin the strike is appropriate