Article IX Inhibitions / Disqualifications:

Constitutional Commissions 1) Shall not, during tenure, hold any other

A. Common Provisions
Section 1. The Constitutional Commissions, which
shall be independent, are the Civil Service
Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the
Commission on Audit.
Section 2. No member of a Constitutional
Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other
office or employment. Neither shall he engage in the
practice of any profession or in the active
management or control of any business which, in any
way, may be affected by the functions of his office, nor
shall he be financially interested, directly or indirectly,
in any contract with, or in any franchise or privilege
granted by the Government, any of its subdivisions,
agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-
owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
office or employment.
2) Shall not engage in the practice of any
profession.
3) Shall not engage in any active
management or control of any business
which in any way may be affected by the
functions of his office.
4) Shall not be financially interested, directly
or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any
franchise or privilege granted by the
Government, any of its subdivisions,
agencies or instrumentalities, including
government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries.
Rotational Scheme of Appointments
 The first appointees shall serve terms of
seven, five and three years respectively.
 After the first commissioners are appointed,
the rotational scheme is intended to prevent
the possibility of one President appointing
all the Commissioners.

Safeguards insuring the independence of the

Commissions: 1) Funa v. CSC – G.R. No. 191672,
November 25, 2014
1) They are constitutionally created; may not
be abolished by statute.
 President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appointed
2) Each is expressly described as Francisco T. Duque as Chairman of the Civil
independent. Service Commission (CSC).
3) Each is conferred certain powers and  PGMA then issued EO 864 designating
functions which cannot be reduced by Duque as an ex officio member of the Board
statute of Directors/ Trustees of the GSIS, PhilHealth,
4) The Chairmen and members cannot be Employees Compensation Commission
removed except by impeachment. (ECC), and Home Development Mutual Fund
5) The Chairmen and members are given a (HDMF).
fairly long term of office of seven years. o This is in pursuance of the
6) The Chairmen and members may not be Administrative Code which provides in
reappointed or appointed in an acting Sec. 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V:
capacity.  Section 14. Membership of
7) The salaries of the chairman and members the Chairman in Boards.—
are relatively high and may not be The Chairman shall be a
decreased during continuance in office. member of the Board of 1
Directors or of other
8) The Commissions enjoy fiscal autonomy.
governing bodies of
9) Each commission may promulgate its own government entities whose
procedural rules, provided they do not functions affect the career
diminish, increase or modify substantive development, employment
rights. status, rights, privileges, and
 Though subject to disapproval by welfare of government
the SC. officials and employees, such
10) The Chairmen and members are subject to as the Government Service
certain disqualifications calculated to Insurance System, Foreign
strengthen their integrity. Service Board, Foreign Trade
11) The Commissions may appoint their own Service Board, National
officials and employees in accordance with Board for Teachers, and such
Civil Service Law. other similar boards as may
be created by law.

1
  Dennis Funa and HDMF, in an ex
filed a officio capacity,
petition impair the
challenging independence of the
the CSC and violate the
constitutionali constitutional
ty of Duque’s prohibition against
designation, the holding of dual or
claiming that multiple offices for the
violates Sec. Members of the
1 and 2 or Constitutional
Art. IX-A of Commissions?
the
Constitution. Ruling: Yes.
o That  Art. IX-A
the provides:
desig o Secti
natio on 1.
n The
violat Cons
es titutio
the nal
indep Com
ende missi
nce ons,
of the whic
CSC h
and shall
violat be
es indep
the ende
prohi nt,
bition are
impo the
sed Civil
upon Servi
mem ce
bers Com
of missi
const on,
itutio the
nal Com
com missi
missi on on
ons Electi
from ons,
holdi and 2
ng the
any Com
other missi
office on on
or Audit
empl .
oyme o Secti
nt. on 2.
No
Issue: Does the Mem
designation of Duque ber
as member of the of a
Board of Directors or Cons
Trustees of the GSIS, titutio
PHILHEALTH, ECC nal
2
Com indire
missi ctly,
on in
shall, any
durin contr
g his act
tenur with,
e, or in
hold any
any franc
other hise
office or
or privil
empl ege
oyme grant
nt. ed by
Neith the
er Gove
shall rnme
he nt,
enga any
ge in of its
the subdi
practi visio
ce of ns,
any agen
profe cies,
ssion or
or in instru
the ment
activ alitie
e s,
mana inclu
geme ding
nt or gover
contr nmen
ol of t-
any owne
busin d or
ess contr
whic olled
h in corpo
any ration
way s or
may their
be subsi
affect diarie 3
ed by s.
the  GR: All
functi appointive
ons officials in the
of his civil service
office are allowed
, nor to hold other
shall office or
he be employment
finan in the
cially government
intere during their
sted, tenure when
direct such is
ly or allowed by
3
law or by the owne
primary d or
functions of contr
their olled
positions. corpo
o Sec. ration
7 s or
(par. their
2), subsi
Art. diarie
IX-B: s.
xxx o Exce
Unle ption:
ss The
other Presi
wise dent,
allow Vice-
ed by Presi
law dent,
or Mem
the bers
prima of the
ry Cabi
functi net,
ons their
of his deput
positi ies
on, and
no assis
appoi tants.
ntive  M
offici a
al y
shall h
hold o
any l
other d
office a
or n
empl o
oyme t
nt in h
the e
Gove r
rnme o
nt or ff
any i 4
subdi c
visio e
n, o
agen r
cy or e
instru m
ment p
ality l
there o
of, y
inclu m
ding e
gover n
nmen t
t- i
4
 n Duque was
t thus covered
h by the
e general rule.
g o He
o can
v hold
e any
r other
n office
m or
e empl
n oyme
t nt in
o the
n Gove
l rnme
y nt
w durin
h g his
e tenur
n e if
a such
u holdi
t ng is
h allow
o ed by
ri law
z or by
e the
d prima
b ry
y functi
t ons
h of his
e positi
C on.
o  However,
n consistent
s with the
ti Administrativ
t e Code, the
u CSC
ti Chairman’s
o membership
n in a
. governing 5
 Being an body is
appointive dependent
public official on the
who does not condition that
occupy a the functions
Cabinet of the
position (i.e., government
President, entity where
the Vice- he will sit as
President, its Board
Members of member
the Cabinet, must affect
their deputies the career
and development,
assistants), employment
5
status, rights, F are
privileges, also
and welfare taske
of d to
government perfo
officials and rm
employees. other
o While corpo
powe rate
rs powe
and rs
functi and
ons functi
asso ons
ciate that
d are
with not
appoi perso
ntme nnel-
nts, relate
comp d.
ensat o All of
ion these
and powe
benef rs
its and
affect functi
the ons,
caree whet
r her
devel perso
opme nnel-
nt, relate
empl d or
oyme not,
nt are
statu carrie
s, d out
rights and
, exerc
privil ised
eges, by
and the
welfa respe
re of ctive
gover Boar
nmen ds of 6
t the
offici GSIS
als ,
and PHIL
empl HEA
oyee LTH,
s, the ECC
GSIS and
, HDM
PHIL F.
HEA o Henc
LTH, e,
ECC when
and the
HDM CSC
6
Chair for
man the
sits accre
as a ditati
mem on of
ber healt
of the hcare
gover provi
ning ders,
Boar or
ds of appr
the oving
GSIS restr
, ucturi
PHIL ng
HEA prop
LTH, osals
ECC in the
and paym
HDM ent of
F, he unpai
may d
exerc loan
ise amor
these tizati
powe ons.
rs The
and Court
functi also
ons, notes
whic that
h are Duqu
not e’s
anym desig
ore natio
deriv n as
ed mem
from ber
his of the
positi gover
on as ning
CSC Boar
Chair ds of
man, the
such GSIS
as ,
impo PHIL 7
sing HEA
intere LTH,
st on ECC
unpai and
d or HDM
unre F
mitte entitl
d es
contri him
butio to
ns, recei
issui ve
ng per
guide diem,
lines a
7
form of
of offi
additi ce
onal ."
comp  It
ensat ref
ion er
that s
is to
disall an
owed "a
by ut
the ho
conc rit
ept of y
an ex de
offici riv
o ed
positi fro
on by m
virtue offi
of its cia
clear l
contr ch
avent ar
ion of ac
the ter
prosc m
riptio er
n set ely
by ,
Secti no
on 2, t
Articl ex
e IX- pr
A of es
the sly
1987 co
Cons nf
titutio err
n. ed
 E up
x on
o th
ff e
i in
c div8
i id
o ua
 M l
ea ch
ns ar
"fr ac
o ter
m ,
offi bu
ce t
; rat
by he
vir r
tu an
e ne
8
 xe en
d t
to or
th au
e th
offi ori
cia ty
l ot
po he
siti r
on th
." an
 It th
lik at
ew co
ise nf
de err
no ed
te by
s th
an e
"a offi
ct ce
do ."
ne  A
in n
an e
offi x
cia o
l ff
ch i
ar c
ac i
ter o
, m
or e
as m
a b
co e
ns r
eq o
ue f
nc a
e b
of o
offi a
ce r 9
, d
an i
d s
wit o
ho n
ut e
an w
y h
ot o
he i
r s
ap a
po m
int e
m m
9
b t
e m
r e
b n
y t.
v  T
ir h
t e
u e
e x
o o
f ff
h i
i c
s i
ti o
tl p
e o
t s
o it
a i
c o
e n
rt b
a e
i i
n n
o g
ff a
i c
c t
e u
, a
a ll
n y
d a
w n
it d
h i
o n
u l
t e
f g
u a
rt l
h c
e o 10
r n
w t
a e
rr m
a p
n l
t a
o ti
r o
a n
p p
p a
o rt
i o
n f
10
t i
h v
e e
p a
ri d
n d
c it
i i
p o
a n
l a
o l
ff c
i o
c m
e p
, e
it n
f s
o a
ll ti
o o
w n
s f
t o
h r
a h
t i
t s
h s
e e
o r
ff v
i i
c c
i e
a s
l i
c n
o t
n h
c e
e s
r a
n i
e d
d p 11
h o
a s
s it
n i
o o
ri n
g .
h  Re
t as
t on
o :
r Th
e es
c e
e se
11
 rvi The CSC via a
ce petition f or
s mandamus seeks to
ar compel DBM to
e release the balance
alr of its budget for FY
ea 2002.
dy  C S C cla im s
pa that t he
id reason f or
for t he
an withholding
d was the “no
co report, no
ve release”
re policy.
d
by DBM claims that the
th failure to release the
e fund in full is due to
co shortage of funds.
m
pe W/N the “no report,
ns no release” policy
ati may be validly
on enforced against
att CSC?
ac
he NO
d
to The policy may not
his be validly enforced
pri against offices
nci vested with fiscal
pa autonomy.
l
offi Being “automatic”
ce connotes something
. mechanical,
spontaneous and
perfunctory.
Section 3. The salary of the Chairman and the  It means that
Commissioners shall be fixed by law and shall not be no condition
decreased during their tenure. to fund
releases to it
Section 4. The Constitutional Commissions shall may be
appoint their officials and employees in accordance 12
imposed.
with law.
The justification of
Section 5. The Commission shall enjoy fiscal the DBM does not
autonomy. Their approved annual appropriations shall lie.
be automatically and regularly released.  Shortage of
funds is not
A. Fiscal Autonomy an excuse
f or not
releasing the
2) CSC v. fund in full of
Department offices
of Budget – vested with
July 22. fiscal
2005 autonomy.

12
Section 6. Each Commission en banc may Aruelo filed the
promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and election protest with
practice before it or before any of its offices. Such the Regional Trial
rules, however, shall not diminish, increase, or modify Court, whose
substantive rights. proceedings are
governed by the
Revised Rules of
A. Rules of Court.
procedure  Section 1,
Rule 13, Part
III of the
3) Aruelo, Jr. COMELEC
v. Court of Rules of
Appeals - Procedure is
227 SCRA not
311 applicable to
proceedings
Aruelo & Gatchalian before the
w e re rival regular
candidates for vice- courts.
mayor in Balagtas,  As expressly
Bulacan – mandated by
Gatchalian w on Section 2,
(1992 elections). Rule 1, Part I
Aruelo filed w/ the of the
RTC a civil case COMELEC
protesting such Rules of
elections. Gatchalian Procedure,
responded w/ the filing of
pleadings – motion motions to
to dismiss & motion dismiss and
for bill of particulars bill of
– which were denied particulars,
so he was only able shall apply
to submit hi s only to
counter-protest & proceedings
counterclaim after 2 brought
mos. Aruelo now before the
cla im s that in COMELEC.
election contests,
comelec rules give Since part 6 of the
respondents only 5 comelec rules does
days from summon not provide that
to file his answer – MTD & bill of
gatchalian’s 5 days particulars are not
had now lapsed. He allowed in election 13
further contended contest pending
that his pleadings before the regular
did not suspend the courts.
running of the 5-day
period as such Constitutionally
motions are speaking, comelec
prohibited by sec 1 cannot adopt a rule
rule 13 of comelec prohibiting the filing
rules of procedures. of certain pleadings
in the regular court –
Issue: Is the this power is vested
contention of aruelo alone in the SC.
correct? Thus, pending his
submission of
NO appeals, the 5-day
13
period is suspended went beyond
– he filed his answer the scope of
on the right time. its
The power to constitutional
promulgate r ul e s authority.
concerning Congress
pleadings, practice trampled
and procedure in all upon t he
courts is vested in constitutional
t he SC . mandate of
independenc
e of th e
4) Macalintal
v. Comelec.
COMELEC –
405 SCRA The phrase “subject
614 to the approval of
the Congressional
Petition for certiorari Committee”, which
and prohibition filed empowers the
by Romulo Commission to
authorize the voting
Macalintal seeking a
by mail in not more
declaration that
than 3 countries for
certain provisions of the May 2004
RA 9189 (The elections; and the
Overseas Absentee phrase “only upon
Act of 2003) suffer review and approval
from constitutional of the Joint
infirmity, such as the Congressional
provision authorizing Oversight
Congress to review Committee” are
IRR promulgated by unconstitutional as
the Comelec. they require review
and approval or
May Congress disapproval of voting
assume power to by mail in any
review rules country after the
promulgated by the 2004 elections.
Comelec?  Congress
may not
confer upon
NO
itself t he
authority to
Congress may not approve or
assume power to disapprove
review rules the countries 14
promulgated by wherein
Comelec. voting by
 By vesting mail shall be
itself with the allowed, as
powers to determined
approve, by the
review, COMELEC.
amend, and
revise the Section 7. Each Commissio
IRR for the majority vote of all its Membe
Overseas brought before it within sixty d
Absentee submission for decision or reso
Voting Act of is deemed submitted for deci
2003, the filing of the last pleading,
Congress required by the rules of the
14
Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this clear that it should
Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of be the majority
each Commission may be brought to the Supreme vote of all its
Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty members and not
days from receipt of a copy thereof. only those who
participated and
took part in the
How Commissions deliberations.
Decide Since the above-
quoted
5) Estrella v. constitutional
Comelec – provision states
May 27, "all of its
2004 members," without
any qualification, it
A status quo ante should be
order was issued interpreted as
by the COMELEC such.
and from the 7
members only 5 Even former
participated. From Constitutional
the 5 participants 1 Commissioner Fr.
dissented. Joaquin Bernas, SJ,
questions the Cua
According to the ruling in light of
Section 7, which
Constitution 4 will
says "majority of all
constitute t he
the Members." He
majority. However,
thus concludes that
Lantion, one of the
"three is not the
4 members who majority of seven.”
agreed to the order
was disallowed by 6) Mateo v.
t he SC to Court of
participate Appeals –
because he had 247 SCRA
previously inhibited 284
himself on the
case. The effect is Petitioners ar e
that there are employees of
effectively only 4 MOWAD (Morong
participants and Water District) –
from these there is w/c is a quasi-
1 dissent. public corp
created pursuant
W/N the vote of 15
to PD 198. Upon
the 3 participants complaint by the
in the en banc petitioners against
proceeding can be t he general
considered a manager, the BOD
majority vote of MOWAD
following the case conducted an
of Cua v. investigation – gen
COMELEC (that 3 mgr Sta Maria was
is majority)? placed under
preventive
NO suspension so
such position was
The provision of vacated – another
the Constitution is person was
15
designated - & relating to
was eventually t he civil
dismissed. service.
 RTCs have
Sta Maria filed a no
special civil action jurisdiction
for quo warranto & to entertain
mandamus before cases
the RTC involving
challenging his dismissal of
dismissal by the officers and
BOD. employees
covered by
The board filed a t he C ivil
motion to dismiss Service
arguing that the La w .
R TC had no
jurisdiction 7) Ambil v.
because the case Comelec
is under t he -344 SCRA
jurisdiction of the 358
CSC because it
involves a Petitioner Ambil
government won in an
employee. election but
However, the Commissioner
motion was denied Guiani, in a
decision ruled
Issue: W/n the otherwise.
RTC has  Initially,
jurisdiction over Commis
the case involving sioner
the dismissal of an Guiani
employee of a prepare
quasi-public corp? d and
signed
NO a
propose
Sta Maria was an d
officer of a gocc – resoluti
as such, his hiring on of
& firing is governed the
by the Civil Service case.
Law.  Before
16
the
The RTC has no same
jurisdiction to hear was
cases involving promulg
dismissal of officers ated,
covered b y th e howeve
Civil Service Law. r,
 The C ivil Commis
Service sioner
Commissio Guiani
n, under retired.
the consti, o H
is the single e
arbiter of
all contests v
16
a
c h
a a
t v
e i
d n
g
h
i b
s e
e
o n
f
f p
i r
c o
e m
u
w l
i g
t a
h t
o e
u d
t .

t
h C o m el e c
e resolved to
promulgate
f such ponencia
i but Ambil
n sought
a injunction f or
l t he
promulgation
d on the ground
e that it has no
c value.
i
s W/N this
i ponencia has
o any value?
n 17
None
o
r It does not have any
value. Before that
r resolution or decision
e is signed and
s promulgated, there is
o no valid resolution or
l decision to speak of.
u  A final
t decision or
i resolution
o becomes
n binding only
17
 after it is the Supreme Court
promulgated is by the special civil
and not action of certiorari
before. under Rule 65,
which requires there
Accordingly, one be no appeal, or any
who is no longer a plain, speedy and
members of t he adequate remedy in
Commission at the the ordinary course
time th e final of law.
decision or resolution
is promulgated A decision, order or
cannot validly take resolution of a
part in that resolution division of the
or decision. Much Comelec must be
less could he be the reviewed by the
ponente of the Comelec en banc
resolution or via a motion for
decision. reconsideration
before the final en
The Supreme Court banc decision may
interpreted Section be brought to the
7, Article 9-A of the Supreme Court on
Constitution to mean certiorari.
FINAL orders, The pre-
rulings and requisite filing of a
decisions of the motion for
COMELEC rendered reconsideration is
in the exercise of its mandatory.
adjudicatory or  Article IX-B,
quasi-judicial Section 3:
powers. “The
 The decision Commission
must be a on Elections
final decision may sit en
or resolution banc or in
of the two
COMELEC divisions,
en banc, not and shall
of a division. promulgate
 The its rules of
Supreme procedure in
Court has no order to
power to expedite
review via disposition 18
certiorari, an of election
interlocutory cases,
order or including
even a final pre-
resolution of proclamation
a Division of controversie
the s. All such
COMELEC. election
cases shall
The mode by which be heard
a decision, order, or and decided
ruling of the in division,
COMELEC en banc provided
may be elevated to that motions
18
 for provided by law.
reconsiderat (4) No officer or employee
ion of engage, directly o
decisions electioneering or partis
shall be (5) The right to self-org
decided by denied to government
the (6) Temporary employee
Commission shall be given such
en banc.” provided by law.

Section 8. Each Commission shall perform such Classes of Service:

other functions as may be provided by law. 1. Career
Service
 Char
B. Civil Service acteri
Commission zed
by
Section 1. entra
nce
(1) The civil service shall be administered by the base
Civil Service Commission composed of a d on
Chairman and two Commissioners who shall merit
and
be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and,
fitnes
at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-
s to
five years of age, with proven capacity for
be
public administration, and must not have been deter
candidates for any elective position in the mine
elections immediately preceding their d as
appointment. far
(2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall as
be appointed by the President with the practi
consent of the Commission on Appointments cable
for a term of seven years without by
reappointment. Of those first appointed, the comp
Chairman shall hold office for seven years, a etitiv
Commissioner for five years, and another e
Commissioner for three years, without exam
reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy inatio
shall be only for the unexpired term of the ns,
predecessor. In no case shall any Member be or
appointed or designated in a temporary or base
acting capacity. d on
highl
y 19
Section 2.
tech
nical
(1) The civil service embraces all branches, qualif
subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies icatio
of the Government, including government- ns.
owned or controlled corporations with original  Oppo
charters. rtunit
(2) Appointments in the civil service shall be y for
made only according to merit and fitness to be adva
determined, as far as practicable, and, except ncem
to positions which are policy-determining, ent
primarily confidential, or highly technical, by to
competitive examination. highe
(3) No officer or employee of the civil service shall r
be removed or suspended except for cause care
19
 er ose
positi the
ons. empl
 Secu oyme
rity nt
of was
tenur mad
e. e.
2. Non-Career
Service Exempt from the
 Char competitive
acteri examination
zed requirement:
by 1. Policy
entra determining
nce  Wher
on e
base office
s r
other lays
than down
those princi
of pal
the or
usual fund
tests ame
utiliz n ta l
ed guide
for lines
the or
care r u l es ;
er or
servi form
ce ulate
 Tenu s a
re meth
limite od of
d to actio
a n for
perio gove
d rnme
speci nt or
fied any
by of its
law, subdi
or visio
ns. 20
whic
h is 2. Primarily
co- confidential
termi  Deno
nus ting
with not
that only
of confi
the denc
appoi e in
nting the
powe aptitu
r for de of
whic the
h appoi
purp ntee
20
for of
the the
dutie CSC.
s of 3. Highly
the technical
office  Wh
but ich
prim req
arily uire
close s
intim pos
acy ses
whic sion
h of
ensu tech
res nica
freed l
om skill
of or
interc trai
ours ning
e in a
witho sup
ut rem
emb e or
arras sup
smen erio
t or r
freed deg
om ree.
from
misgi Discretion of the
vings appointing authority
or  Has the right
betra of choice
yals which he
on may exercise
confi
freely
denti
according to
al
his best
matt
ers judgment,
of deciding for
state; himself who
or is best
one qualified
decla among those 21
red who have
to be the
so by necessary
the qualifications
Presi and
dent eligibilities.
of
the Section 3. The Civil Service
Philip central personnel agency of
pines establish a career service a
upon promote morale, efficiency, in
reco progressiveness, and courtes
mme shall strengthen the merit
ndati
integrate all human resources
on
21
for all levels and ranks, and institutionalize a c
management climate conducive to public e
accountability. It shall submit to the President and the
Congress an annual report on its personnel programs. C
o
Section 4. All public officers and employees shall take m
an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this m
Constitution. i
s
s
Section 5. The Congress shall provide for the
i
standardization of compensation of government o
officials and employees, including those in n
government-owned or controlled corporations with
original charters, taking into account the nature of the
(
responsibilities pertaining to, and the qualifications "
required for, their positions. C
S
Section 6. No candidate who has lost in any election, C
shall within one year after such election, be appointed "
to any office in the Government or any Government- )
owned or controlled corporations or in any of their Scope
subsidiaries.
8) CSC vs.
Section 7. No elective official shall be eligible for Alfonso -
appointment or designation in any capacity to any G.R. No.
public office or position during his tenure. 179452,
June 11,
Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary 2009
functions of his position, no appointive official shall
hold any other office or employment in the Alfonso, Director
Government or any subdivision, agency or of t he HRM
instrumentality thereof, including Government-owned Department of
or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. PUP was charged
with grave
Section 8. No elective or appointive public officer or misconduct,
employee shall receive additional, double, or indirect conduct prejudicial
compensation, unless specifically authorized by law, to the best interest
nor accept without the consent of the Congress, any of the Service, and
present, emolument, office, or title of any kind from violation of the
any foreign government. Civil Service Law.
 The
Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as affidavit-
additional, double, or indirect compensation. complaint
was 22
lodged
A before the
. CSC.

C The CSC finally

i charged him and
v imposed a 90day
i suspension.
l
Alfonso now
S argues that the
e CSC had no
r
jurisdiction to hear
v
and decide the
i
22
administrative deputize a
case because it is department
the PUP Board of or an
Regents that has agency to
t he exclusive conduct
authority to t he
appoint and investigatio
remove PUP n, as
employees. provided in
the CSL of
W/N the CSC has 1975.
jurisdiction to hear
and decide the The SC also ruled
complaint filed that since th e
against Alfonso? complaints w er e
filed directly with the
YES. CSC and the CSC
had opted to assume
jurisdiction over the
As t he central
complaint, t he
personnel agency
CSC’s exercise of
of the government, jurisdiction shall be
t he CSC has to the exclusion of
jurisdiction to other tribunals
supervise t he exercising
performance of concurrent
and discipline if jurisdiction.
need be, al l
government 9) PNOC-EDC
employees, v.
including those Leogardo-
employed in July 5, 1989
government-owned
or controlled PNOC-EDC is a
corporations with subsidiary of the
original charters PNOC.
such as PUP.
On 1978, it filed
Even though the with th e MOLE
CSC has appellate (Ministry of Labor
jurisdiction over and Employment) a
disciplinary cases clearance
decided by application to
government dismiss the services
departments, of Ellelina for a
23
agencies, and commission of a
instrumentalities, a c r i m e.
complaint may be  MOLE
filed directly with granted the
t he C SC . clearance
 CSC has but
t he subsequentl
authority to y revoked it.
hear and
decide the PNOC-EDC
case, appealed on the
although it ground that the
may in its MOLE has no
discretion jurisdiction over
opt to PNOC-EDC since it
23
is a GOCC. Constitutio
n
W/N PNOC-EDC is supplanted,
governed by the providing
Labor Code? that th e
CSC
YES covers only
GOCC with
PNOC-EDC having original
been incorporated charter.
under the general
Corporation Law is T he civil service
a GOCC whose system under the
employees a re new Constitution
subject to t he covers only
provisions of the government owned
Labor Code. and controlled
 The 1973 corporations with
Constitutio original charters.
n provided:  Since PNOC-
The Civil EDC does
Service not have its
embraces own charter,
every then it is not
branch, covered by
agency, the CSC.
subdivision  Moreover,
and even if a
instrumenta case arose
lity of the under the
governmen 1973
t, including Constitution
governmen but it is to be
t-owned or decided
controlled under the
corporation 1987
s. Constitution,
 Hence, the
employees applicable
of GOCC, rule is that of
whether the 1987
created by Constitution.
special law
or formed
as 24
10) Philippine
subsidiarie Fisheries v.
s under the NLRC –
general September
Corporatio 4, 1992
n Law, are
governed Philippine Fisheries
by the Civil is a GOCC created
Service by P.D. No. 977.
Law and
not by the It entered a contract
Labor w i th t he Odin
Code. Security Agency for
 Yet the security services.
1987
24
Two of the security may not be
guards filed with invoked in
the Office of the the case.
Sub-Regional
Arbitrator a
complaint for re- Appointments
adjustment r a te
under Wage Order 11) Santiago,
No. 6 together with Jr. v. CSC-
wage salary 178 SCRA
differentials. 733

The LA issued  Customs

an Order Commissione
dismissing the r Wigberto
complaint, t h a t Tanada
t h e Philippine extended to
Narciso Y.
fisheries is a
Santiago a
GOCC, hence it
permanent
would place it
promotional
under the scope appointment
and jurisdiction from
of the CSC and Customs
not within the Collector I to
ambit of the Customs
NLRC. Collector III.
 Leonardo
W/N Philippine Jose, a
Fisheries is Customs
under the scope Collector II,
of the Civil protested,
Service or claiming that
NLRC? he was the
next-in-rank
CSC to the
position of
Philippine Fisheries Collector of
is a GOCC with Customs III.
special charter,  The Civil
which places it under Service
the scope of the Civil Commission
Service. revoked
 However the Santiago’s
contract of promotion.
services Hence, the 25
explicitly present
states that petition.
the security
guards are Issue: Whether or not
not the next-in-rank rule
considered applies in making
employees of appointments?
the
Philippine Ruling: No. One who
Fisheries, is next in rank is
hence the entitled to preferential
jurisdiction of consideration for
the Civil promotion to the
Service higher vacancy but it
Commission does not necessarily
25
follow that he and no of choice of
one else can be the one he
appointed. deems fit for
 The rule appointment
neither  CSC
grants a Resolution
vested right No. 83-343
to the holder provides:
nor imposes o Secti
a ministerial on 4.
duty on the An
appointing empl
authority to oyee
promote such who
person. holds
 The power to a
appoint is a next-
matter of in-
discretion. rank
o The positi
appoi on
nting who
powe is
r has deem
a ed
wide the
latitu most
de of comp
choic etent
e as and
to qualif
who ied,
is poss
best esse
qualif s an
ied appr
for opriat
the e civil
positi servi
on. ce
 To apply the eligib
next-in-rank ility,
rule and
peremptorily meet
would s the
impose a other
condi 26
rigid formula
on the tions
appointing for
power prom
contrary to otion
the policy of shall
the law that be
among those prom
qualified and oted
eligible, the to the
appointing highe
authority is r
granted positi
discretion on
and when
prerogative it
26
 beco r, in giving his
mes reason for
vaca promoting
nt. Santiago,
provided that
How there was no
ever, official record
the of any activity
appoi that
nting recommends
autho Jose for
rity promotion. In
may contrast,
prom Santiago had
ote been credited
an with the
empl seizure of
oyee millions of
who pesos worth
is not of smuggled
next- shipments,
in- as well as
rank being the
but recipient of
who several
poss citations for
esse exemplary
s performance.
super  Finally, while
ior it is true that
qualif the
icatio Commission
ns is
and empowered
comp to approve all
etenc appointments
e , whether
comp original or
ared promotional,
to a to positions
next- in the civil
in- service and
rank disapprove
empl those where
oyee the
who appointees
merel do not 27
y possess the
meet appropriate
s the eligibility or
mini required
mum qualification,
requi all the
reme commission
nts is actually
for allowed to do
the is check
positi whether or
on. not the
appointee
 The Customs possesses
Commissione the
27
appropriate rity to
civil service revok
eligibility or e the
the required said
qualifications. appoi
o If he ntme
does, nt
his simpl
appoi y
ntme beca
nt is use it
appr belie
oved; ved
if not, that
it is the
disap Jose
prove was
d. No bette
other r
criteri qualif
on is ied
permi for
tted that
by woul
law d
to be have
empl const
oyed ituted
by an
the encro
Com achm
missi ent
on on
when the
it discr
acts etion
on, veste
or as d
the solel
decre y (in
e the
says, appoi
"appr nting
oves" autho
or rity).
"disa
pprov 12) A 28
es" q
an u
appoi i
ntme n
nt o
made
by v
the .
prop
er C
autho S
rities. C
o It has -
no
autho
28
 2 competence of de la
0 Paz for the position
8 of Supply
Officer I.
S  DECS
C Secretary
R revoked the
A appointment
of de la Paz.
2  CSC also
4 revoked the
0 appointment.

Victor Aquino was SC held that CSC

designated as has no authority to
Property Inspector revoke an
and In-Charge of appointment simply
the Supply Office because it believed
performing the that another person
duties and is better qualified
responsibilities of than the appointee
the Supply Officer. for it would
constitute an
2 years later, the encroachment on
Division the discretion solely
Superintendent of vested on the
City Schools, Tagle, appointing
issued a authority.
promotional  It is well-
appointment to settled that
Leonarda D. de la once an
Paz as Supply appointment
Officer. is issued
 At the time and th e
of her moment the
appointmen appointee
t, she was assumes a
then position in
holding the t he civil
position of s er v i c e
C le rk II, under a
Division of completed
City appointment
Schools. , he
acquires a 29
 The Civil
legal, not
Service
m e r el y
Regional
equitable
Office IV
right (to the
approved
position),
her
w h ich is
appointmen
protected
t as
not only by
permanent.
statute, but
also by the
Aquino filed a
protest with the Constitution
DECS Secretary , and
questioning the cannot be
qualification and taken away
29
 from him
either by Salas appealed to
revocation the Chairman and
of th e BOD of PAGCOR,
appointment requesting
, or by reinvestigation of
removal, the case since he
except for was not given an
cause, and opportunity to be
with heard, but the
previous same was denied.
notice and
hearing. He appealed to the
Merit Systems
13) C Protection Board
S (MSPB), w h ich
C denied the appeal
on the ground that,
v as a confidential
. employee, he was
not dismissed from
S the service but his
a term of office
l merely expired.
a
s On appeal, the
CSC issued
– Resolution No. 92-
1283 which
2 affirmed the
7 decision of the
4 MSPB.

S SC affirmed his
C
status as
R
confidential
A
employee.
Pursuant to the
4
provisions of
1
Section 16(e) of
4
Civil Service Act,
which was then in
R (Salas) w as
force when PD No.
appointed by the
1869 creating
PAGCOR Chairman 30
PAGCOR w as
as Internal Security
passed, the Pres.
S ta ff (ISS)
May declare a
member and
position as policy-
assigned to the
determining,
casino at th e
primarily
Manila Pavilion
confidential or
Hotel.
highly technical in
 However, nature.
h is
 Pursuant to
employment
this, PD
was
1869
terminated
declared
f or l os s of
that
confidence.
positions in
30
 the corp. freedom from
are exempt misgivings of
from CSL betrayals of
and shall personal trust
be or
governed confidential
by BOD matters of
policies and state.
a ll casino
employees Thus, at least since
a re the enactment of
confidential the Civil Service
employees. Act of 1959, it is
the nature of the
position w h ich
Prior to the
determines whether
passage of Civil a position is
Service Act of
primarily
1959, there were confidential, policy-
two recognized
determining or
instances when highly technical.
a position may
be considered
primarily Security of Tenure
confidential:
1st: When the 14) Hernandez
President, v. Villegas-
upon 14 SCRA
recommendat 544
ion of the
Commissione  195
r of Civil 5:
Service, has Atty
declared the .
position to be
Vill
primarily
ega
confidential;
s, a
and,
civil
2nd: In the
ser
absence of
vic
such
e
declaration,
elig
when by the
nature of the ible
functions of wa
31
the office s
there exists app
"close oint
intimacy" ed
between the Dir
appointee ect
and or
appointing for
power which Sec
insures urit
freedom of y of
intercourse the
without Bur
embarrassme eau
nt or of
31
 Cu n of
sto Acti
ms ng
(B Dir
OC ect
). or
 195 for
6: Sec
He urit
wa y.
s o H
sen e
t by n
the c
BO e
C
to R
the
US w
for a
furt s
her
stu
a
die
s
s
s
and
i
retu
g
rne
n
d to
e
the
d
Phil
ippi
nes t
a e
yea m
r p
afte o
r. r
a
 Wh
r
en
i
he
l
retu
y
rne
d to 32
Phil a
ippi s
nes
, P A
(Ke r
efe) r
wa a
s s
hol t
din r
g e
the
pos S
itio u
32
 p c
e t
r o
v r
i s
s h
o i
r p
.
 195 i
8: s
Sec
reta a
ry
of c
Fin o
anc n
e f
pro i
pos d
ed e
to n
the t
Pre i
sid a
ent l
to
ma p
ke o
the s
curr i
ent t
pos i
itio o
ns n
of .
P o
and A
R r
per r
ma a
nen s
t. t
The r 33
Pre e
sid
ent S
app u
rov p
ed. e
o T r
h v
e i
s
D o
i r
r
e i
33
 s
w
a h
i
c c
l h
a
s i
s s
i
f
p
i
r
e
i
d
m
a
p
r
o
i
s
l
i
y
t
i
o c
n o
o R n
f
i
w d
a e
s n
t
t i
r a
a l
n
s i
f n
e
r
n
r
a
e
t
d
u
r
f e
r , 34
o
m
t
o
a
a
p n
o o
s t
i h
t e
i r
o ,
n
,
w
34
 i nce
t ,
h ter
o min
u abl
t e at
the
c will
a of
u the
s app
e oint
. ing
 R po
file wer
d a .
peti
tion ISSUE:
for WON it is
quo valid to
war transfer
rant Atty.
o Villegas
wit from
h Director of
CFI Security to
Ma Arrastre
nila Supervisor
. ?
 The
def HELD: NO!
ens  Tha
e of t
DO Vill
F ega
and s'
Exe rem
cuti ova
ve l
Sec fro
reta m
ry the
is offi
35
that ce
the of
Dir Dir
ect ect
ors or
hip for
is a Sec
con urit
fide y is
ntia wit
l hou
pos t
itio cau
n. se
He and
35
 is g
ther h
efor l
e y
ille
gal. T
 Th e
ere c
are h
3 n
cla i
sse c
s of a
pos l
itio o T
ns: h
1. P e
o s
l e
i
c a
y r
- e
d
e e
t x
e e
r m
m p
i t
n
i
f
n
r
g
o
2. P
m
r
i
t
m
h
a
e
r
i
l r
y u
l 36
c e
o
n r
f e
i q
d u
e i
n r
t i
i n
a g
l
3. H a
i p
36
p o
o f
i
n m
t e
m r
e i
n t
t
s a

i f
n i
t
t n
h e
e s
s
C
i a
v s
i
l d
e
S t
e e
r r
v m
i i
c n
e e
d
t
o f
r
b o
e m

m c
a o
d m
e p
e 37

o t
n i
t
t i
h v
e e

b e
a x
s a
i m
s i
n
a
37
 tions.
 But that the Constitution does not 
exempt the holders of 3 positions
from the operation of the principle 16
emphatically and categorically
enumerated in section 4 of Article 
XII: “No officer or employee in the 
Civil Service shall be removed or o
suspended except for cause as
provided by law.”
o Appointees in the 3
positions are not terminable
at will by the appointing
power.
o However, for confidential
position: The termination
of their official relation can
be justified on the ground
of loss of confidence
because in that case their
cessation from office
involves no removal but
merely the expiration of the
term of office.

The distinction between competitive and non-

competitive positions is significant only for
purposes of appointment. However, “officials and
employees holding primarily confidential positions
continue only for so long as confidence in them
endures. The termination of their official relation
can be justified on the ground of loss of confidence
because in that case their cessation from office
involves no removal but the expiration of the term
of office – two different causes for the termination
of the official relations recognized in the Law of
Public Officers.

15) Astraquillo v. Manglapus- 190 SCRA 280

Petitioners were appointed ambassadors to

different countries.

The Secretary of Foreign Affairs, by the authority of 38

the President, then terminated their services.

Petitioners complained and contended that they

were employed under the career service and thus
granted security of tenure.

W/N appointees to the foreign service who do not

belong to the Career Corps enjoy security of tenure
like the Career Corp.?

NO o

Those who are non-career “enter on bases other

than those of the usual test of merit and fitness
38
 y of the recommendation for 17
petitioner’s reassignment, as
approved by Pres. Aquino, was
transmitted by Sec. Gloria to Director 
Rosas for implementation.
o Director Rosas, informed the
petitioner of his reassignment.
 Icasiano requested Sec. Gloria to reconsider
the reassignment, but the latter denied the 
request. 
 Icasiano prepared a letter to Pres. Aquino,
asking for a reconsideration of his
reassignment, and furnished a copy of the
same to the DECS. However, he
subsequently changed his mind and refrained 
from filing the letter with the Office of 
President.
 Petitioner was a permanent employee
transferred to another permanent position
18
without her consent.

W/N such transfer violates security of tenure?

How about temporary transfer?

YES

The transfer of a permanent employee to another

permanent position without the consent of the
employee violates security of tenure.
 Reassignment of petitioner to MIST
"appears to be indefinite".
 The same can be inferred from the
Memorandum of Sec. Gloria for Pres. Fidel
V. Ramos to the effect that the reassignment
of private respondent will "best fit his
qualifications and experience" being "an
expert in vocational and technical
education."
o It can thus be gleaned that subject
reassignment is more than
temporary as the private respondent
has been described as fit for the
(reassigned) job, being an expert in
the field. 39

As to temporary transfer: While a temporary

transfer or assignment of personnel is permissible
even without the employee’s prior consent, it
cannot be done when the transfer is a preliminary
step toward his removal, or is a scheme to lure
him away from his permanent position, or
designed to indirectly terminate his service, or
force his resignation.
 Such a transfer would in effect circumvent
the provision, which safeguards the tenure
of office of those who are in the Civil
Service.

39
declaration that the office is vacant.
 RA 6715 has effected no express abolition of
the positions, neither an implied abolition –
an irrevocable inconsistency between the
nature, duties and functions of the
petitioners’ offices under the old rules and 
those under the new law, RA 6715. o

Right to Organize

19) SSS Employees v. Court of Appeals- 175

SCRA 686

Petitioner SSSEA went on a strike when SSS failed

to act on the union’s demands.
 Thus, SSS filed w/ the RTC a complaint for
damages & asked for a writ of preliminary
injunction to stop the strike, contending that
the union has no right to stage a strike

W/N employees of the Social Security System

have the right to strike?

NO.

Resort to the intent of the framers of the 1987

Constitution points to the understanding that the
right to organize does not include the right to strike.
 While the right to organize and join unions,
associations or societies cannot be curtailed,
government employees may not engage in
strikes to demand changes in the terms and
conditions of employment because the
terms and conditions of employment are
provided by law.

Double Compensation

20) Peralta v. Mathay- 38 SCRA 296

 Petitioner Peralta, a trustee of GSIS, was

granted an optional retirement gratuity of
P40k. 40
o Of that amount, he was not able to
collect the 7k (living allowance,
incentive bonus and Christmas
bonus) by reason that such items
were not passed in audit.
 Respondent Auditor General Mathay stated
that such items are considered as additional
compensation, since a trustee’s
remuneration is fixed by law at a per diem
of P25 for every board meeting attended.

Whether an officer’s pay provided by law composed

of a fixed per diem, and additional compensation in

40
 g such extra reward.
 But when a per diem or an allowance is 
given as reimbursement for expenses
incident to the discharge of an officer’s
duties, it is not an additional compensation
prohibited by the Constitution.


21) Santos v. Court of Appeals- 345 SCRA

553

Upon optional retirement from the judiciary,

petitioner was fully paid of his retirement gratuity.

5 years thereafter, he has been receiving a

monthly pension.

Thereafter, he was appointed Director III of the

defunct Metropolitan Manila Authority (MMA).

Petitioner can continue to receive his pension while

receiving his salary as Director.
 The second paragraph of Section 8
means that a retiree receiving pension or
gratuity can continue to receive such
pension or gratuity even if he accepts
another government position to which
another compensation is attached.

But upon separation from the MMA, petitioner’s

separation pay does not include his years of
service in the judiciary.
 That would be would be double
compensation for the same service in the
judiciary for which he has already been
paid.
 The law creating the MMA does not
specifically authorize payment of
additional compensation for years of
government service outside of the MMA.

22) Singson vs. Commission on Audit -

G.R. No. 159355, August 9, 2010
41
 The Philippine International Convention
Center, Inc. (PICCI) is a government
corporation whose stockholder is the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP).
 Petitioners are members of the PICCI and
officials of the BSP.
 PICCI By-Laws authorized petitioners to
receive P1,000 per diem each for every
meeting attended.
 Pursuant to Monetary Board (MB)
Resolution No. 15, amended by MB
Resolution No. 34, the BSP granted
additional monthly Representation and
Transportation Allowance (RATA), in the
41
 considered as additional, double or indirect 
compensation.
 The RATA is distinct from salary (as a form
of compensation).
o Unlike salary which is paid for
services rendered, the RATA is a
form of allowance intended to
defray expenses deemed
unavoidable in the discharge of
office.
o Hence, the RATA is paid only to
certain officials who, by the nature
of their offices, incur representation
and transportation expenses.
 Also, what is prohibited is the dual/ multiple
collection of RATA from the budgets of 2 or
more national agencies.
o When national official is on detail
with another national agency, he
should get his RATA only from his
parent national agency and not
from the other national agency he is
detailed to.
o RATA granted by the BSP and the
additional RATA also granted by the
BSP did not constitute double
compensation.

B. Commission on Elections

Section 1.

(1) There shall be a Commission on Elections

composed of a Chairman and six
Commissioners who shall be natural-born
citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of
their appointment, at least thirty-five years of
age, holders of a college degree, and must
not have been candidates for any elective
positions in the immediately preceding
elections. However, a majority thereof,
including the Chairman, shall be members of
the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in
the practice of law for at least ten years. 42
(2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall
be appointed by the President with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments
for a term of seven years without
reappointment. Of those first appointed, three
Members shall hold office for seven years,
two Members for five years, and the last
Members for three years, without
reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy
shall be only for the unexpired term of the
predecessor. In no case shall any Member
be appointed or designated in a temporary or
acting capacity.

Initiative
42
 amendments to the Constitution or to
propose and enact legislation through an 
election called for the purpose.
 May be for the Constitution, Statutes or
Local legislation.

Referendum
 Power of the electorate to approve o r reject
legislation through an election called for the
purpose.
 May be for an Act or Law, and Local law.

Qualifications and Prohibitions

23) Brilliantes v. Yorac- 192 SCRA 358

Respondent was appointed as Acting Chairman

of the COMELEC in view of the vacancy in the
seat.

Petitioner contended that the President has no

authority to appoint “temporary commissioners”
because it would undermine the independence of
the Commission.

W/N Pres. Can appoint temporary

commissioners?

NO

The designation by the President of a

commissioner as acting chairman of the
COMELEC is invalid because Art. 9(C) prohibits
the appointment of members in a temporary or
acting capacity.
 Moreover, Art. 11(A,1) provides for the
independence of the Commission.
 The choice of temporary chairman falls
under the discretion of the Commission
and not exercised by the President.

24) Cayetano v. Monsod- 201 SCRA 296 43

Monsod was nominated by Pres. Aquino as

Comelec Chairman, which was confirmed by the
CoA despite Cayetano’s objection based on the
alleged lack of the required qualification of 10 year
law practice.

W/N Monsod has been engaged in the practice of

law for 10 years?

YES.

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of

court, which requires the application of law, legal
43
 (6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own 
initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or 
exclusion of voters; investigate and, where o
appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of
election laws, including acts or omissions
constituting election frauds, offenses, and
malpractices.
(7) Recommend to the Congress effective
measures to minimize election spending,
including limitation of places where
propaganda materials shall be posted, and to
prevent and penalize all forms of election
frauds, offenses, malpractices, and nuisance
candidacies.
(8) Recommend to the President the removal of
any officer or employee it has deputized, or
the imposition of any other disciplinary action,
for violation or disregard of, or disobedience
to, its directive, order, or decision.
(9) Submit to the President and the Congress, a
comprehensive report on the conduct of each
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or
recall.

Powers and Functions

25) LDP v. Comelec- February 24, 2004

Prior to the May 2004 elections, the Laban ng

Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) has been divided
because of a struggle of authority between Party
Chair Edgardo Angara and Party Secretary General
Agapito Aquino, both having endorsed 2 different
sets of candidates under the same party, LDP.
 The matter was brought to the COMELEC.

The Commission in its resolution, has recognized

the factions creating 2 subparties: LDP Angara Wing
and LDP Aquino Wing.

Was such resolution correct?

NO.

The broad power that has been granted to the

44
COMELEC by the Constitution includes the
ascertainment of the identity of a political party
and its legitimate officers.

As such, SC cancelled the COMELEC’s resolution

dividing the LDP into “wings,” each of which may
nominate candidates for May elective positions
and be entitled to a representation in the election
committees that the COMELEC may create.
 Court cannot help but be baffled by the
COMELEC’s ruling declining to inquire into
which party officer has the authority to sign
and endorse certificates of candidacy of the
party’s nominees

44
 nctions include signing documents
for and on its of the party
o The Secretary General, on the
other hand, assists the Party
Chairman in overseeing the day-to-
day operations of the Party and 
only when empowered by the Party
Chairman, is he to sign documents
for and on behalf of the Party.
o Therefore, the Sec Gen has only a
delegated power, which originally
pertains to the Party Chairman.

Cases reviewable by SC: has jurisdiction over

intra-party disputes i.e. identity of political party
& its officers

26) Sison v. Comelec- March 3, 1999

While election returns were being canvassed by

the QC Board of Canvassers and before
proclamation of winners, P Sison commenced a
suit before the Comelec to suspend canvassing of
votes and/or declare failure of election in QC on
the ground of massive and orchestrated fraud (no
seals were included, brought home by inspectors,
missing election returns, suspicious persons
sneaking election returns in the canvassing area,
among others).
 Comelec denied.

SC affirmed, no grave abuse of discretion on

Comelec.

3 instances where a failure of election may be

declared (BP 881):
1. The election in any polling place has not
been held on the date fixed on account of
force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or
other analogous causes;
2. The election in any polling place had been
suspended before the hour fixed by law for
the closing of the voting on account of force
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other
45
analogous causes;
3. After the voting and during the preparation
and transmission of the election returns or in
the custody or canvass thereof, such
election results in a failure to elect on
account of force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes.

Since none exists, there can be no proclamation of

failure of election.

27) Sambarani v. Comelec- September 15,

2004

45
 cessation of the cause of the
postponement and thus ordered the DILG. 
o
Hence, this Petition alleging GAD on Comelec.

YES.

The prohibition on conducting special elections not

later than 30 days from the cessation of the cause
of the failure of elections is not absolute.
 It is directory, not mandatory, and the
COMELEC possesses residual power to
conduct special elections even beyond the
deadline prescribed by law.
 The deadline cannot defeat the right of
suffrage of the people as guaranteed by the
Constitution.

The COMELEC has broad power or authority to fix

other dates for special elections to enable the
people to exercise their right of suffrage.
 The COMELEC may fix other dates for the
conduct of special elections when the same
cannot be reasonably held within the period
prescribed by law.

Officials have the right to remain in office as

barangay chairmen in a hold-over capacity until
their successors shall have been elected and
qualified.
 The application of the hold-over principle
preserves continuity in the transaction of
official business and prevents a hiatus in
government pending the assumption of a
successor into office.

28) Datu Abas Kida vs. Senate – G.R.

No. 196271, February 28, 2012
These motions assail the Court’s Decision where it
upheld the constitutionality of RA 10153, which
postponed the regional elections in the ARMM and
recognized the President’s power to appoint
officers-in-charge to temporarily assume these 46
positions upon the expiration of the terms of the
elected officials.

Comelec then called for special election in ARMM.

Does it have such power?

NO

The Constitution has merely empowered the

COMELEC to enforce and administer all laws and
regulations relative to the conduct of an election.
 Although the legislature, under the Omnibus
Election Code (BP 881) has granted the
COMELEC the power to postpone elections
46
 scheduled to take place but do not
occur or had to be suspended
because of unexpected and
unforeseen circumstances, such as 
violence, fraud, terrorism, and other
analogous circumstances. 30
 In contrast, the ARMM elections were
postponed by law, in furtherance of the 
constitutional mandate of synchronization of o
national and local elections.
o Obviously, this does not fall under
any of t he circumstances
contemplated by Sections 5 or 6 of
BP 881.
 More importantly, RA 10153 has already
fixed the date for the next ARMM elections
and the COMELEC has no authority to set a
different election date.

29) Pangilinan v. Comelec- 228 SCRA 36

Pangilinan and Belmonte were both candidates for

congressman in the 4th legislative district of Quezon
Cit.

 Belmonte was alleged to have violated the

Omnibus Election Code by giving money and
other material considerations to influence,
induce or corrupt the voters (giving sacks of
rice, ticket to Hong Kong, etc).

Pangilinan filed an Urgent Motion to Suspend the

Canvass and Proclamation of Belmonte but
COMELEC ignored the said motion.

 COMELEC argued that they are not able to

judge on pre-proclamation cases involving
members of House of Representatives under
Section 15 of R.A. 7166 and COMELEC
Resolution 2413 stating that no pre-
proclamation cases for election of President,
Vice-President, Senator and Members of
House of Representatives shall be allowed on 47
matters relating to preparation, transmission,
receipt, custody, and appreciation of the
election returns or certificate of canvass
except for manifest errors.

 The law disallowed COMELEC’s jurisdiction

over pre proclamation controversies in the
election of the Members of the House of
Representatives.

Petitioner contends the unconstitutionality of the

law.

47
 ication by the COMELEC of its
election-related mandate under the
Constitution, which is to enforce and
administer all laws relative to the
conduct of elections. This is indicated
in Art. 3.3 of the contract where it
specifically states:
 SMARTMATIC, as the joint
venture partner with the
greater track record in
automated elections, shall be
in charge of the technical
aspects of the counting and
canvassing software and
hardware, including
transmission configuration
and system integration.
SMARTMATIC shall also be
primarily responsible for
preventing and
troubleshooting technical
problems that may arise
during the elections.

Issue: WON there is an abdication by the COMELEC
of its Constitutional functions.

Ruling: NO

 The first function of the COMELEC under the

Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code
for that matter relates to the enforcement
and administration of all laws and
regulations relating to the conduct of
elections to public office to ensure a free,
orderly and honest electoral exercise.
 The RFP (Request for Proposal), which forms
an integral part of the automation contract,
states the requirement of a complete solutions
provider which can provide effective overall
nationwide project management service
under COMELEC supervision and control. 48
 Sec. 6.7 of the contract also states:
o Subject to the provisions of the
General Instructions to be issued by
the Commission En Banc, the entire
processes of voting, counting,
transmission, consolidation and
canvassing of votes shall be
conducted by COMELECs
personnel and officials, and their
performance, completion and final
results according to specifications and
within the specified periods shall be
the shared responsibility of
48
 the automation project, such as but not limited
to the PCOS machines, PCs, electronic
transmission devices and related equipment,
both hardware and software, and the technical
services pertaining to their operation.
o As lessees of the goods and the
back-up equipment, the corporation
and its operators would provide
assistance with respect to the
machines to be used by the Comelec
which, at the end of the day, will be
conducting the election thru its
personnel and whoever it deputizes. 


31) Arroyo v. DOJ - G .R. No.

199082 , 23 July 2013 - 
BAUTISTA 

The Comelec issued Resolution No. 9266

approving the creation of a joint committee with
the Department of Justice (DOJ), which shall
conduct preliminary investigation on the alleged
election offenses and anomalies committed
during the 2004 and 2007 elections.

The Comelec and the DOJ issued Joint Order

No. 001-2011 creating and constituting a Joint
Committee and Fact-Finding Team on the 2004
and 2007 National Elections electoral fraud and
manipulation cases composed of officials from
the DOJ and the Comelec.
 In its initial report, the Fact-Finding Team
concluded that manipulation of the
results in the May 14, 2007 senatorial
elections in the provinces of North and
South Cotabato and Maguindanao were
indeed perpetrated.
 The Fact-Finding Team recommended
that herein petitioners Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo (GMA), et al. to be subjected to
preliminary investigation for electoral
sabotage. 49

After the preliminary investigation, the

COMELEC en banc adopted a resolution
ordering that information/s for the crime of
electoral sabotage be filed against GMA, et al.
while that the charges against Jose Miguel
Arroyo, among others, should be dismissed for
insufficiency of evidence.

Consequently, GMA, et al. assail the validity of

the creation of COMELEC-DOJ Joint Panel and
of Joint Order No. 001-2011 before the Supreme
Court.

49
eliminate discrimination and oppression based
on inequality. Recognizing the existence of real 
differences among men, it does not demand 
absolute equality. It merely requires that all 
persons under like circumstances and conditions o
shall be treated alike both as to privileges
conferred and liabilities enforced.

DISMISSED.

32) Cagas v. Comelec - G.R. No. 209185,

October 25, 2013 – BISNAR
 House Bill No. 4451, creating the
province of Davao Occidental, was
signed into a law as RA 10360 (Charter
of the Province of Davao Occidental).
 RA 10360 provides that the date for
holding the plebiscite:
o Sec. 46. Plebiscite. – The
Province of Davao Occidental
shall be created, as provided for
in this Charter, upon approval by
the majority of the votes cast by
the voters of the affected areas
in a plebiscite to be conducted
and supervised by the
Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) within sixty (60)
days from the date of the
effectivity of this Charter.
 As RA 10360 was only published on Jan.
12, 2013, it only had until Apr. 6, 2013 to
conduct the plebiscite.
 COMELEC had suspended the conduct
all plebiscites because of the
preparations for the May 13, 2013
National and Local Elections.
 COMELEC then decided to hold the
plebiscite simultaneously with the Oct.
28, 2013 Barangay Elections to save on
expenses.
 Marc Douglas Cagas IV filed a Petition
for Prohibition, claiming that the
COMELEC is without authority to hold a 50
plebiscite this coming October 28, 2013
for the creation of the Province of Davao
Occidental because Section 46 of
Republic Act No. 10360 has already
lapsed.

Issue: Did the COMELEC act without or in

excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction when it resolved to hold the plebiscite
for the creation of the Province of Davao
Occidental on 28 October 2013, simultaneous
with the Barangay Elections?

50
 he legislature in Section 8,
Article VI and of the President
and Vice-President in Section 4,
Article VII.
 The Constitution grants the COMELEC
the power to "enforce and administer all
laws and regulations relative to the
conduct of an election, plebiscite,
initiative, referendum and recall."
o The COMELEC has "exclusive
charge of the enforcement and
administration of all laws relative
to the conduct of elections for
the purpose of ensuring free,
orderly and honest elections."
o The text and intent of Section
2(1) of Article IX(C) is to give
COMELEC "all the necessary
and incidental powers for it to
achieve the objective of holding
free, orderly, honest, peaceful
and credible elections.
 The Omnibus Election Code provides
the COMELEC the power to set
elections on another date in cases of
serious cause such as violence,
terrorism, loss or destruction of election
paraphernalia or records, force majeure,
and other analogous causes of such a
nature that the holding of a free, orderly
and honest election should become
impossible.
 The tight time frame in the enactment,
signing into law, and effectivity of R.A.
No. 10360, coupled with the subsequent
conduct of the National and Local
Elections on 13 May 2013 as mandated
by the Constitution, rendered impossible
the holding of a plebiscite for the
creation of the province of Davao
Occidental on or before 6 April 2013 as
scheduled in R.A. No. 10360.
o COMELEC’s burden in the
accreditation and registration of 51
candidates for the Party-List
Elections was considered.
o The logistic and financial
impossibility of holding a
plebiscite so close to the
National and Local Elections is
unforeseen and unexpected, a
cause analogous to force
majeure and administrative
mishaps covered in Section 5 of
B.P. Blg. 881.
o The COMELEC is justified, and
did not act with grave abuse of
discretion, in postponing the
51
 ental to 28 October 2013 to
synchronize it with the Barangay
Elections.
 The legal compass from which the
COMELEC should take its bearings in 
acting upon election controversies is the
principle that "clean elections control the o
appropriateness of the remedy."
o In fixing the date for special
elections the COMELEC should
see to it that:
1. It should not be later
than thirty (30) days
after the cessation of the
cause of the
postponement or
suspension of the
election or the failure to
elect; and
2. It should be reasonably
close to the date of the
election not held,
suspended or which
resulted in the failure to
elect.
 This must be
determined in
the light of the
peculiar
circumstances
of a case.
 Thus, the
holding of
elections within
the next few
months from the
cessation of the
cause of the
postponement,
suspension or
failure to elect
may still be
considered
"reasonably 52
close to the date
of the election
not held."

Jurisdiction

33) Sarmiento v. Comelec- 212 SCRA 307

Several appeals on pre-proclamation
controversies were heard and tried by COMELEC
en banc without being heard first by the
subdivision.

Petitioners dispute such assumption of jurisdiction

saying that such is invalid.
52
 visions, and shall promulgate its rules
of procedure in order to expedite
disposition of election cases,
including pre-proclamation
controversies. All such election
cases shall be heard and decided
in division, provided that motions

for reconsideration of decisions 
shall be decided by the
Commission en banc.

 Thus, it is clear that election cases include

pre-proclamation controversies, and all such
cases must first be heard and decided by a
Division of the Commission. The Commission,
sitting en banc, does not have the authority to
hear and decide the same at the first instance.

 Said resolutions are, therefore, null and void

and must be set aside.
 Consequently, the appeals are deemed
pending before the Commission for proper
referral to a Division.

However, Section 16 of R.A. No. 7166 6 provides

that all pre- proclamation cases pending before it
shall be deemed terminated at the beginning of the
term of the office involved.

34) Flores v. Comelec- 184 SCRA 484

Petitioner Roque Flores was declared by the board

of canvassers as having the highest number of
votes for kagawad on the March 1989 elections, in
Barangay Poblacion, Tayum, Abra, and thus
proclaimed punong barangay in accordance with
Section 5 of R.A. 6679.

However, his election was protested by private

respondent Rapisora, who placed second in the
election with one vote less.

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tayum sustained 53

Rapisora and installed him as punong barangay in
place of the petitioner after deducting two votes as
stray from the latter’s total upon finding that 4 votes
cast for “Flores” only, without any distinguishing first
name or initial, should all have been considered
invalid instead of being divided equally between the
petitioner and Anastacio Flores, another candidate.

RTC affirmed. The total credited to the petitioner

was correctly reduced by 2, demoting him to second
place.

The petitioner went to the COMELEC, which

dismissed his appeal on the ground that it had no

53
 be appealed to the RTC, must be declared
unconstitutional 

35) People v. Hon. Delgado- 189 SCRA 715 

COMELEC received a report-complaint from the

Election Registrar of Toledo City against private
respondents for alleged violation of the Omnibus
Election Code, this resulted in the Preliminary
investigation and the filing of an information
against each of the private respondents. 

The COMELEC en banc resolved to file the 
information the RTC of Toledo City.

Private respondents filed MRs on the ground that 

no PI was conducted.

Later, an order was issued by respondent court 

directing the COMELEC to conduct a o
reinvestigation of said cases.

The COMELEC Prosecutor filed a MR and

opposition to the motion for reinvestigation
alleging therein that it is only the SC that may
review the decisions, orders, rulings and
resolutions of the COMELEC. This was denied by
the court.

SC Affirmed.

RTC has authority to review the actions of the

COMELEC in the investigation and prosecution of
election offenses filed in said court.

Indeed as provided in Section 7, Article IX unless

otherwise provided by law, any decision, order or
ruling of the COMELEC may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party
within 30 days from receipt of copy.

However, under Section 268 of the Omnibus

Election Code, which applies, states that RTCs
have exclusive original jurisdiction to try and
decide any criminal action or proceedings for 54
violation of this Code.
 Thus, when the COMELEC, through its
duly authorized law officer, conducts the PI
of an election offense and upon a prima
facie finding of a probable cause, files the
information in the proper court, said court
thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case.
 Consequently, all the subsequent
disposition of said case must be subject to
the approval of the court.

36) People v. Judge Inting- 187 SCRA 788

Mrs. Editha Barba filed a letter-complaint against

54
 ice.

37) Jaramilla v. Comelec- 414 SCRA 337 38

R Antonio Suyat and P Alberto Jaramilla both ran

for Member of the Sangguniang Bayan in Sta.
Cruz, Ilocos Sur in the 2001 elections.

Municipal Board of Canvassers of Sta. Cruz,

proclaimed Jaramilla as one of the winning
candidates for members of the Sangguniang
Bayan.
 He ranked 7th obtaining 4815 votes.
 Suyat obtained (4,779) votes and was
ranked no. 9.

Upon review by Suyat, he discovered that P was

credited with 73 votes instead of just (23) votes or
(50) votes more than what he actually obtained.

 If the entry were to be corrected, Suyat
would have ranked 8th and should have
been one of the winning candidates in the
Sangunian.

COMELEC en banc then ordered that a board of

canvassers reconvene.

Does the Commission en banc have jurisdiction?


YES

Election cases including pre-proclamation 39

controversies should first be heard and decided by
a division of the COMELEC, and then by the
commission en banc if a motion for
reconsideration of the division is filed.
 However that this provision applies only in
cases where the COMELEC exercises its
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, and

not when it merely exercises purely
administrative functions.

Thus, when the case demands only the exercise by

the COMELEC of its

55
administrative functions, such as the correction of

a manifest mistake in the addition of votes or an

erroneous tabulation in the statement of votes, the
COMELEC en banc can directly act on it in the
exercise of its constitutional function to decide

questions affecting elections.


In this case, the issue is an error in the tabulation
of the results, which merely requires a clerical
correction without the necessity of opening ballot
boxes or examining ballots, demands only the
exercise of the administrative power of the
COMELEC.

Hence, t he Commission en banc properly

55
 removal- may be recommended by the
Comelec to the President rather than
directly imposed by the Comelec, evidently, 41
to pre-empt and avoid potential difficulties
with the executive department.

40) Tan v. Comelec- 237 SCRA 353

P, incumbent City Prosecutor of Davao City, was
designated by the
COMELEC as Vice Chairman of the City Board of
Canvassers of Davao City for the 1992 elections.
Manuel Garcia was proclaimed to present the 2nd
District of Davao City in the House of
Representatives. Private respondent Alterado,
himself a candidate for the position, filed a number
of cases questioning the validity of the
proclamation of
42
Garcia and accusing the members of the City
Board of Canvassers of "unlawful, erroneous,

incomplete and irregular canvass. Meanwhile, the

electoral protest of private respondent Alterado
was dismissed by the HRET. The criminal
complaint for "Falsification of Public Documents
and Violation of the AntiGraft and Corrupt
Practices Act" before the OMB was likewise
dismissed on the ground of lack of criminal intent
on the part of therein respondents. Still pending is
this administrative charge instituted in the
COMELEC against the City Board of Canvassers,
including herein petitioner, for "Misconduct,
Neglect of Duty, Gross Incompetence and Acts
Inimical to the Service."
Petitioner moved to dismiss for alleged lack of
jurisdiction of the COMELEC, he being under the
Executive Department. The COMELEC denied
petitioner's motion to dismiss.

SC: Has Jurisdiction

The COMELEC's authority under Section 2(6-8),
Article IX, of the Constitution is virtually all
encompassing when it comes to election matters.
It should be stressed that the administrative case
in the COMELEC, is in relation to the performance
of his duties as an election canvasser and not as a 56
city prosecutor. The COMELEC's mandate
includes its authority to exercise direct and
immediate supervision and control over officials
required by law to perform duties relative to the
conduct of elections.

It is the COMELEC, being in the best position to

assess how its deputized officials and employees
perform or have performed in their duties, that
should conduct the administrative inquiry.
Otherwise, it would unduly deny to it sound
exercise of such recommendatory power.
However, while COMELEC merely may issue a
recommendation for disciplinary action, it is still
the executive department to which the charged
56
 to conduct a fact-finding investigation on the
conduct of elections and certificates of
canvass from Maguindanao.
 Bedol was required to appear before the Task
Force, but to do so.
o He also came out on national
newspapers in an exclusive interview
with the ‘Inquirer’ and GMA-7, with a
gleaming 45 caliber pistol strapped to
his side, and in clear defiance of the
Commission posted the challenge by
saying that “those that are saying that
there was cheating in Maguindanao,
file a case against me tomorrow, the
next day. They should file a case now
and I will answer their accusations.” 3.
 COMELEC held Bedol in contempt.
 Bedol questions the COMELEC’s jurisdiction
to initiate or prosecute the contempt
proceedings against him.
o He claimed that the COMELEC
exceeded its jurisdiction in initiating
the contempt proceedings when it
was performing is administrative
functions as National Board of
Canvassers -- not its quasi-judicial
functions.

Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC has jurisdiction

to initiate or prosecute the contempt proceedings
against Bedol?

Ruling: Yes.
 COMELEC possesses the power to conduct
investigations as an adjunct to its
constitutional duty to enforce and administer
all election laws, by virtue of the explicit
provisions of paragraph 6, Section 2, Article IX
of the 1987 Constitution, which reads:
o (6) xxx; investigate and, where
appropriate, prosecute cases of
violations of election laws, including
acts or omissions constituting election
frauds, offenses, and malpractices.
 The provision gives COMELEC all the 57
necessary and incidental power for it to
achieve the objective of holding free, orderly,
honest, peaceful, and credible elections.
 The powers and functions of the COMELEC
may be classified into:
1. Administrative
 Refers to the enforcement
and administration of election
laws.
2. Quasi-legislative
 Refers to the issuance of
rules and regulations to
implement the election laws
and to exercise such
57
 oversies; and of all contests
relating to the elections,
returns, and qualifications.
 It is the power to hear and 43
determine questions of fact to
which the legislative policy is
to apply and to decide in
accordance with the
standards laid down by the
law itself in enforcing and
administering the same law.
 The administrative body
exercises its quasi-judicial
power when it performs in a
judicial manner an act which
is essentially of an executive
or administrative nature,
where the power to act in
such manner is incidental to
or reasonably necessary for
the performance of the
executive or administrative
duty entrusted to it. In
carrying out their quasi-
judicial functions the
administrative officers or
bodies are required to
investigate facts or ascertain
the existence of facts, hold
hearings, weigh evidence, 44
and draw conclusions from
them as basis for their official
action and exercise of
discretion in a judicial nature.
 The COMELEC, through the Task Force
Maguindanao, was exercising its quasi-judicial
power in pursuit of the truth behind the
allegations of massive fraud during the
elections in Maguindanao.
 The effectiveness of the quasi–judicial power
vested by law on a government institution
hinges on its authority to compel attendance
of the parties and/or their witnesses at the
hearings or proceedings.
o Arnault v. Nazareno: Experience has 58
shown that mere requests for such
information are often unavailing, and
also that information which is
volunteered is not always accurate or
complete; so some means of
compulsion is essential to obtain what
is needed.
 To withhold from the COMELEC the power to
punish individuals who refuse to appear
during a fact-finding investigation, despite a
previous notice and order to attend, would
render nugatory the COMELEC’s investigative
power, which is an essential incident to its
constitutional mandate to secure the conduct
58
controversies. All such election cases shall be heard
and decided in division, provided that motions for
reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the
Commission en banc.

Section 4. The Commission may, during the election

period, supervise or regulate the enjoyment or
utilization of all franchises or permits for the operation
of transportation and other public utilities, media of
communication or information, all grants, special
privileges, or concessions granted by the Government
or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
including any government-owned or controlled
corporation or its subsidiary. Such supervision or
regulation shall aim to ensure equal opportunity, time,
and space ,and the right to reply, including
reasonable, equal rates therefor, for public information
campaigns and forums among candidates in
connection with the objective of holding free, orderly,
honest, peaceful, and credible elections.

Section 5. No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension

of sentence for violation of election laws, rules, and
regulations shall be granted by the President without
the favorable recommendation of the Commission.

Section 6. A free and open party system shall be

allowed to evolve according to the free choice of the
people, subject to the provisions of this Article.

Section 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party,

organization, or coalition shall be valid, except for
those registered under the party-list system as
provided in this Constitution.

Section 8. Political parties, or organizations or

coalitions registered under the party-list system, shall
not be represented in the voters' registration boards, 45
boards of election inspectors, boards of canvassers,
or other similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled
to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law.

Section 9. Unless otherwise fixed by the Commission

in special cases, the election period shall commence 59
ninety days before the day of election and shall end
thirty days thereafter.

Section 10. Bona fide candidates for any public office

shall be free from any form of harassment and
discrimination.

Section 11. Funds certified by the Commission as

necessary to defray the expenses for holding regular
and special elections, plebiscites, initiatives,
referenda, and recalls, shall be provided in the regular
or special appropriations and, once approved, shall be
released automatically upon certification by the
Chairman of the Commission.

59
Chairman accorded him a fresh term of 7 years
which is yet to lapse, or until Feb. 2, 2015, or 7 5.
years reckoned from Feb. 2, 2008 when he was
appointed as Chair.

Is his contention valid?

NO

To sum up, the Court restates its ruling on Sec.

1(2), Art. IX(D):
1. The appointment of members of any of the
3 constitutional commissions, after the
expiration of the uneven terms of office of
the first set of commissioners, shall always
be for a fixed term 7 years; an appointment
for a lesser period is void and
unconstitutional. The appointing authority
cannot validly shorten the full term of 7
years in case of the expiration of the term
as this will result in the distortion of the
rotational system prescribed by the
Constitution.
2. Appointments to vacancies resulting from
certain causes (death, resignation, disability
or impeachment) shall only be for the
unexpired portion of the term of the
predecessor, but such appointments cannot
be less than the unexpired portion as this
will likewise disrupt the staggering of terms
laid down under Sec. 1(2), Art. IX(D).
3. Members of the Commission, e.g. COA,
COMELEC or CSC, who were appointed for
a full term of 7 years and who served the
entire period, are barred from reappointment
to any position in the Commission.
Corollarily, the first appointees in the
Commission under the Constitution are also
covered by the prohibition against
reappointment.
4. A commissioner who resigns after serving in
the Commission for less than 7 years is
eligible for an appointment to the position of
Chairman for the unexpired portion of the
term of the departing chairman. Such
appointment is not covered by the ban on
reappointment, provided that the aggregate
60
period of the length of service as
commissioner and the unexpired period of
the term of the predecessor will not exceed
7 years and provided further that the
vacancy in the position of Chairman resulted
from death, resignation, disability or removal
by impeachment. The Court clarifies that
“reappointment” found in Sec. 1(2), Art.
IX(D) means a movement to one and the
s am e office (Commissioner to
Commissioner or Chairman to Chairman).
On the other hand, an appointment involving
a movement to a different position or office
(Commissioner to Chairman) would
constitute a new appointment and, hence,
not, in the strict legal sense, a
60
 s and Functions
46) Dingcong v. Guingona, Jr. - 162 SCRA
782
Atty. Praxedio P. Dingcong, was the former Acting
Regional Director (RD) of Regional Office No. VI of
the Bureau of Treasury in Iloilo City. On 3
occasions, after public bidding, contracted, on an
"emergency labor basis," the services of a private
carpenter and electrician on "pakyao" basis for the
renovation and improvement of the Bureau of 48
Treasury Office, Iloilo City. This contract was
disallowed by the COA as being "excessive and
disadvantageous to the government".

W/N the disallowance of the “pakyao” contract by

COA is invalid for being a usurpation of a
management function and an impairment of
contract?

NO

Not only is the COA vested with the power and

authority, but it is also charged with the duty, to
examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to
expenditures or uses of funds owned by, or
pertaining to, the Government or any of its
subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities. That
authority extends to the accounts of all persons
respecting funds or properties received or held by
them in an accountable capacity. In the exercise of
its jurisdiction, it determines W/N the fiscal
responsibility that rests directly with the head of the
government agency has been properly and
effectively discharged and whether or not there has
been loss or wastage of government resources. It is
also empowered to review and evaluate contracts.

Thus, the disallowance made by COA is neither

illegal nor a usurpation of a management function.
The authority of the petitioner, as agency head, to
enter into a contract is not being curtailed. What
COA maintains is that the "pakyao" contract has
proved disadvantageous to the government.
Note: SC set aside the decision of COA of
disallowing the pakyao contract. SC ruled that the 61
pakyao contract is not disadvantageous to the
government.

47) Danville Maritime, Inc. v. COA - 175

SCRA 701
Danville seeks to set aside the letter-directive of the
COA disapproving the result of the public bidding
held by the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC)
of the sale of its tanker-vessel "T/T Andres
Bonifacio" on the ground that there was only 1
bidder.

W/N COA has the power to interpret the meaning

of “public bidding” and what constitutes its “failure”
and rule that there was a failure of bidding when
61
ascertainment of whether a crime committed
and by whom is definitely another.
50
It is obvious that Congress itself is not in a position
to oversee and supervise the actual release of each
and every appropriation. That is where the Auditor
General comes in. It is the responsibility of his office
to exact obedience to any law that allows the
expenditure of public funds. He serves as the
necessary check to make certain that no
department of the government, especially its main
spending arm, the Executive, exceeds the statutory
limits of the appropriation to which it is entitled. That
is the purpose and end calling for the creation of
such an office, certainly not the enforcement of
criminal statutes.
51
49) Mamaril v. Domingo - 227 SCRA 206
Narciso Mamaril w as formerly an 
Evaluator/Computer of the LTO at its San Pablo City 
Branch. In the course of the performance of his 
o
duties, he committed errors in his evaluation and
computation, resulting in the under collection of
registration, license and other miscellaneous fees
and penalties. Petitioner availed of the Early
Retirement Program under RA 6683. As a result of
the decision of the COA, holding that the amount of
P44,515.90 be withheld from petitioner’s terminal
leave pay other than his retirement gratuity, he has
not received in full the benefits due him from his
retirement. Petitioner contended that he could not
be held liable on the audit disallowances because
he was not an accountable officer within the
meaning of Section 101 of P.D. No. 1445 (1978)
since: (a) his work was purely clerical; (b) he did not
come into possession of any money or property for
which he is now asked to pay; and (c) he did not act
in bad faith or with gross negligence.

Whether or not COA has the power over non

accountable officers?

YES
62
The responsibility for state audit is vested by the
Constitution on the COA. State audit is not
limited to the auditing of the accountable officers
and the settlement of accounts, but includes
accounting functions and the adoption in the
audited agencies of internal controls to see to it
that the correct fees and penalties due the
government are collected. The verification of the
correctness of the evaluation and computation of
the fees and penalties collectible under the Land
Transportation Law are parts of the functions of
the COA, which examines and audits revenue
accounts.

When any person is indebted to any government

62
 t vehicle.
 Regional Auditor Martha Roxana Canburian
disallowed his claim.
 Bustamante’s appeal to the Commission on
Audit was denied
 Hence, the present petition where
Bustamante claims that:
o Under the NPC Charter (RA 6395),
the NPC has the power to formulate
and adopt policies and measure for
the its management and operation.
 It is in pursuance to this,
that Resolution 81-95,
authorizing the monthly
reimbursement of
representation and
transportation allowance,
was passed.
o Therefore, the Commission on
Audit usurped the statutory
functions of the NPC to promulgate
its own rules.

Issue: Whether or not the Commission on Audit

usurped the NPC’s authority to promulgate its own
rules?

Ruling: No.
 The Constitution provides that the
Commission on Audit shall have the power
and function to examine, audit, and settle,
in accordance with law and regulations, and
receipts of, and expenditures or uses of
funds and property, owned or held in trust
by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any
of its subdivisions, agencies, or
instrumentalities, including government-
owned or controlled corporations; keep the
general accounts of the Government and,
for such period vouchers pertaining thereto;
and promulgate accounting and auditing
rules and regulations including those for the o
prevention of irregular, unnecessary,
excessive, or extravagant expenditures or 63
uses of funds and property. (1973
Constitution)
 In the exercise of such power it
promulgated COA Circular No. 75-6 dated
November 7, 1975, regulating the use of
government motor vehicles, aircrafts and
watercrafts, which, among others, provides:
o VI. Prohibition Against Use of
Government Vehicles by Officials
provided with transportation
allowance ––

No official which has been

furnished motor transportation

63
 t motor vehicle and the claim for
transportation allowance are
mutually exclusive. 53
 Bustamante’s contention that the
Commission, in the exercise of its power
granted by the Constitution, usurped the
statutory functions of the NPC Board of
Directors, cannot be sustained for its leads
to the absurd conclusion that a mere Board
of Directors of a government-owned and
controlled corporation, by issuing a
resolution, can put to naught a
constitutional provision which has been
ratified by the majority of the Filipino
people.
o If the Commission's power and
duty to examine, audit and settle
accounts pertaining to this
particular expenditures or use of
funds and property, owned or held
in trust by this government-owned
and controlled corporation (NPC) is
not sustained, this Constitutional
Body, which has been tasked to be
vigilant and conscientious in
safeguarding the proper use of the
government's, and ultimately, the
people's property, will be rendered
inutile.

52) Orocio v. COA - 213 SCRA 109

An accident occurred in one of the plants of NPC
were an employee of a contractor was injured. The
management of NPC released funds for the injured
party. The COA disallowed it and held liable those
involved in the release of funds. Management
insists that their legal team allowed it and that they
are empowered to decide on such cases.

The NPC, as a government-owned corporation, is

under the COA's
audit power.

Both the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions conferred

64
upon the COA a more active role and invested it
with broader and more extensive powers. These
were not meant to make it a toothless tiger, but a
dynamic, effective, efficient and independent
watchdog of the Government. In determining
whether an expenditure of a Government agency or
instrumentality such as the NPC is irregular,
unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or
unconscionable, the COA should not be bound by
the opinion of the legal counsel of said agency or
instrumentality which may have been the basis for
the questioned disbursement; otherwise, it would
indeed become a toothless tiger and its auditing
function would be a meaningless and futile exercise.
Its beacon lights then should be nothing more than
64
its power to examine and audit the same
government agencies. The COA is neither by-
passed nor ignored since even with a private audit
the COA will still conduct its usual examination and
audit, and its findings and conclusions will still bind
government agencies and their officials. COA does
not have the exclusive power to examine and audit
government agencies. The framers of the
Constitution were fully aware of the need to allow
independent private audit of certain government
agencies in addition to the COA audit, as when
there is a private investment in a GOCC, or when
a government corporation is privatized or publicly
listed, or as in the case at bar when the
government borrows money from abroad.

54) Boy Scouts of the Philippines vs.

Commission on Audit - G.R. No.
177131. June 7, 2011.

A COA Resolution was issued whereby the COA

is to conduct an annual financial audit of the Boy
Scouts of the Philippines (BSP) in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards. BSP
is now questioning whether it can be subject to
thre COA’s audit jurisdiction?

Does the BSP fall under the COA’s audit

jurisdiction?

YES

BSP is a public corporation and its funds are

subject to the COA’s audit jurisdiction.

Fortes-Leung version:

The COA issued a resolution to audit the Boy

Scout of the Philppines (BSP) as it allege that
it was created as a public corporation under
Commonwealth Act No. 111. COA also cited
the case of that in Boy Scouts of the
Philippines v. National Labor Relations
65
Commission, were BSP was declared a
"government-controlled corporation within the
meaning of Article IX(B)(2)(1) of the
Constitution" and that "the BSP is
appropriately regarded as a government
instrumentality under the 1987 Administrative
Code."

ISSUE: Whether the COA has jurisdiction

over the BSP

HELD: Yes

POLITICAL LAW: Jurisdiction of COA

65
amended charter and carefully studying the
applicable laws and the arguments of both
parties, we find that the BSP is a public
corporation and its funds are subject to the
COAs audit jurisdiction. 55

The BSP Charter (Commonwealth Act No.

111, approved on October 31, 1936), entitled
"An Act to Create a Public Corporation to be
Known as the Boy Scouts of the Philippines,
and to Define its Powers and Purposes"
created the BSP as a "public corporation"

There are three classes of juridical persons

under Article 44 of the Civil Code and the
BSP, as presently constituted under Republic
Act No. 7278,falls under the second 56
classification.Article 44 reads:

Art. 44. The following are juridical persons:

(1) The State and its political subdivisions;
(2)Other corporations,institutions and entities
for public interest or purpose created by law;
their personality begins as soon as they have
been constituted according to law;
(3) Corporations, partnerships and
associations for private interest or purpose to
which the law grants a juridical personality,
separate and distinct from that of each
shareholder, partner or member.

The BSP, which is a corporation created for a

public interest or purpose, is subject to the
law creating it under Article 45 of the Civil
Code, which provides:

Art. 45.Juridical persons mentioned in Nos. 1

and 2 of the preceding article are governed
by the laws creating or recognizing them.

Private corporations are regulated by laws of

general application on the subject.

Partnerships and associations for private 66

interest or purpose are governed by the
provisions of this Code concerning
partnerships.

The purpose of the BSP as stated in its

amended charter shows that it was created in
order to implement a State policy declared in
Article II, Section 13 of the Constitution, which
reads:

ARTICLE II -DECLARATION OF
PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

Section 13. The State recognizes the vital

66
illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where
there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will
irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where the
amount involved is relatively small so as to make the
rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the
question involved is purely legal and will ultimately
have to be decided by the courts of justice; (f) where
judicial intervention is urgent; (g) when its application
may cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where
the controverted acts violate due process; (i) when the
issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies
has been rendered moot; (j) when there is no other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) when strong
public interest is involved; and, (l) in quo warranto
proceedings. However, none of the foregoing
circumstances is applicable in the present case.

Propriety of Writ of Execution

Writ of Execution issued in violation of COA’s primary
jurisdiction is void. Since a judgment rendered by a
body or tribunal that has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the case is no judgment at all, it
cannot be the source of any right or the creator of any
obligation. All acts pursuant to it and all claims
emanating from it have no legal effect and the void
judgment can never be final and any writ of execution
based on it is likewise void.

57) Funa v. Manila Economic Cultural Office -

G.R. No. 193462, February 4, 2014 - PAJA

DOCTRINE + APPLICATION: COA has the authority

to audit non-governmental entities receiving equity or
subsidy with respect to those “funds xxx coming from
or through the government. In this case, MECO was
declared a sui generis entity, which, although
governed by the Corporation Code, was entrusted by
the government to collect verification fees and
consular fees as its agent in Taiwan. Thus, with
respect to those fees, MECO is subject to the auditing
authority of COA.

F: The Philippines formally ended its official diplomatic

relations with the government in Taiwan on 9 June
1975, when the country and the PROC expressed 67
mutual recognition thru the Joint Communiqué of the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines and
the Government of the People’s Republic of China
(Joint Communiqué). Under the Joint Communiqué,
the Philippines categorically stated its adherence to
the One China policy of the PROC. The Philippines’
commitment to the One China policy of the PROC,
however, did not preclude the country from keeping
unofficial relations with Taiwan facilitated by the
offices of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office, for
the former, and the MECO, for the latter.
Petitioner sent a letter to COA requesting a
copy of the latest financial and audit report of the
MCO, invoking his constitutional right to information
67
share”; 3. Non-governmental entities that have
“received counterpart funds from the government”;
and 4. Non-governmental entities “partly funded by
donations through the government.” Section 29(1) of
the Audit Code, however, limits the audit of the
foregoing non-governmental entities only to “funds
xxx coming from or through the government.”

Since the Philippines does not maintain an official

post in Taiwan, the DOLE entered into a “series” of
Memorandum of Agreements with the MECO, which
made the latter the former’s collecting agent with
respect to the “verification fees” that may be due from
Taiwanese employers of OFWs. Evidently, the entire
“verification fees” being collected by the MECO are
receivables of the DOLE. Such receipts pertain to the
DOLE by virtue of Section 7 of EO No. 1022.

The “verification fees” mentioned here refers to the

“service fee for the verification of overseas
employment contracts, recruitment agreement or
special powers of attorney” that the DOLE was
authorized to collect under Section 7 of EO No. 1022,
which was issued by President Ferdinand E. Marcos
on 1 May 1985. These fees are supposed to be
collected by the DOLE from the foreign employers of
OFWs and are intended to be used for “the promotion
of overseas employment and for welfare services to
Filipino workers within the area of jurisdiction of
[concerned] foreign missions under the administration
of the [DOLE].”

Aside from the DOLE “verification fees,” however, the

MECO also collects “consular fees,” or fees it collects
from the exercise of its delegated consular functions.
The authority behind “consular fees” is Section 2(6) of
EO No. 15, s. 2001. The said section authorizes the
MECO to collect “reasonable fees” for its performance
of the following consular functions: 1. Issuance of
temporary visitors’ visas and transit and crew list
visas, and such other visa services as may be
authorized by the DFA; 2. Issuance, renewal,
extension or amendment of passports of Filipino
citizens in accordance with existing regulations, and
provision of such other passport services as may be 68
required under the circumstances; 3. Certification or
affirmation of the authenticity of documents submitted
for authentication; and 4. Providing translation
services. Evidently, and just like the peculiarity that
attends the DOLE “verification fees,” there is no
consular office for the collection of the “consular fees.”
Thus, the authority for the MECO to collect the
“reasonable fees,” vested unto it by the executive
order

Section 3. No law shall be passed exempting any

entity of the Government or its subsidiaries in any
guise whatever, or any investment of public funds,
from the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit.
68
69
69