The Civil Service Commission

The Civil Service Commission Art. IX-B, 1987 Constitution

- power to approve appointments
- Revocation/recall of appointments

SECTION 1. Qualifications
(1) The Civil Service shall be administered by the Civil Service Commission composed of a Chairman and
two Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their
appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, with proven capacity for public administration, and
must not have been candidates for any elective position in the elections immediately preceding
their appointment.
(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, the Chairman shall hold office for seven years, a Commissioner for five years, and
another Commissioner 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.

SECTION 2.
(1) The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the
Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.
(2) Appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness to be
determined, as far as practicable, and, except as to positions which are policy-determining, primarily
confidential, or highly technical, by competitive examination.
(3) No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided
by law.
(4) No officer or employee in the civil service shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any electioneering
or partisan political campaign.
(5) The right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employees.
(6) Temporary employees of the Government shall be given such protection as may be provided by law.

SECTION 3. The Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of the Government, shall:
1) Establish a career service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity,
responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil service.
2) It shall strengthen the merit and rewards system, integrate all human resources development
programs for all levels and ranks, and institutionalize a management climate conducive to public
accountability.
3) It shall submit to the President and the congress an annual report on its personnel programs.

SECTION 4. All public officers and employees shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this
Constitution.

SECTION 5. The Congress shall provide for the standardization of compensation of government officials,
including those in 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.
SECTION 6. No candidate who has lost in any election shall, within one year after such election, be
appointed to any office in the Government of any government-owned or controlled corporations or in
any of its subsidiaries.
The candidate who has lost in an election may be engaged as consultant even within the one
year prohibited period.

SECTION 7. No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any
public office or position during his tenure.
Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall
hold any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
You can be appointed but you should not receive anything, isa lang dapat ang sweldo. There will
be no violation of any law because he is not receiving extra/double compensation.
Ex: Estelito Mendoza
Q: What is ex-officio
A:

SECTION 8. No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive additional, double, or
indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by law, nor accept without the consent of the
Congress, any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind from any foreign government.
Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as additional, double, or indirect compensation.

The authority granted by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to a city government to “take final action” on
all its appointments did not deprive the CSC of its authority and duty to review appointments. The CSC is
empowered to take appropriate action on all appointments and other personnel actions. Such power
includes the authority to recall appointments initially approved in disregard of applicable provisions of the
Civil Service law and regulations (Nazareno v. City of Dumaguete, G.R. No. 181559, Oct. 2, 2009).

NOTE: The municipal mayor, being the appointing authority, is the real party in interest to challenge
the CSC’s disapproval of the appointment of his/her appointee. The CSC’s disapproval of an
appointment is a challenge to the exercise of the appointing authority’s discretion. The appointing
authority must have the right to contest the disapproval (Dagadag v. Tongnawa, G.R. Nos. 161166-67,
Feb. 3, 2005).

Findings of COA may be the basis of charges

ex: Malversation of public funds

Q: Who are covered by CSC?

A: Section 2 (1), Article IX-B, Constitution

Q: What are the powers of CSC under EO 292 and under the Constitution?

Q: Can CS employee participate in partisan campaign?

A: No. Sec 2 (4) barangay election is not a partisan election, hence, CS employee may participate therein
without violating the provisions of the Constitution

Q: May CS employee join an organization?

A: Yes
Elective v. Appointive officials
Elective Appointive

Q: How does one get appointed in a public office?

1) The appointing authority must have the authority to appoint;
2) There must be a vacancy of the office
3) The appointee must possess all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications required by
the office to which he is to be appointed;
4) The appointment must be accepted by the appointee by undertaking oath and by assumption
of office;
5) Appointment must be approved by the commission on appointments, if required by law.

Q: What if the public officer failed to sign the appointment? Will it invalidate appointment but
the public officer assumed office and performs his functions as public officer?
A: No, the appointment is still valid, assumption of office and performance of its functions are
considered acceptance, implied acceptance.

A person may be appointed 2 times but double compensation shall not be allowed:
Requisites:
1. There must be no conflict between the 2 positions
2. There shall be no double compensation
3. Appointment to another position will not prejudice the other position.

Removal
Forcible and permanent separation of the
incumbent from office before the expiration of the
public officer's term (Feria, Jr. v. Mison, G.R. No.
8196, Aug. 8, 1989).
Recall
It is an electoral mode of removal employed
directly by the people themselves through the
exercise of their right of suffrage. It is a political
question not subject to judicial review. It is a
political question that has to be decided by the
people in their sovereign capacity (Evardone v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 94010, Dec. 2, 1991). - recall is
an electoral mode of removing a public officer of
post or office by reason of loss of confidence.

NOTE: Recall only applies to local officials.

Limitations on recall
1. An elective official can be subjected to recall only once
2. No recall shall take place within one (1) year from the assumption of office or one year
immediately preceding a regular local election (Sec. 74 (b) of Republic Act No. 7160).
 NOTE: For the time bar to apply, the approaching local election must be one where the position of
the official to be recalled is to be actually contested and filled by the electorate (Angobung v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 126576, March 5, 1997).

Effect of Recall on the 3-term limit rule (2010 Bar)

The three-term limit for local elected officials is not violated when a local official wins in a recall
election for mayor after serving three full terms as mayor since the recall election is not considered
an immediate re-election, it is not counted for purposes of the 3-term limit. Term limits should be
construed strictly to give the fullest possible effect to the right of the electorate to choose their
leaders (Socrates v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 154512, Nov. 12, 2002).

Recall election; budget

Goh vs. Bayron G.R. No. 212584. November 25, 2014.

Revocation vs. Recall of appointment

Revocation
Where an appointment requires the approval of
the CSC, such appointment may be revoked
or withdrawn by the appointing authority any
time before the approval by the CSC. (Before
completion of appointment)
Recall of Appointment
After an appointment is completed, the CSC has
the power to recall an appointment initially
approved on any of the following grounds:
1. Non-compliance with procedures/criteria in
merit promotion plan;
2. Failure to pass through the selection board;
3. Violation of existing collective relative
agreement to promotion;
4. Violation of CSC laws, rules and regulations.
(Debulgado v. CSC, G.R. No. 111471, Sept. 26,
1994).

Q: May a person be recalled after appointment?

A: Yes

Q: What are the grounds for recall under CS Rules

A:

Q: What is the difference between Termination and recall?

A:

De Facto Officer; salary

In the case of Gaminde vs. Commission on Audit [2000], Thelma Gaminde was a Civil Service Commissioner
whose term should have ended on February 2, 1999 but continued holding such office until February 2,
2000 under the belief that her term will expire on the latter date. The Court ruled she served as de facto
officer in good faith until February 02, 2000, and thus entitled to receive her salary and other emoluments
for actual service rendered. Consequently, the Commission on Audit erred in disallowing in audit such
salary and other emoluments, including that of her coterminous staff.
Gaminde sought clarification from the Office of the President as to the expiry date of her term
of office. In reply to her request, the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel, in a letter dated April 07,
2 1998 opined that petitioner’s term of office would expire on February 02, 2000, not on
 February 02, 1999. Relying on said advisory opinion, petitioner remained in office after February
02, 1999.

Q: What is preventive Suspension?

A: A court-ordered preventive suspension is a preventive measure that is different and distinct from
the suspension ordered by the HoR for disorderly behavior which is a penalty. Such House-imposed
sanction is intended to enforce discipline among its members (Paredes, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
118354, Aug. 8, 1995).

Preventive suspension is not a penalty by itself; it is merely a measure of precaution so that the
employee who is charged may be separated from the scene of his alleged misfeasance while the same
is being investigated, to prevent him from using his position or office to influence prospective
witnesses or tamper with the records, which may be vital in the prosecution of the case against him
(Beja v. CA, G.R. No. 91749, March 31, 1992).

It can be ordered even without a hearing because this is only preliminary step in an administrative
investigation (Alonzo v. Capulong, et al., G.R. No. 110590, May 10, 1995).

NOTE: When a public officer is charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act or R.
A No. 3019, a pre-suspension hearing is required solely to determine the applicability of such law and
for the accused be given a fair and adequate opportunity to challenge the validity of the criminal
proceedings against him. This may be done through various pleadings (Torres v. Garchitorena, G.R. No.
153666, Dec. 27, 2002).

Appointment of Public Officers

a) General qualifications of civil servants – Sec. 20, Art. III, PD 807

Article III, PD 807 - PROVIDING FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, PRESCRIBING ITS POWERS AND FUNCTIONS
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Section 3. As used in this Decree, the following shall be construed thus:
(a) Agency means any bureau, office, commission, administration, board, committee, institute,
corporation, whether performing governmental or proprietary function, or any other unit of the
National Government, as well as provincial, city or municipal government, except as hereinafter
otherwise provided.
(b) Appointing officer is the person or body authorized by law to make appointments in the Philippine
Civil Service.
(c) Class includes all positions in the government service that are sufficiently similar as to duties and
responsibilities and require similar qualifications that can be given the same title and salary and for
all administrative and compensation purposes, be treated alike.
(d) Commission refers to the Civil Service Commission.
(e) Chairman refers to the Chairman of the Commission.
(f) Commissioner refers either of the two other members of the Commission.
(g) Department includes any of the executive departments or entities having the category of a
department including the judiciary, Commission on Elections and Commission on Audit.
(h) Eligible refers to a person who obtains a passing grade in a civil service examination or is granted a
civil service eligibility and whose name is entered in the register of eligibles.
 (i) Examination refers to a civil service examination conducted by the Commission and its regional
offices or by other departments or agencies with the assistance of the Commission, or in
coordination or jointly with it, and those that it may delegate to departments and agencies
pursuant to this Decree, or those that may have been delegated by law.
(j) Form refers to those prescribed by the Civil Service Commission.

Section 20. Qualification Standards.

(a) A qualification standard expresses the minimum requirements for a class of positions in terms of
education, training and experience, civil service eligibility, physical fitness, and other qualities
required for successful performance. The degree of qualifications of an officer or employee shall
be determined by the appointing authority on the basis of the qualifications standard for the
particular position.
Qualification standards shall be used as basis for civil service examinations for positions in the
career service, as guides in appointment and other personnel actions, in the adjudication of
protested appointments, in determining training needs, and as aid in the inspection and audit of
the agencies personnel work programs.
It shall be administered in such manner as to continually provide incentives to officers and
employees towards professional growth and foster the career system in the government service.
(b) The establishment, administration and maintenance of qualification standards shall be the
responsibility of the department or agency, with the assistance and approval of the Civil Service
Commission and in consultation with the Wage and Position Classification Office.

b) Power of Congress to prescribe qualifications - Anong LEGAL BASIS

(1) In general. — Congress is generally empowered to prescribe the qualifications for holding public
office, provided it does not exceed thereby its constitutional powers or impose conditions of
eligibility inconsistent with constitutional provisions. Qualifications for office must have a
rational basis. There must be a rational nexus between any requirements and duties of the
position in question.

The qualifications prescribed must not be too detailed as to practically amount to making an
appointment which is an executive function and not legislative.

(2) Where office created by Congress. — Where an office is the creature of Congress, that body can
deal with the subject of qualification and disqualification, provided that in so doing it does not
impinge upon any express provision of the Constitution. For example, where an office is created
by a legislative enactment, Congress has the power to specify that certain classes of individuals
are disqualified from holding the office.

(3) Where office created by the Constitution. — The general rule is that where the Constitution
establishes specific eligibility requirements for a particular constitutional office, the
constitutional criteria are exclusive. Thus, Congress may have no power to require different
qualifications for constitutional offices other than those qualifications specifically set out in the
Constitution. This is especially true in regard to offices created by the Constitution itself, unless
the Constitution expressly or impliedly gives the power to set qualifications.

(4) Where qualifications prescribed by the Constitution. — Many mandatory constitutional

provisions as to qualifications for office are not self-executing, as for example, the requirement
 that the fitness of persons to be appointed to public office shall be ascertained as far as
practicable by competitive civil service examinations. Such provisions are merely
announcements of a general principle clearly requiring legislation for their enforcement. The
right of Congress to prescribe qualifications is not inconsistent with the executive power of
appointment to office.

Where the Constitution has prescribed certain qualifications, Congress may prescribe additional
qualifications unless it appears that this action is prohibited.

Power of Congress to prescribe disqualifications.

In the absence of constitutional inhibition, Congress has the same right to provide disqualifications
that it has to provide qualifications for office.

However, Congress may not add disqualifications where the Constitution has provided them in such
a way as to indicate an intention that the disqualifications provided shall embrace all that are to be
permitted. Moreover, when the Constitution has attached a disqualification to the holding of any
office, Congress cannot remove it under the power to prescribe qualifications as to such offices as
it may create.

c) When must eligibility exist to qualify for public office?

Time of possession of qualifications.

When must the qualifications to a public office exist — at the time of election or appointment, at
the commencement of the term, or at the time of assuming office? In ascertaining this matter, the
language used in the constitutional or statutory provisions declaring the qualifications is to be
considered.

(1) Where time specified by Constitution or law. — The Constitution or law may, expressly or by
necessary implication, specify the time when the required eligibility must exist. Where such is
the case, there can be no question but that the candidate must possess the necessary
qualifications at that time. If it is specified that they must exist at the time of the election, a
candidate who does not possess them at the time is not eligible although the disqualifications
cease to exist before the beginning of the term.

(2) Where Constitution or law is silent. — If the Constitution or law does not specify the time when
the conditions of eligibility must exist, it is necessary for the courts to have recourse to some
other means of determining the matter. The terms employed in declaring the qualifications are
to be taken into consideration.

(a) Some courts have taken the view that the word "eligible," as used in constitutions and
statutes, has reference to the capacity not of being elected or appointed to office, but of
holding office, and that, therefore, if qualified at the time of commencement of the term or
induction into office, disqualification of the candidate or appointee at the time of election
or appointment is immaterial.
 (b) Other courts take the position that the conditions of eligibility must exist at the time of the
election or appointment, and that their existence only at the time of the commencement
of the term of office or induction of the candidate or appointee into office and assumption
by him of his duties is not sufficient to qualify him for the office.

(c) Where the provision refers to holding of office, rather than to eligibility to office, in defining
the qualifications, the courts are inclined to hold that the qualifications are to be
determined at the time of the commencement of the term or the induction into office,
rather than at the time of the election or appointment.

(3) When qualifications must always exist. — In any case, the fact that the candidate or appointee
may have been qualified at the time of his election or appointment is not sufficient to entitle
him to hold the office, if at the time of the commencement of the term or tenure or during the
continuance of the incumbency, he ceases to be qualified.

(a) Eligibility to public office is of a continuing nature and must exist at the commencement of
the term and during the occupancy of the office.

(b) The qualifications prescribed for elective office cannot be erased by the electorate alone.
The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility
especially if they mistakenly believed that the candidate was qualified. This rule requires
strict application when the deficiency is lack of citizenship notwithstanding evidence of the
candidate's naturalization after his proclamation.

d) Appointment distinguished from designation

Appointment Designation

It is the selection by the proper authority of an It merely connotes the imposition of additional
individual who is to exercise the functions of a duties, usually by law, upon a person who is
given office already in public service by virtue of an earlier
appointment or election

It connotes permanence It implies temporariness and therefore does not

confer upon the designee security of tenure

Under Commonwealth Act No. 588, the President is authorized to fill temporarily the position of "an
officer, in the Executive Department of the Government" by designating "another officer already in the
service or any other competent person" but such temporary designation "shall in no case continue beyond
the date of the adjournment of the regular session of the National Assembly (now Congress) following
such designation." It has been held, however, that such temporary authority to make designations under
Commonwealth Act No. 588 cannot be invoked by the President in designating the Solicitor General to act
temporarily as a Member of the Commission on Elections on the ground that the "independence and
impartiality" of the Commission may thereby be "shaken and destroyed.

e) President’s appointing power; Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments

 Power of appointment of the President. Sec 16, Article VII, 1987 Constitution
SECTION 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain,
and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also
appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided
for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law,
vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in
the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.

The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress,
whether voluntary or involuntary, but such appointments shall be effective only until after
disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.

Under the above provision, there are four groups of officials whom the President is authorized to
appoint, namely:
(1) The heads of executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, officers
of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose
appointments are vested in him in the Constitution. The "other officers" referred to therein are
the regular members of the Judicial and Bar Council, the Chairman and Commissioners of the Civil
Service Commission,™ the Chairman and Commissioners of the Commission on Elections, the
Chairman and Commissioners of the Commission on Audit, and the Members of the regional
consultative commission;
(2) All other officers whose appointments are not otherwise provided by law and they refer to
officers to be appointed to lower offices created by Congress where the latter omits to provide
for appointment to said office, or provides in an unconstitutional way for such appointments;
(3) Those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint such as the heads of
government-owned or -controlled corporations, undersecretaries, heads of bureaus and offices,
and other officials; and
(4) Other officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress by law vests in the President
alone.

Confirmation of appointments by Commission on Appointments.

(1) Only the officers in the first group above are appointed with the consent or confirmation of
the Commission on Appointments. Congress cannot, by law, require confirmation of
appointments of other officers. Heads of bureaus and certain offices under the different
departments which are not called bureaus like the Securities and Exchange Commission,
Insurance Commission, etc., are no longer included among those whose appointments are to
be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. They are civil service officers whose
appointments are supposed to be made only according to merit and fitness.

(2) The President, under the Constitution, appoints the members of the Supreme Court, judges of
lower courts, including the Sandiganbayan, and the Tanodbayan and his Deputies from a list
prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council. Such appointments need no confirmation. The same
is true when the Vice-President is appointed as a member of the Cabinet.
 (3) The Constitution does not state the appointing authority with respect to the Chairman and
Members of the Commission on Human Rights. There is no doubt, however, that the power
to appoint them is lodged in the President under Section 16 above. The Administrative Code
of 1987 states that they shall be appointed by the President. Their appointments are also not
subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments because they are among the
officers of government "whom [the President] may be authorized by law to appoint" pursuant
to the second sentence of Article VII, Section 16 of the Constitution.

Appointments by other officials.

Under Article VII, Section 16, above, of the Constitution, Congress may, by law, vest in courts, heads
of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards the power to appoint officers lower in rank (e.g.,
Chiefs of divisions or sections) in their respective offices. The phrase "lower in rank" refers to
officers subordinate to those enumerated officers in whom respectively the power of appointment
may be vested—the heads of executive departments, agencies, commissions, and boards.
Appointments of minor employees may also be vested in them. The Supreme Court appoints all
officials and employees of the judiciary.

The phrase does not include heads of bureaus and offices not specifically mentioned in the
Constitution as among those to be appointed by the President who are subordinates of Cabinet
members. By law, their appointments are vested in the President.

f) Limitation on the President’s appointing power

g) Kinds of appointments:
Kinds of Presidential appointments.

Under the Constitution, appointments may be classified as follows:

(1) Regular or those made while Congress is in session. They are actually mere nominations subject
to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments;
(2) Ad interim or those made while Congress is not in session or during its recess;
(3) Permanent or those which last until they are lawfully terminated; and
(4) Temporary or acting or those which last until a permanent appointment is issued.

Appointments which are required to be submitted to the Commission on Appointments are either
regular or ad interim. Both are permanent in nature. The first paragraph of Section 16 of Article VII
of the Constitution (supra.) refers to the regular appointing power of the President. Appointments
that are for the President solely to make without the participation of the Commission on
Appointments, cannot be ad interim appointments. The President's voluntary act of submitting such
appointments to the Commission and the latter's act of confirming or rejecting the same would be
without or in excess of jurisdiction.

Section 15 of Article VII gives the President the power to make temporary appointments. It reads:
"Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a
President or Acting President shall not make appointment, except temporary appointments to
executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice service or endanger public
safety."
 Note: An unqualified person cannot be appointed even in an acting capacity.

Ad interim appointments.

Section 16, paragraph 2, Article VII, 1987 Constitution

The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, whether
voluntary or involuntary, but such appointments shall be effective only until after disapproval by the
Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.

Note: An ad interim appointment is nevertheless permanent in nature and not a mere temporary
or acting appointment notwithstanding that it is subject to confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments. However, it may be recalled or revoked by the President before confirmation.

h) Term and tenure distinguished

Term Tenure
The "term" means the time during which the The tenure represents the period during which the
officer may claim to hold the office as of right, and incumbent actually holds the office.
fixes the interval after which the several
incumbents shall succeed one another. It may be shorter than the term for reasons within
or beyond the power of the incumbent.
It is a fixed and definite period of time to hold
office, perform its functions, and enjoy its
privileges and emoluments until the expiration of
said period. It is not affected by holding-over
(infra.) of the incumbent after expiration of the
term for which he was appointed or elected.

The term of office is not affected by the holdover.

The tenure may be shorter than the term for
reasons within or beyond the power of the
incumbent.” (Gaminde v. Commission on Audit
[2000])

Hold-over
In case of failure of elections involving barangay officials, the incumbent officials shall remain in office in
a hold-over capacity pursuant to R.A. 9164 (Adap v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161984, Feb. 21, 2007).

In the absence of an express or implied constitutional or statutory provision to the contrary, an officer is
entitled to hold office until his successor is elected or appointed and has qualified (Lecaroz v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 130872, March 25, 1999).

i) Nepotism
Sec. 59. Nepotism. —
(1) All appointments in the national, provincial, city and municipal governments or in any branch or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, made in favor of a
 relative of the appointing or recommending authority, or of the chief of the bureau or office, or of
the persons exercising immediate supervision over him, are hereby prohibited.
As used in this Section, the word “relative” and members of the family referred to are those related
within the third degree either or consanguinity or of affinity.
(2) The following are exempted from the operation of the rules on nepotism:
(a) Persons employed in a confidential capacity;
(b) Teachers;
(c) Physicians, and
(d) Members of the armed forces of the Philippines:
Provided, however, that in each particular instance full report of such appointment shall be made
to the commission.
The restriction mentioned in subsection (1) shall not be applicable to the case of a member of any
family who, after his or her appointment to any position in an office or bureau, contracts marriage
with someone in the same office or bureau, in which event the employment or retention therein of
both husband and wife may be allowed.
(3) In order to give immediate effect to these provisions, cases of previous appointments which are in
contravention hereof shall be corrected by transfer, and pending such transfer, no promotion or
salary increase shall be allowed in favor of the relative or relatives who are appointed in violation of
these provisions.

Note:
Situations covered. — The Civil Service Decree prohibits all appointments (i.e., without making
any distinction between different kinds or types of appointments) in the national and local
governments or any branch or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations, made in favor of a relative of the:
(a) Appointing authority;
(b) Recommending authority;
(c) Chief of the bureau or office; or
(d) Person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee.
The above restriction is not applicable to the case of member of any family who, after his or her
appointment to any position in an office or bureau, contracts marriage with someone in the same
office or bureau in which event the employment or retention therein of both husband and wife
may be allowed.

As used in the law, the word "relative" and members of the family referred to are those related
within the third degree either of consanguinity or of affinity. Thus, one is guilty of nepotism if an
appointment is issued in favor of a relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity
of any of the four mentioned. Clearly, there are four situations covered. In the last two mentioned
situations, it is immaterial who the appointing or recommending authority is. To constitute a
violation of the law, it suffices that an appointment is extended or issued in favor of a relative within
the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of the chief of the bureau or office, or the person
exercising immediate supervision over the appointee.

Designation included in prohibition. — The prohibition includes designation because what cannot
be done directly cannot be done indirectly. It covers all kinds of appointments be they original,
promotional, transfer or reemployment regardless of status. To limit the thrust of the prohibition
to appointments issued at the time of the initial entry into the government service, and to insulate
from the prohibition appointments subsequently issued when personnel actions are thereafter
taken in respect of the employee, would render the prohibition "meaningless and toothless."

Q: what is Nepotism?
A: Nepotism means favoritism in the appointment in the national, provincial, city and municipal
governments or in any branch or instrumentality thereof, including GOCC, made in favor of a relative
within the 3rd degree either of consanguinity or affinity by the appointing or recommending authority,
or of the chief of the bureau or office, or of the persons exercising immediate supervision over him

j) Void appointment
An appointment may be void from the beginning due to fraud on the part of the appointee or because it
was issued in violation of law. A void appointment cannot give rise to security of tenure on the part of the
holder of the appointment. The Commission is empowered to take appropriate action on all appointments
and other personal actions {e.g., promotion) and its power includes the authority to recall or revoke an
appointment initially approved in disregard of applicable provisions of law and regulations.

k) Appointment of one who has retired

Whom to appoint among those who possess the required qualifications is, as noted earlier, a "political"
or administrative question involving considerations of wisdom and the interests of the service which only
the appointing authority can decide. The Commission is not authorized to curtail or diminish the exercise
of discretion of the appointing power on the nature or kinds of appointment to be extended. But the
discretion given the appointing authority is subject to stricter review where the person appointed is being
returned to the government after voluntarily retiring and collecting all the benefits appurtenant to such
retirement.

l) Primarily confidential position

A position is primarily confidential where its occupant enjoys more than the ordinary confidence in his
aptitude of the appointing power but bears primarily such close intimacy which insures freedom of
intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgiving of betrayal of personal trust on
confidential matters of State, like that of a private secretary or a confidential agent. For someone holding
a primarily confidential position, more than ordinary confidence is required.

(a) The other instance when a position may be considered primarily confidential is when the
President, upon recommendation of the Civil Service Commissioner, has declared it to be.
However, the President cannot nullify the constitutional provision by placing a position in an
exempt class when the duties thereof are not policy-determining, primarily confidential, or highly
technical in nature, or where it is practicable to determine by competitive examination merit and
fitness therefor. The duties must have some relationship to the exemption and the classification
must be reasonable.

Upon the enactment of the Civil Service Act of 1959, now the Civil Service Decree, it is the nature
of the position which finally determines whether a position is primarily confidential. Thus, the
positions of senior security guard and security guard were held as primarily confidential because
of the duties and functions attached to said positions.

(b) The assumption that an officer holding a position which is primarily confidential in nature is
subject to removal at the pleasure of the appointing power is inaccurate. Even officials and
 employees of the Civil Service occupying primarily confidential positions are subject to the
constitutional safeguard against removal or suspension except for cause. However, such officials
and employees 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 merely the expiration of the term of office.

The tenure of officials holding primarily confidential positions ends upon loss of confidence, because their
term of office lasts only as long as confidence in them endures; and thus their cessation involves no
removal. When such confidence is lost and the officer holding such position is separated from the service,
such cessation entails no removal but an expiration of his term. There being no removal or dismissal it
could not, therefore, be said that there was a violation of the constitutional provision that no officer or
employee in the civil service shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause as provided by law.

m) Appointment of next–in-rank;
The appointing authority is not required to appoint the one next-in-rank to fill a vacancy. He is allowed to
fill it also by the transfer of an employee who possesses civil service eligibility. (Barrozo vs. Civil Service
Commission 198 SCRA 487)

The Civil Service Commission cannot dictate to the appointing power whom to appoint. Its function is
limited to determining whether or not the appointee meets the minimum qualification requirements
prescribed for the position. Otherwise, it would be encroaching upon the discretion of the appointing
power. (Meddla vs. Sto. Tomas, 208 SCRA 351)

Protest to appointment
Any person who feels aggrieved by the appointment may file an administrative protest against such
appointment. Protests are decided in the first instance by the Department Head, subject to appeal
to the CSC.

The protest must be for a cause (i.e. appointee is not qualified; appointee was not the next-in-rank;
unsatisfactory reasons given by the appointing authority in making the questioned appointment).
The mere fact that the protestant has the more impressive resume is not a cause for opposing an
appointment (Aquino v. CSC, G.R. No. 92403, April 22, 1992). -> sabi sa GN

n) Government owned or controlled corporations

o) Liability for illegal appointments

Art. 244. Unlawful appointments. — Any public officer who shall knowingly nominate or appoint to any
public office any person lacking the legal qualifications therefor, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor
and a fine not exceeding Two hundred thousand pesos (₱200,000).(as amended by RA No. 10951)

Positions in the Civil Service shall be classified into career service and non-career service.
I. Career Service
The Career Service shall be characterized by (1) entrance based on merit and fitness to be determined as
far as practicable by competitive examinations, or based on highly technical qualifications; (2) opportunity
for advancement to higher career positions; and (3) security of tenure.
The career service shall include:
1. Open Career positions for appointment to which prior qualification in an appropriate examination is
required;
2. Closed Career positions which are scientific or highly technical in nature; these include the faculty and
academic staff of state colleges and universities, and scientific and technical positions in scientific or
research institutions which shall establish and maintain their own merit systems;
3. Positions in the Career Executive Service (CES); namely, Undersecretary, Assistant Secretary, Bureau
Director, Assistant Bureau Director, Regional Director, Assistant Regional Director, Chief of
Department Service and other officers of equivalent rank as may be identified by the Career Executive
Service Board, all of whom are appointed by the President;

NOTE: For a position to be considered as CES, the position must be among those enumerated
under Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Section 7(3) of the Administrative Code of 1987
or a position of equal rank as those enumerated and identified by the CESB to be such
position of equal rank; and the holder of the position must be a presidential appointee
(Seneres v. Sabido, G.R. No. 172902, Oct. 21, 2015).

4. Career officers, other than those in the Career Executive Service, who are appointed by the President,
such as the Foreign Service Officers in the Department of Foreign Affairs;
5. Commissioned officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces which shall maintain a separate merit
system;
6. Personnel of government-owned or controlled corporations, whether performing governmental or
proprietary functions, who do not fall under the non-career service; and
7. Permanent laborers, whether skilled, semiskilled, or unskilled.

Classes of Positions in the Career Service

(a) Classes of positions in the career service appointment to which requires examinations shall be
grouped into three major levels as follows:
1. The first level shall include clerical, trades, crafts, and custodial service positions which involve non-
professional or subprofessional work in a non-supervisory or supervisory capacity requiring less than
four years of collegiate studies;
2. The second level shall include professional, technical, and scientific positions which involve
professional, technical, or scientific work in a non-supervisory or supervisory capacity requiring at
least four years of college work up to Division Chief level; and
3. The third level shall cover positions in the (p)Career Executive Service.

Requisites for a CES employee to acquire security of tenure:

a. CES eligibility; and
b. Appointment to the appropriate CES rank (Seneres v. Sabido, G.R. No. 172902, Oct. 21, 2015).

Security of tenure in the CES is thus acquired with respect to rank and not to position. The
guarantee of security of tenure to members of the CES does not extend to the particular
positions to which they may be appointed - a concept which is applicable only to first and second-
level employees in the civil service - but to the rank to which they are appointed by the President.
Within the CES, personnel can be shifted from one office or position to another without violation
of their right to security of tenure because their status and salaries are based on their ranks and
not on their jobs. (Seneres v. Sabido, G.R. No. 172902, Oct. 21, 2015).
(b) Except as herein otherwise provided, entrance to the first two levels shall be through competitive
examinations, which shall be open to those inside and outside the service who meet the minimum
qualification requirements. Entrance to a higher level does not require previous qualification in the lower
level. Entrance to the third level shall be prescribed by the Career Executive Service Board.

(c) Within the same level, no civil service examination shall be required for promotion to a higher position
in one or more related occupational groups. A candidate for promotion should, however, have previously
passed the examination for that level (Art. IV, P.D. 807).

III. Non-Career Service

The Non-Career Service shall be characterized by (1) entrance on bases other than those of the usual tests
of merit and fitness utilized for the career service; and (2) tenure which is limited to a period specified by
law, or which is coterminous with that of the appointing authority or subject to his pleasure, or which is
limited to the duration of a particular project for which purpose employment was made.

The non-career service shall include:

1. Elective officials and their personal or confidential staff;
2. Department Heads and other officials of Cabinet rank who hold positions at the pleasure of the
President and their personal or confidential staff(s);
3. Chairman and members of commissions and boards with fixed terms of office and their personal or
confidential staff;
4. Contractual personnel or those whose employment in the government is in accordance with a
special contract to undertake a specific work or job, requiring special or technical skills not available
in the employing agency, to be accomplished within a specific period, which in no case shall exceed
one year, and performs or accomplishes the specific work or job, under his own responsibility with
a minimum of direction and supervision from the hiring agency; and
5. Emergency and seasonal personnel.

Principal groups of position in the Civil Service, on the basis of appointment

1. Competitive positions – According to merit and fitness to be determined by competitive

examinations, as far as practicable.
2. Non-competitive positions – Do not have to take into account merit and fitness. No need for
competitive examinations.

a. Policy-determining – Tasked to formulate a method of action for the government or any of its
subdivisions.
b. Primarily confidential – Duties are not merely clerical but devolve upon the head of an office, which,
by reason of his numerous duties, delegates his duties to others, the performance of which requires
skill, judgment, trust and confidence
Proximity Rule
The test used to determine confidentiality of a position. The occupant of a particular position
could be considered a confidential employee if the predominant reason why he was chosen by
the appointing authority was the latter’s belief that he can share a close intimate relationship
with the occupant which ensures freedom of discussion without fear of embarrassment or
 misgivings of possible betrayals of personal trust and confidential matters of State (De los Santos
v. Mallare, G.R. No. L-3881, Aug. 31, 1950).

c. Highly technical – Requires technical skill or training in the highest degree

NOTE: The test to determine whether the position is non-competitive is the nature of the responsibilities,
not the description given to it. The Constitution does not exempt the above-given positions from the
operation of the principle that “no officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended
except for causes provided by law.”

q) Quo Warranto
Refers to an election contest relating to the qualifications of an elective official on the ground of:
(1) Ineligibility; or
(2) Disloyalty to the republic of the Philippines.
The issue is whether respondent possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications
prescribed by law (A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, May 15, 2007).

NOTE: Quo warranto proceedings against a Congressman-elect, Senator-elect, President-

elect and VP-elect are brought before the appropriate electoral tribunals created by the
Constitution.

Quo warranto proceedings against any regional, provincial or city officials are brought before
the COMELEC.

Quo warranto proceedings against municipal officials and barangay officials are brought
before the RTCs and MTCs respectively.

Basis Election Protest Quo Warranto

Who may file By a losing candidate for the same office By any voter who is a registered voter in
for which the winner filed his COC the constituency where the winning
candidate sought to be disqualified ran
for office
Issue/s Who received the majority or plurality of Whether the candidate who was
the votes which were legally cast? proclaimed and elected should be
disqualified because of ineligibility or
Whether there were irregularities in the disloyalty to the Philippines.
conduct of the election which affected its
results.

Impeachable officers (PVMMO)

1. President
2. Vice-President
3. Members of the Supreme Court
4. Members of the Constitutional Commissions
5. Ombudsman
 NOTE: The enumeration is exclusive (Sec. 2, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution).

Grounds for impeachment (1999, 2012, 2013 Bar) (BOB CTG)

1. Culpable violation of the Constitution
2. Treason
3. Bribery
4. Graft and Corruption
5. Other high crimes
6. Betrayal of public trust (Sec. 2, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution)

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 292

Lopez v. Roxas, 17 SCRA 756 (1966) - PET

Facts: Petitioner Fernando Lopez and respondent Gerardo Roxas were the main contenders for the Office
of Vice-President of the Philippines in the general elections held on November 9, 1965. Lopez garnered
the highest number of votes. He got 3,531,550 votes while Roxas got 3,504,826 votes or a difference of
just 26.7k votes. Roxas contested the election of Lopez before the PET on the ground that the latter did
not obtain the largest number of votes for the said office.

Lopez instituted in the SC the present original action, for prohibition with preliminary injunction against
Roxas, to prevent the PET from hearing and deciding the aforementioned election contest based on the
following grounds:
1. Republic Act No. 1793, creating said Tribunal, is "unconstitutional," and that, "all proceedings taken
by it are a nullity."
2. that the recount of votes by the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, as an incident of an election contest,
is inconsistent with the exclusive power of Congress to canvass the election returns for the President
and the Vice-President;
3. that the tenure of the President and the VicePresident is fixed by the Constitution and cannot be
abridged by an Act of Congress, like Republic Act No. 1793; that said Act has the effect of amending
the Constitution, in that it permits the Presidential Electoral Tribunal to review the congressional
proclamation of the president-elect and the vice-president-elect;

RA No. 1793 provides that, there shall be an independent Presidential Electoral Tribunal ... which shall be
the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the president-elect and
the vice-president-elect of the Philippines.

Issue: WON RA No. 1793 is unconstitutional?

Ruling: No. Republic Act No. 1793 has not created a new or separate court. It has merely conferred upon
the Supreme Court the functions of a Presidential Electoral Tribunal. t merely connotes the imposition of
additional duties upon the Members of the Supreme Court. Moreover, the power to be the "judge ... of
... contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications" of any public officer is essentially judicial.

Discussion:
Congress v. PET - Functions
Congress merely acts as a national board of canvassers, charged with the ministerial and executive duty
27 to make said declaration, on the basis of the election returns duly certified by provincial and city boards
of canvassers.

Upon the other hand, the Presidential Electoral Tribunal has the judicial power to determine whether or
not said duly certified election returns have been irregularly made or tampered with, or reflect the true
result of the elections in the areas covered by each, and, if not, to recount the ballots cast, and, incidentally
thereto, pass upon the validity of each ballot or determine whether the same shall be counted, and, in
the affirmative, in whose favor, which Congress has power to do.

Constitutional Tenure
It is, likewise, patent that the aforementioned authority of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal to determine
whether or not the protestant has a better right than the President and/or the Vice-President declared
elected by Congress would not abridge the constitutional tenure. If the evidence introduced in the
election protest shows that the person really elected president or vice-president is the protestant, not the
person declared elected by Congress, then the latter had legally no constitutional tenure whatsoever, and,
hence, he can claim no abridgement thereof.

New duties of the Supreme Court; not new office

It is similarly obvious that, in imposing upon the Supreme Court the additional duty of performing the
functions of a Presidential Electoral Tribunal, Congress has not, through Republic Act No. 1793,
encroached upon the appointing power of the Executive. The imposition of new duties constitutes, neither
the creation of an office, nor the appointment of an officer.

See also: Sec 4, Par. 4, Article, VII, 1987 Constitution

The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice- President, and may promulgate its rules for the
purpose.

Medinilla v. CSC, 194 SCRA 278 (1991) - Next-in-rank

Facts: Medenilla was a contractual employee of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)
occupying the position of Public Relations Officer II. In 1987, Medenilla was detailed as Technical Assistant
in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Manpower Management.

Pursuant to Executive Order No. 124 dated January 30, 1987, a reorganization ensued within the DPWH
and all the positions therein were abolished. A revised staffing pattern together with the guidelines on
the selection and placement of personnel was issued. Included in the revised staffing pattern is the
contested position of Supervising Human Resource Development Officer. On January 2, 1989, the
Medenilla was appointed to the disputed position.

Respondents Dellosa, et. Al, all of whom are employees in the Human Resource Training and Material
Development Division, Administrative and Manpower Management Service of the DPWH, jointly lodged
a protest before the DPWH task force on reorganization contesting the appointment of the Medenilla to
the position. The protestants alleged that since they are next-in-rank employees, one of them should have
been appointed to the said position.
>Task Force on Reorganization Appeals finds the instant protest of Matilde Angeles, et al. without merit
and hereby recommends to the Honorable Secretary that the appointment of Ardeliza Medenilla to the
contested position of Supervising Human Resource Development Officer be upheld

>CSC reversed and held that in the event of there occurring a vacancy, the officer next-in-rank must be
appointed relying on Section 4 of RA 6656 which provides that:

Officers and employees holding permanent appointments shall be given preference for
appointment to new positions in the approved staffing pattern comparable to their former
positions or if there are not enough comparable positions, to position next lower in rank.

Issue: WON the appointment of Medenilla is invalid?

Ruling: No, for as long as she is eligible for the position. It is not disputed that the Medenilla possesses
the appropriate civil service eligibility and requisite educational background. A careful review of the
records of the case, will reveal that the petitioner possesses the requisite experience for the contested
position.

The petitioner, not only was a cum laude graduate from the University of the Philippines, she has also
acquired plenty of experience in the field of Human Resource Development. Under Sec 4 of RA 6656, old
employees should be considered first. But it does not necessarily follow that they should then
automatically be appointed.

The Court already ruled on several occasions that when the appointee is qualified, the Civil Service
Commission has no choice but to attest to the appointment. It is not within its prerogative to revoke an
appointee on the ground that substituting its judgment for that of the appointing power, another person
has better qualifications for the job.

The only purpose of attestation is to determine whether the appointee possesses the requisite civil service
eligibility, no more than that is left for the Civil Service Commission to do

Mantala v. Salvador, 206 SCRA 264 (1992) - Jurisdiction of CSC

Facts: Dr. Mariquita J. Mantala, a private medical practitioner, was given by the Secretary of Health a
temporary appointment to the then vacant position of Division Chief, Medical Division III, Monitoring and
Evaluation Division of the TB Control Service, Office of Public Health, of the Department of Health.

That temporary appointment was shortly made subject of a formal protest filed by Dr. Julia P. Regino with
the Committee on Evaluation and Protest of the Department of Health. Dr. Regino claimed that it was she
to whom the appointment should have been extended since the post of Medical Officer III then held by
her was next-in-rank to the office in question, and moreover she had been in the service for thirty-five
years.

Committee on Evaluation and Protest upheld the Health Secretary's appointment of Dr. Mantala as
Division Chief.
Merit Systems Board of the Civil Service Commission ruled adversely to Mantala. This decision was
appealed to the CSC
CSC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Merit Systems Board in Dr. Regino's favor.
MR - CSC reversed its decision and upheld Dr. Mantala's appointment.

Dr. Regino filed a motion for reconsideration stressing her status as "a qualified next-in-rank" officer which
was denied. No appeal was taken from said Resolution No. 90-1012. It consequently became final and
executory.

In the meantime, or more precisely on March 12, 1990, Dr. Regino instituted an action of quo warranto
and mandamus in the Regional Trial Court at Quezon City against Dr. Mantala, Secretary Bengzon and
other officials of the Department of Health, claiming that having an established right to the position of
Division Chief in question, she should be installed therein

RTC annulled and set aside Dr. Mantala's appointment as Chief of Medical Division III in the Tuberculosis
Control Service, Office for Public Health Services, Department of Health. Hence, this petition for review
on certiorari in which it is prayed that RTC's decision be reversed.

Issue:

Ruling: The petition has merit and will be granted. The decision of August 30, 1991 is fatally flawed. It was
rendered without jurisdiction, and it runs afoul of established doctrine.

Disciplinary cases, and cases involving "personnel actions" affecting employees in the civil service --
including "appointment through certification, promotion, transfer, reinstatement, reemployment, detail,
reassignment, demotion and separation," and, of course, employment status and qualification standards
-- are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.

The Constitution declares the Commission to be “the central personnel agency of the Government,"
having power and authority to administer the civil service; to promulgate its own rules concerning
pleadings and practice before it or before any of its offices; and to render decision in "any case or matter
brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution," which
decision, or order or ruling "may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party
within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof."

It was thus error, because beyond its competence, for the respondent Trial Court to take cognizance of
the quo warranto and mandamus action instituted by Dr. Regino which was in essence a protest against
the appointment of Dr. Mantala.

Resolution of November 14, 1990, in Dr. Mantala's favor, became final and executory by reason of Dr.
Regino's failure to take an appeal therefrom -- and evidently to remedy this fatal procedural lapse -- that
the latter thought of filing her quo warranto and mandamus action in the Regional Trial Court. Such a
stratagem cannot be allowed to succeed.