Control and Supervision powers of the CSC as stated in the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 on the

Civil Service Commission Sec 12. Powers and Functions, subsection 6. May I ask how the CSC be able to
carry out this provision? Does the CSC have policies or programs regarding this?

Ans Please be informed that the power of the Commission to appoint and discipline its officials and
employees is in accordance with existing laws. As to the rules governing appointment and other
personnel actions in all government agencies, including the Commission, the Commission promulgated
CSC Resolution No. 1701009 (2017 Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource Actions)
on June 16, 2017.

On the other hand, the Commission promulgated CSC Resolution No. 1701077 (2017 Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS)) on July 3, 2017. Said Resolution provides for
procedural rules in the conduct of disciplinary and non-disiciplinary administrative cases involving
employees of the civil service in all government agency

Hello CSC,

Good day!

Our Agency (a income generating GOCC) is entering a Joint Venture Agreement with a Private Proponent
(Entity) and almost all of the functions of our agency will be covered by the Private Proponent (e.g.
Management, Operations and Maintenance) including our primary mandate! There are some employees
within our agency who are against this JVA because we believed that this practice is NOT for the best of
the service and the consuming public in general.

The Board Chairman and Higher Management are now verbally communicating with us and Persuading us
to either file for early retirement or transfer employment to the Private Partner (Proponent/Entity) in this
Joint Venture.

Question:

How can we preserved our security of tenure? The aforesaid Board Chairman verbally claims that they will
be abolishing our positions within our agency because our job description will be covered by the Private
Partner.

The said Board Chairman is scarring or frightening these employees that they will be on "FLOATING
STATUS" and will not be paid of thwir salaries if they wouldn't decide now whether to retire or transfer
employment.

Seeking for your immediate respose regarding this matters.

Thank you.

To the concerned citizen:

You represented that positions within your agency, your position included, would be abolished because
its job description will be covered by the Private Partner, under a joint venture. You now want to be
advised on how your security of tenure could be preserve.

Please be informed that as a matter of policy, the Commission does not render an opinion or ruling on
issues that may eventually be the subject of a complaint or appeal before it. This is so especially if the
material facts necessary to the judicious adjudication of the issues are not fully represented or
substantiated as in this case.

It is well settled under the Philippine Constitutional that "No officer or employee of the civil service
shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law". Such mandate has the spirit of
preserving one's security of tenure to the position he/she is holding in government service.

However, as regards your case, we invite your attention to the case of Prospero A. Pichay, Jr. vs. Office
of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs Investigative and Adjudicatory Division, et al.,
G.R. No. 196425 dated July 24, 2012, the Supreme Court stated thus:

“The abolition of the PAGC did not require the creation of a new, additional and distinct office as the duties
and functions that pertained to the defunct anti-graft body were simply transferred to the ODESLA, which is
an existing office within the Office of the President Proper. The reorganization required no more than a mere
alteration of the administrative structure of the ODESLA through the establishment of a third division – the
Investigative and Adjudicatory Division – through which ODESLA could take on the additional functions it
has been tasked to discharge under E.O. 13. In Canonizado v. Aguirre, We ruled that –

“Reorganization takes place when there is an alteration of the existing structure of government
offices or units therein, including the lines of control, authority and responsibility between them. It involves
a reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy
of functions.

“The Reorganization was Pursued in Good Faith.

“A valid reorganization must not only be exercised through legitimate authority but must also be pursued in
good faith. A reorganization is said to be carried out in good faith if it is done for purposes of economy and
efficiency. It appears in this case that the streamlining of functions within the Office of the President Proper
was pursued with such purposes in mind.”
Clearly, if the abolition of an agency is pursued in good faith, that is, for purposes of economy and efficiency,
is valid. "

Thus, if abolition of an agency is carried out on legitimate grounds, there is no impairment of the
security of tenure of the affected employees (Kapisanan ng Mga Kawani ng Energy Regulatory
Board vs. Commissioner Fe B. Barin et al., G.R. No. 150974 dated June 29, 2007).
As regards the payment of separation pay, this is only allowed under Section 9 of Republic Act (RA) No.
6656 also known as An Act To Protect The Security of Tenure of Civil Service Officers And
Employees In The Implementation Of Government Reorganization when an employee is separated
due to a valid reorganization stating, to wit:

"Section 9. All officers and employees who are found by the Civil Service Commission to have been separated
in violation of the provisions of this Act, shall be ordered reinstated or reappointed as the case may be
without loss of seniority and shall be entitled to full pay for the period of separation. Unless also separated
for cause, all officers and employees, who have been separated pursuant to reorganization shall, if
entitled thereto, be paid the appropriate separation pay and retirement and other benefits under
existing laws within ninety (90) days from the date of the effectivity of their separation or front the
date of the receipt of the resolution of their appeals as the case may be: provided, that application
for clearance has been filed and no action thereon has been made by the corresponding department
or agency. Those who are not entitled to said benefits shall be paid a separation gratuity in the amount
equivalent to one (l) month salary for every year of service. Such separation pay and retirement benefits
shall have priority of payment out of the savings of the department or agency concerned."(Underscoring
supplied).

We hope we have enlightened you on the matter.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

 LEONARDO JR DEL CARMEN


 Offline
More
4 months 3 weeks ago - 4 months 3 weeks ago #3063
LEONARDO JR DEL CARMEN replied the topic: Security of Tenure
Abolition of public office or position as consequence of joint venture arrangement is sui generis which
does not fall squarely within the ambit of reorganization. No jurisprudence is yet available passing upon
the issue on loss of security of tenure occasioned by or as a result of a joint venture agreement entered
into by government agency, instrumentality or GOCCs.

Reorganization is defined by law and jurisprudence as: “A reorganization ‘involves the reduction of
personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of
functions.’ It alters the existing structure of government offices or units therein, including the lines of
control, authority and responsibility between them to make the bureaucracy more responsive to the
needs of the public clientele as authorized by law. It could result in the loss of one’s position through
removal or abolition of an office.” (cited in Pan vs Peña, G.R. No. 174244 , February 13, 2009)

In reorganization on the one hand, there is no private party involved as it is still the government which
performs its functions or activities. The loss of one’s position or abolition of the office is by reason of
revamp of the existing bureaucratic structures, authorities and responsibilities. In a JV on the other hand,
it is the GOCC which abdicates the performance of certain functions and activities in favor of a private
entity.
From another viewpoint, in reorganization the positions or functions in reality became non-existent but in
a JV some of the positions or functions remain but transferred to the private entity.

If we insist on using the Rules on Government Reorganization on JVs, then all JVs that will result to
reorganization is void because Section 1, RA 6656 requires passage of a law expressly authorizing
reorganization for a valid reorganization to take place, viz –

"Section 1. It is hereby declared the policy of the State to protect the security of tenure of civil service
officers and employees in the reorganization of the various agencies of the National Government and of
local governments, state colleges and universities expressly authorized by law, including government-
owned or controlled corporations with original charters, without sacrificing the need to promote morale,
efficiency in the civil service pursuant to Article IX, B, Section 3 of the Constitution." [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED].

PD 198 does not expressly vest in the Board of Directors or any of its officers the power to reorganize the
structures and positions in the Water District. In CSC Resolution No. 992762 dated December 15, 1999
(BATTUNG, ELADIO C.), it was ruled that –

“Thus, any process with the end in view of restructuring the bureaucracy's organizational and functional
set-up to make it more viable in terms of economy, efficiency, effectiveness and to make it more
responsive to the needs of public clientele as authorized by law, whether partial or total, is reorganization
(Rules on Government Reorganization) which can validly and lawfully be exercised only by virtue of an
express grant of such power and to be implemented pursuant to RA No. 6656.

xxx

In sum, the Commission agrees with the findings of the Civil Service Commission - Regional Office No. III
that the Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation does not posses the power to reorganize the corporation.
Thus, any reorganization undertaken without express authority is not in order.”

The Supreme Court in a plethora of cases ruled that power to reorganize public positions is inherently a
legislative power. In UP Board of Regents vs Rasul (G.R. No. 91551, August 16, 1991) it was reiterated that
–

“It is therefore clear that the authority of the UP is limited to what is expressly provided in Act No. 1870 as
amended, that is, to combine or merge colleges, that is all the law speaks of in such instance.

On the other hand, the power to create and abolish offices carries with it the power to fix the number of
positions, salaries, emoluments, and to provide funds for the operation of the office created. This power is
inherently legislative in character. The UP Board of Regents does not have such power. Hence, the
abolition of the position of respondent Dr. Estrella is not valid.”

The policy of according protection to security of tenure of government employees is not merely a
statutory grant but a Constitutional Right (Article IX, B, Section 3) and therefore must pass the stringent
requirements of the law and the constitution if the same will be disregarded even in case of
reorganization.

Inevitably, a JV will result to abolition of public office or function since the same will be undertaken by the
private partner. The question that must be answered is that whether the 2013 NEDA JV Guideline is
constitutional when it will result to removal of civil servants from public office without due process of law
and without a law authorizing this reorganization.
Last Edit: 4 months 3 weeks ago by LEONARDO JR DEL CARMEN. Reason: emphasis
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

 Concerned Public Servant

 TOPIC AUTHOR

 Offline
More
4 months 2 weeks ago #3092
Concerned Public Servant replied the topic: Security of Tenure
Hi Sir Leonardo,

Thank you for enlightening us...

You mentioned about PD 198, how did you guessed that our agency is a LWD? Which in fact, you are
absolutely correct!

Good day and thank you for continued enlightenment!

Is there a prescribed period to issue appointment? The deliberation was conducted on August 30, 2017.
Up to this writing, no appointment was issued to all casual and permanent appointee. Please note that
there is one casual position which the resulted from said deliberation is in question by other applicants.
Formal complaint is neither filed. I understand that casual appointments always end every 31st December.

1. Is there a possibility that an appointment be issued anytime this year considering that it is almost year
end already?
2. The positions of those promoted or vacated due to promotion as a result of above deliberation were
already advertised. Is it legal to advertise and deliberate those positions when the appointment for
promotion is not yet issued?

Dear MJ.

Good day!
Please be informed that as a matter of policy, the Commission does not render opinions or rulings on
issues that may be the subject of a complaint or appeal before it. This is so especially when there are
material facts necessary to the judicious adjudication of the issues which are not fully represented or
substantiated as in this case.

Nevertheless, as to your first query (Is there a possibility that an appointment be issued anytime this year
considering that it is almost year end already?)

The Answer would be yes, however, it must be in accordance with Section 17, Rule VI (Effectivity and
submission of appointments) ORAOHRA which reads, as follows:

xxx

“Sec. 17. An appointment issued in accordance with pertinent laws and rules shall take effect immediately
on the date it was signed by the appointing officer/authority. The date of signing shall be indicated below
the signature of the appointing officer/authority in the appointment form.

“The date of the appointment shall not fall on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, except in cases where the
date of issuance is specifically provided in a special law such as in the appointment of personal and
confidential staff of Constitutional officials and elective officials and where the service should not
constitute a gap such as in transfer and reappointment.”

As to your second query (the positions of those promoted or vacated due to promotion as a result of
above deliberation were already advertised. Is it legal to advertise and deliberate those positions when the
appointment for promotion is not yet issued?), relevant is Section 29, Rule VII (Publication and Posting of
Vacant Positions) of the 2017 Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource Actions
(ORAOHRA) which reads, as follows:

“Sec. 29. The publication of a particular vacant position shall be valid until filled but not to extend beyond
nine (9) months reckoned from the date the vacant position was published.

“Should no appointment be issued within the nine-month period, the agency has to cause the re-
publication and re-posting of the vacant position.”

The foregoing provision also answers your query on prescription period in the issuance of appointment.

We hope to have enlightened you on the matter.

Dear MJ.

Good day!
Please be informed that as a matter of policy, the Commission does not render opinions or rulings on
issues that may be the subject of a complaint or appeal before it. This is so especially when there are
material facts necessary to the judicious adjudication of the issues which are not fully represented or
substantiated as in this case.

Nevertheless, as to your first query (Is there a possibility that an appointment be issued anytime this year
considering that it is almost year end already?)

The Answer would be yes, however, it must be in accordance with Section 17, Rule VI (Effectivity and
submission of appointments) ORAOHRA which reads, as follows:

xxx

“Sec. 17. An appointment issued in accordance with pertinent laws and rules shall take effect immediately
on the date it was signed by the appointing officer/authority. The date of signing shall be indicated below
the signature of the appointing officer/authority in the appointment form.

“The date of the appointment shall not fall on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, except in cases where the
date of issuance is specifically provided in a special law such as in the appointment of personal and
confidential staff of Constitutional officials and elective officials and where the service should not
constitute a gap such as in transfer and reappointment.”

As to your second query (the positions of those promoted or vacated due to promotion as a result of
above deliberation were already advertised. Is it legal to advertise and deliberate those positions when the
appointment for promotion is not yet issued?), relevant is Section 29, Rule VII (Publication and Posting of
Vacant Positions) of the 2017 Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource Actions
(ORAOHRA) which reads, as follows:

“Sec. 29. The publication of a particular vacant position shall be valid until filled but not to extend beyond
nine (9) months reckoned from the date the vacant position was published.

“Should no appointment be issued within the nine-month period, the agency has to cause the re-
publication and re-posting of the vacant position.”

The foregoing provision also answers your query on prescription period in the issuance of appointment.

We hope to have enlightened you on the matter.