Consti I - Article 9 - Cases Summary and Doctrines
COMMON PROVISIONS
The Constitutional Commission
Independence of the Commission
TOPIC CASE
Independenc
e of the Funa v Chairman Villar
Commissions
Decisions of the Commission
TOPIC CASE
Gualberto J. Dela Llana v The Chairperson of CoA
Decisions and orders of the COA reviewable by the
court via a petition for certiorari refer to the
COA’s quasi-judicial capacity not its
quasi-legislative or rule-making powers
COA lifted the pre-audit system of governmental
financial transactions to expedite the process.
However, after the 1986 revolution, it was
reinstated because of the finding of grave
anomalies.. However, when it was already
Decisions of
stabilized, they lifted it again national government
the
agencies and GOCCs
Commission
Petitioner alleged that the pre-audit duty on
the part of the COA cannot be lifted by a
mere circular, considering that pre-audit is a
constitutional mandate.
Respondent focused on the procedural issue
claiming that certiorari is not the proper remedy
since there was no allegation showing that COA
exercised judicial/quasi-judicial functions. The
Circular is valid and COA has the power to
promulgate it.
Art. 9, Sec. 1
Art. 9, Sec. 2-6
HOLDINGS DOCTRINE
Once the Chairman or Commissioner shall have
served the full term of 7 years, then he can no
longer be appointed to either the position of
Chairman or Commissioner.
Article IX-A Section 1 provides
Any vacancy due to death, resignation, or disability
that the Commission on Audit
before the expiration of the term should be filled
shall be independent. Hence, any
only for the ​unexpired​​ balance of the term
appointment of the President that
- An appointment to any vacancy in the
would devalue the mandated
COA arising from an expiration of a term
term of service contemplated in
shall be 7 years, except the appointment
the Constitution is void.
is to fill up a vacancy for the
corresponding unserved term of an
Reappointment kinds:
outgoing member. In that case, the term
1. Expiration of term
will only be the unexpired portion
(resignation) -
appointment should be
Reappointment that is prohibited is the second
the complete 7 years
appointment to one and the same office. Therefore, the
2. Due to demise, disability,
appointment from Commissioner to Chairman is valid,
resignation, or
provided that the Commissioner hasn’t served the full 7
impeachment -
years yet.
appointment is for the
unexpired term
The President doesn’t have the discretion to extend a
promotional appointment of more than or less than 7
years. Thus, even as a promotion and not a
reappointment, it is still not permitted, since it cuts
down the required 7 year term requirement.
Art. 9, Sec. 7
HOLDINGS DOCTRINE
The issues in this case is whether or not Certiorari
is the proper case to file and whether or not the
COA can lift the pre-audit system in government
transactions
Article IX-D does not require COA to conduct
Decisions and orders of the COA
pre-audit of all government transactions and for all
are reviewable by the court via a
government agencies. The conduct of pre-audit is
petition for certiorari. However,
not mandatory that the SC may compel the COA to
these refer to ​ decisions and
perform, it is within COA’s discretion to do so in
orders which were rendered by
line with its vested executive authority to define
the COA in its quasi-judicial
the scope of its audit and examination.
capacity not under its
rule-making powers
SC can only review COA decisions through certiorari if it
involves their decisions using their quasi-judicial
capacity, not their quasi-legislative or rule-making
powers.
ANSP 2018 

Diocese of Bacolod v COMELEC
Supra. Art. 2, Sec. 26
Querubin v COMELEC
The COMELEC released the bidding documents for
the “Two-Stage Competitive Bidding for the Lease
of Election Management System (EMS) and
Precinct-Based Optical Mark Reader (OMR) or
Optical Scan (OP-SCAN) System”
Other functions as may be provided by law
B. Civil Service Commission
Organization of the Commission
TOPIC CASE
Gaminde v COA
On June 11, 1993, Thelma P. Gaminde was
appointed as CSC Commissioner by the President.
On June 22 – she assumed office. On Sept 7 –
Commission on Appointment confirmed her
appointment.
Appointment letter: says she is “appointed ad
interim for a term expiring on February 2, 1999.
On Feb 1998 – She sought clarification from the
Term OP as to the expiry date of her term of office.
Chief Presidential Counsel opined that her term
will expire on Feb 2, 2000.
On Feb 4, 1999 – Chairman de Leon requested
opinion from COA whether Gaminde may be paid
their salaries notwithstanding
expiration of appointments. COA disallowed the
salaries and emoluments pertaining to her and her
co-terminous staff effective Feb 2, 1999. o
Gaminde appealed the disallowance to COA en
banc, but was dismissed
The primary issue before the Court is Comelec’s
jurisdiction: does Comelec have jurisdiction to order
the removal of the tarp? To this the Court answers
no, holding that Comelec’s jurisdiction applies only
to political candidates and parties (which petitioners
are not), and that said tarp is not election material
in any case (not paid for any candidate or party, Comelec’s jurisdiction only
nor truly campaigning for or against any such extends to candidates and
candidate or party). Also, the Court finds that the political parties; they do not have
tarp isan exercise of political expression that is jurisdiction over other
constitutionally protected (said expression is a social individuals/juridical entities
advocacy, not a political endorsement).The Court
also finds that the Comelec’s letter requiring
removal violates right to property (more specifically,
right to use property, in this case). Finally, the
Court finds that this is not an example of religious
expression or speech.
The decisions, orders, or ruling of
constitutional commissions can only
Petitioners argue that the Decision of the COMELEC En
be reviewed by the SC through
Banc declaring Smartmatic JV as the eligible bidder with
certiorari if it pertains to the
the lowest calculated responsive bid is a “judgment”
commission’s exercise of
within the contemplation of the rule, and is, therefore,
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
a proper subject of a Rule 64 petition.
powers.
SC: Rule 64 does not cover rulings of the COMELEC in
For COMELEC, these decision are
the exercise of its administrative powers.
with regard to their power to be the
sole judge of generally all
controversies and contests relating
to the elections, returns, and
qualifications of elective offices.
Art. 9, Sec. 8
-----------------------------
Art. 9, Sec. 1
HOLDINGS DOCTRINE
In order to preserve the periodic
succession (Of the first
Commissioners appointed, the
Chairman serves for 7 years,
another for 5 years, and the third
for 3 years) mandated by the
Constitution, the rotational plan
requires two conditions:
1. The terms of the first
commissioners should
start on a common date​​;
and
2. Fill any vacancy due to
death, resignation or
disability before the
expiration of the term
should be filled only for
the unexpired balance of
the term.
ANSP 2018 

TOPIC CASE
MWSS v Hernandez
(par. 1) GOCCSs with charter and created by
special law
MWSS was charged for willful failure to pay wage
differentials, allowances, and other monetary
benefits to its 2,500 or so contractual employees.
Under Civil
The case was filed with the Arbitration Branch of
Service Law
NLRC.
MWSS argued that they are a GOCC therefore
NLRC has no jurisdiction over them. Labor Arbiter
ultimately held that the Civil Service Law applies
to employees in government corporations in all
matters, ​EXCEPT “monetary claims”​​ such as the
present case where the Labor Code governs.
Bliss v Calleja
GOCC’s without charter and created under the
corporation code → not under the Civil Service
Law
Only GOCCs with original charter are under the
Civil Service Laws.
GOCCs under
Corporation
Code
Torres v De Leon
Samson v CA
Positions in competitive service
Competitive He has been terminated as Asst. Secretary to the
Mayor for lack and loss of confidence, given that
such position is non-competitive and that
inherent in the nature of such position to be
primarily and highly confidential.
Art. 9, Sec. 2
Scope of the System
HOLDINGS DOCTRINE
GOCC are governed by the Civil Service Law and Civil
Service Rules and Regulations; therefore Labor Arbiter
has no jurisdiction over the case. MWSS’ employees are
governed by the Civil Service Law, NOT by the Labor
Code. Hence, all controversies are NOT cognizable by
NLRC.
As to the Labor Arbiter’s contention that only ​regular Employees of GOCC’s are governed
employees​​ of MWSS are outside the jurisdiction of by civil service law. Civil service law
NLRC, SC held this to be untenable. There is no legal or governs monetary claims as well.
logical justification for such a distinction. Positions in
the civil service are classified as career or non-career
service. Contractual personnel fall under “non-career
service”.
A corporation is created by
operation of law under the
Corporation Code while a
SC points out that the BDC is a GOCC created
government corporation is normally
under the Corporation Law, without a charter, and
created by special law referred to
governed by the Labor Code, and not the Civil
often as a charter.
Service Law so the EO does not apply to its
employees. The jurisprudence that should apply is
Government-owned corporation
National Service Commission v. NLRC where it was
created under the Corporation Law
stressed that the 1987 Constitution provides that
is governed by the Labor Code while
the Civil Service embraces all branches, subdivisions,
a ​government corporation created
instrumentalities of the Government, including
through a charter is governed by
GOCCs with original charters
the Civil Service Law,​​ and not the
Labor Code.
Is PNRC a GOCC? Depends on the case.
Since PNRC is neither a subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality of the government, nor a GOCC or a
Generally, the Philippine National
subsidiary thereof, as explained in Liban.
Red Cross is treated as a sui generis
o However, this does not ipso facto imply that the PNRC
entity and is NOT considered a
is a "private corporation," that must be organized under
GOCC.
the Corporation Code. Remember, it it is regulated by
IHL and treated as an auxiliary of the State.
However, if it involves the
o Again, since it’s sui generis, have to look at case to
enforcement of labor laws and
case basis.
penal statutes like in this case, it
CAN be treated as a GOCC.
However, The CSC has jurisdiction over the PNRC
because the issue at hand is the enforcement of labor
laws and penal statutes, thus, in this particular matter,
the PNRC can be treated as a GOCC.
Non-competitive means positions
The position of “Assistant Secretary” is not among those that are highly technical, primarily
expressly declared by law as non-competitive​​; nor is it confidential, and policy determining
considered “policy- determining, primarily confidential
or highly technical.” Compared to a Secretary, an DOCTRINE: As a general rule,
"assistant" merely helps, aids or serves in a subordinate position in all branches,
capacity to the person who is actually clothed with all subdivisions and instrumentalities
the duties and responsibilities of "secretary." The of the governmentalities of the
functions strictly attributable to a "secretary" and which government, including those in
would repose on such person the trust and confidence GOCCs, belong to the competitive
of the employer, is not automatically vested or service. The only exceptions are
transferred to an "assistant secretary," because the those expressly declared by law to
latter simply assists or aids the former in the be in the non-competitive service
accomplishment of his duties. and those which are
policy-determining, primarily
ANSP 2018 

“Primarily confidential” positions requisites:
- Confidence in aptitude of the appointee for
the duties of the office
- Close intimacy which insures freedom from
intercourse, without embarrassment or
Griño v CSC
freedom from misgivings of betrayals of
personal trust on confidential matters
Par. 2, test of confidentiality
- Tenure ends upon loss of confidence
- Cessation entails no removal but only an
expiration
Primarily
confidential
ISSUE: What determines a confidential employee?
HELD: It is the nature alone of the position that
determines whether it is policy-determining or primarily
confidential.
CSC v Salas It is the appointing power that determines that: the
nature of the position
Nature of duties determinative of the
confidentiality of position In case of conflict then it is the Court that determines
whether the position is primarily confidential or not.
“It is determined not by the title but by the nature of
the task that is entrusted to it.”
Issue: Whether the position of Administrator of POEA is
a career executive, thus having security of tenure
Held: The position normally gives security of tenure.
Achacoso v Macaraig To be of permanent appointment however and to enjoy
Temporary the security of tenure,​ one must meet all requirements
Temporary appointments needed from the position
If requirements aren’t met, appointment is considered
temporary​​, thus removal could happen anytime. The
purpose of appointing an unqualified person is for the
continuation of the offices functions
Issue: Should Santiago’s appointment as Customs
Collector I be upheld?
Held: Yes. Santiago has met all qualifications. The “next
in rank” rule is not mandatory
Santiago v CSC One who is next-in-rank is entitled to preferential
Reorganizatio
consideration for promotion to the higher vacancy but
n neither grants a vested right to the
“Next in rank” rule it does not necessarily follow that he and no one else
can be appointed.
The rule neither grants a vested right to the holder.
The power to appoint is a matter of discretion. To apply
the next-in-rank rule peremptorily would impose a rigid
confidential or highly technical in
nature.
DOCTRINE: The positions of city
legal officer and provincial attorney
were created under RA No. 5185
which categorized them together as
positions of "trust”. By virtue of RA
No. 5185, both the provincial
attorney and city legal officer serve
as the legal adviser and legal officer
for the civil cases of the province
and the city that they work for.
Their services are precisely
categorized by law to be "trusted
services."
DOCTRINE:​Persons occupying
non-competitive positions are also
covered by the guarantee of
security of tenure.​​ The distinction
between competitive and
non-competitive is significant only
for purposes of appointment. The
termination of the official relation of
officials and employees holding
primarily confidential positions on
the ground of loss of confidence can
be justified because in that case
their cessation from office involves
no removal but expiration of the
term of office.
DOCTRINE: A person who does not
have the requisite qualifications for
the position cannot be appointed to
it in the first place, or only as an
exception to the rule, may be
appointed to it merely in an acting
capacity in the absence of
appropriate eligible. The person
named in an acting capacity accepts
the position under the condition
that he shall surrender the office
once he is called upon to do so by
the appointing authority. His term is
understood at the outset as without
any fixity and enduring at the
pleasure of the appointing
authority.
DOCTRINE: One who is next-in-rank
is entitled to preferential
consideration for promotion to the
higher vacancy but it does not
necessarily follow that he and no
one else can be appointed. The rule
holder nor imposes a ministerial
duty on the appointing authority to
promote such person to the next
higher position.
ANSP 2018 
 formula on the appointing power contrary to the policy
of the law that among those qualified and eligible, the
appointing authority is granted discretion and
prerogative of choice of the one he deems fit for
appointment.
ISSUE: Whether the transfer of private respondent to
the Marikina Institute of Science and Technology is
violative of respondent’s security of tenure
The “next in rank” rule (that persons
who are next-in-rank are entitled to
a preference in appointment) is not
mandatory. It doesn’t grant a vested
right either. They are only the first
ones to be considered for a
promotion to a higher vacancy but it
doesn’t mean that no one else can
be appointed.

HELD: Yes. Transfers cannot be done when they are a

Temporary preliminary step toward an officer’s removal, or is a
Gloria v CA
Employees 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

Art. 9, Sec. 7
Political Opportunism and Spoils

TOPIC CASE HOLDINGS DOCTRINE

Elective vs. Appointive officials’
prohibition

The 1st paragraph of Sec 7, Art. IX-B

is more stringent than the second
The case at bar assails the constitutionality of Section
paragraph (which deals with
13 of R.A. 7227 of the “Bases Conversion and
appointive officials) by not providing
Development Act of 1992”, under which respondent
any exception to the rule against
Mayor Richard J. Gordon of Olongapo City was
appointment or designation of an
appointed as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Flores v Drilon elective official to the government
Political the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA).
post.
Opportunism Petitioners argue that under Section 7, Article IX-B of
Supra Art. 7, Sec. 13, prohibition against
and spoils the 1987 Constitution provides that “no elective official
designation of elective officer during tenure XPN: when the Constitution
shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any
provides otherwise (i.e. President as
capacity to any public office or position during his
head of the economic and planning
tenure”, thereby making the appointment of
agency; the Vice-President can be
respondent unconstitutional. The Supreme Court
appointed Member of the Cabinet;
granted the petition
and, a member of Congress who
may be designated ex officio
member of the Judicial and Bar
Council)

-----------------------------

C. Commission on Elections

Art. 9C, Sec. 1

Composition, qualifications, appointment, term

TOPIC CASE HOLDINGS DOCTRINE

Composition,
qualifications, Cayetano v Monsod
appointment,
term Meaning of practice of law

Art. 9C, Sec. 2

Powers and Functions of the COMELEC (Administrative, election contests, Powers not given, Deputizing law enforcement agencies, Registration of parties and
organizations, prosecution of election offenses, recommendatory powers)

TOPIC CASE HOLDINGS DOCTRINE

ANSP 2018 

Registration
of parties and
Atienza v COMELEC
organizations
Arroyo v DOJ
The case at bar deals with the creation of the Joint
DOJ-COMELEC Preliminary Investigation
Committee and Fact-finding team. In line with the
Prosecution discovery of the alleged pieces of evidence and
of election the surfacing of new witnesses, the COMELEC
offenses issued Resolution no. 9266 which created a joint
committee with the DOJ. The said committee was
tasked with conducting preliminary
investigations on the alleged election offenses
and anomalies during the 2004 and the 2007
elections.
he Court ruled in Kalaw v. Commission on Elections that
the COMELEC’s powers and functions under Section 2,
Article IX-C of the Constitution, “​include the
ascertainment of the identity of the political party and
its legitimate officers responsible for its acts.​​” The
Court also declared in another case that the ​COMELEC’s
COMELEC’s power to register
power to register political parties necessarily involved
political parties necessarily involved
the determination of the persons who must act on its
the determination of the persons
behalf. ​Thus, the COMELEC may resolve an intra-party
who must act on its behalf. Thus,
leadership dispute, in a proper case brought before it,
the COMELEC may ​resolve an
as an incident of its power to register political parties.
intra-party leadership dispute​​, in a
proper case brought before it, as an
While the question of party leadership has implications
incident of its power to register
on the COMELEC’s performance of its functions under
political parties.
Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution, the same
cannot be said of the issue pertaining to ​Atienza, et al.’s
expulsion from the LP. Such expulsion is for the
moment an issue of party membership and discipline,
in which the COMELEC cannot intervene, given the
limited scope of its power over political parties.
The petitioners are now assailing the constitutionality of
the joint DOJ-COMELEC Preliminary Investigation
Committee and Fact-Finding team. The court held that
the creation of the joint committee was constitutional.
The committee cannot be considered as a new office
because the Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team
were merely performing functions of the COMELEC and DOCTRINE: The power to conduct
the DOJ which they had already been performing by preliminary investigation is vested
virtue of the constitution, the statutes, and the Rules of exclusively with the COMELEC. The
Court. grant to the COMELEC of the power
to investigate and prosecute
The court further held that in acting jointly with the election offenses as an adjunct to
DOJ, the COMELEC cannot be considered to have the enforcement and administration
abdicated its independence in favor of the executive of all election laws is intended to
branch of government. The role of the DOJ in the enable the COMELEC to effectively
conduct of preliminary investigation of election insure to the people the free,
offenses has long been recognized by the Comelec orderly, and honest conduct of
because of its lack of funds and legal officers to conduct elections.
investigations and to prosecute such cases on its own.
This is especially true after R.A. No. 9369 vested in the
Comelec and the DOJ the concurrent jurisdiction to
conduct preliminary investigation of all election
offenses.The court thus upheld the validity of the Joint
Committee.

Art. 9C, Sec. 3

Commission Decisions

Art. 9C, Sec. 4

Regulation of Public Utilities, Media, Franchises

Art. 9C, Sec. 5

Pardons, etc

TOPIC CASE HOLDINGS DOCTRINE

SC held that Estrada was granted an absolute pardon
that fully restored all his civil and political rights, which
President may NOT extend pardon
naturally includes the right to seek public elective office.
are in the cases of: (1) Impeachment
The wording of the pardon to Estrada is complete,
cases, (2) Cases that have not yet
unambiguous, and unqualified. This is true as the
resulted in a final conviction; and (3)
pardon itself does not explicitly impose a condition or
Cases involving violations of election
limitation, considering the unqualified use of the term
Risos-Vidal v COMELEC and Estrada laws, rules and regulations in which
Pardons, etc. "civil and political rights"as being restored.
there was no favorable
Supra A7, Sec. 19 recommendation coming from the
SC held that the statement "[h]e is hereby restored to
COMELEC. Basically, the president’s
his civil and political rights," is crystal clear – the pardon
power cannot be limited by
granted to Estrada was absolute, meaning, it was not
legislative action.
only unconditional, it was unrestricted in scope,
complete and plenary in character, as the term
"political rights" adverted to has a settled meaning in
law and jurisprudence.

ANSP 2018 

GMA Network v COMELEC
Assailed in these petitions are certain regulations
promulgated by the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) relative to the conduct of the 2013
national and local elections dealing with ​political
advertisements​​. Specifically,​ the petitions
question the constitutionality of the limitations
placed on aggregate airtime allowed​​ to
candidates and political parties, as well as the
requirements incident thereto, such as the need
to report the same, and the sanctions imposed for
violations.
There is no question that the COMELEC is the office
constitutionally and statutorily authorized to enforce
election laws but it cannot exercise its powers without
limitations or reasonable basis. It could not simply
adopt measures or regulations just because it feels that
it is the right thing to do, in so far as it might be
concerned. It does have discretion, but such discretion
is something that must be exercised within the bounds
and intent of the law. The COMELEC is not free to
simply change the rules especially if it has consistently
interpreted a legal provision in a particular manner in
the past. If ever it has to change the rules, the same
must be properly explained with sufficient basis.

Art. 9C, Sec. 6-8

Political Rights

Art. 9C, Sec. 9

Election period

Art. 9C, Sec. 10

Equal protection of Candidates

Art. 9C, Sec. 11

Fiscal Autonomy

-----------------------------

D. Commission Audit

Art. 9D, Sec. 1

Purpose, Organization, Composition, Appointment

TOPIC CASE HOLDINGS DOCTRINE

DOCTRINE: A decision NOT made by
the Commission on Audit as a
collegial body is VOID. In this case,
the "Espiritu decision" was void ab
initio. Espiritu had no power (as
Manager of the COA Technical
Service Office) to render and
promulgate a decision of or for the
Commission. Even the Chairman
alone does not have this power. The
Purpose, Commission on Audit is a collegial
Mison v COA
Organization, body. ​The power is lodged in the
Composition, Commission on Audit, "composed
COA as a collegial body
Appointment of a Chairman and two
Commissioners."

No proper ratification/validation
could be done by the Acting
Chairman since he was not the
Commission, and he himself had no
power to decide any case, that
power, to repeat, being lodged only
in the Commission itself, as a
collegial body.

Art. 9D, Sec. 2

Powers and Functions

TOPIC CASE HOLDINGS DOCTRINE

An issue raised by petitioners is COA’s authority to audit
DOCTRINE: Private entities which
Examine and them, being private corporations.
handle government funds or
audit Blue Bar Coconut Phil. Tantuico
subsidies in trust may be examined
The Court disagrees, pointing to the ​Constitutional
or audited in their handling of said
Government Post-audit authority provision that grants COA audit jurisdiction over “such
funds by the government auditors.
expenditures non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity
directly or indirectly from or through the Government

ANSP 2018 

Law Firms v COMELEC
Hiring of law firm unauthorized
Exemption from Jurisdiction
which are required by law or the granting institution to COA can audit even
submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or non-governmental bodies if said
equity”​​. bodies receive subsidies/equity;
principle of primary jurisdiction
The Court also applies the principle of primary (that in specialized matters, trend is
jurisdiction (that in specialized matters, trend is to leave to leave issues in the hands of
issues in the hands of specialized agencies/institutions specialized agencies/institutions
instead of the courts), and also the policy of the Court instead of the courts)
not to intervene in actions of administrative agencies
unless there is clear showing of arbitrary action or
palpable and serious error
The OGCC approval and the COA concurrence were
required to ensure that there was basis for the
engagement of a private lawyer.
COA Circular No. 95-011, dated December 4, 1995,
provides that in the event that the need for the legal
Private law firms are unauthorized
services of a private lawyer cannot be avoided or is
to act in behalf of a GOCC for
justified under extraordinary or exceptional
circumstances, the written conformity and
acquiescence of the OGCC and the written concurrence
of the COA shall first be secured. The failure to secure
the written concurrence makes the engagement of the
private lawyer or law firm unauthorized.
Art. 9D, Sec. 3
Art. 9D, Sec. 3
Annual Report
ANSP 2018