ARTICLE

9 a motion for new trial or motion for new trial or

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS reconsideration reconsideration, if allowed
COMMON PROVISIONS under the procedural rules of
Funa v Chairman Duque’s designation as member of the governing Boards of the GSIS, -governs an appeal from the the Commission concerned,
PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF impairs the independence of the CSC judgment or final order interrupts the period; hence,
because the President sits at the apex of the Executive branch, and rendered by the Regional Trial should the motion be denied,
exercises "control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and Court in the exercise of its the aggrieved party may file
offices." appellate jurisdiction. the petition within the
remaining period, which shall
There can be no instance under the Constitution where an officer of -Such appeal is on a question not be less than five days in
the Executive branch is outside the control of the President. The of fact, or of law, or of mixed any event, reckoned from the
Executive branch is unitary since there is only one President vested question of fact and law notice of denial
with executive power exercising control over the entire Executive
branch. Any office in the Executive branch that is not under the - given due course only upon - similar to the petition
control of the President is a lost command whose existence is a prima facie showing that the for certiorari under Rule 65
without any legal or constitutional basis. Regional Trial Court - assails a judgment or final
committed an error of fact or order of the Commission on
Gualberto J. Dela Llana v. Decisions and orders of the COA are reviewable by the court via a law warranting the reversal or Elections (COMELEC), or the
The Chairperson, petition for certiorari. modification of the challenged Commission on Audit (COA).
Commission on Audit judgment or final order.
However, these refer to decisions and orders which were rendered The petition is not designed to
by the COA in its quasi-judicial capacity. correct only errors of
jurisdiction, not errors of
Circular No. 89-299 was promulgated by the COA under its quasi-
judgment.
legislative or rule-making powers. Hence, Circular No. 89-299 is not Querubin v. COMELEC The COMELEC included, that may be brought directly to the Supreme
reviewable by certiorari. Court on certiorari is not all-encompassing, and that it only relates to
those rendered in the commissions’ exercise of adjudicatory or
Diocese of Bacolod v. Ambil, Jr. v. COMELEC (The General Rule) quasi-judicial powers. In the case of the COMELEC, this would limit
COMELEC This decision must be a final decision or resolution of the Comelec the provision’s coverage to the decisions, orders, or rulings issued
en banc, not of a division, certainly not an interlocutory order of a pursuant to its authority to be the sole judge of generally all
division o The Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari, controversies and contests relating to the elections, returns, and
an interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a Division of the qualifications of elective offices.
Commission on Elections
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Fortune Life and General Gaminde v. COA The 1973 Constitution introduced the first system of a regular
Insurance v. COA Questions of fact cannot be raised except to determine whether rotation or cycle in the membership of the Civil Service Commission.
the COMELEC or the COA were guilty of grave abuse of discretion
“Fresh period rule” amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired portion
of the term of the predecessor.
The reglementary periods under Rule 42 and Rule 64 are different.
In Republic vs. Imperial, it says that the operation of the rotational
Rule 42 Rule 64 plan requires two conditions, both indispensable to its workability:
Review of Judgments and (1) that the terms of the first three Commissioners should start on a
Petition for Review From the Final Orders or Resolutions of common date,
Regional Trial Courts to the the Commission on Elections (2) that any vacancy due to death, resignation or disability before
Court of Appeals and the Commission on Audit the expiration of the term should only be filled only for the
unexpired balance of the term.
- aggrieved party is allowed 15 - petition is filed within 30
days to file the petition for days from notice of the MWSS v. Hernandez All cases of employees, regular or contractual, of the government
review from receipt of the judgment or final order or and GOCCs with original charters are under the jurisdiction of the
assailed decision or final order, resolution sought to be (GOCC’s with charter and CSC.
or from receipt of the denial of reviewed. The filing of a created by special law)
MB.Fellone
 excluding secretaries from competitive employees) are to be strictly
but reasonably construed.
Republic Act No. 6234 created it as a "government corporation to be Grino v. CSC First , the courts determined the nature of the positions held by the
known as the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System. provincial attorney and its subordinates.
Employment in the MWSS is governed not by the Labor Code but by (test of confidentiality of Based on Cadiente VS. Santos, their position is indeed one which is
the civil service law, rules and regulations; and controversies arising positions) primarily confidential in nature.
from or connected with that employment are not cognizable by the
NLRC. Next, the courts decided that the Cadiente case is applicable here by
virtue of Republic Act No. 5185.
BLISS v. Callejo Private corporation Government corporation
-made through general law - made through special law Both the provincial attorney and legal officer serve as the legal
(par. 1; GOCC’s without - corporation code - original charter adviser and legal officer for the civil cases of the provinces and the
charter and created under city that they work for.
corporation code) The SC held that Section 1 of Executive Order No. 180 expressly
limits its application to only government-owned or controlled Their services are precisely categorized by law to be “trusted
corporations with original charters. services.”

The court held that BDC is a GOCC created under the Corporation The lack thereof does not remove or dismiss them rather it is when
law. It is without a charter, governed by the Labor Code and not by their tenure ends. It can be viewed as an expiration of tenure which
the Civil Service Law, hence EO No. 180 does not apply to it. is what happened between Grino and Arandela.

Torres V. De Leon Torres questioned the jurisdiction of CSC because the PNRC is not a Thus, there being no removal or dismissal, there was no violation of
government owned and controlled corporation. a constitutional provision that ‘no officer or employee in the civil
service shall be suspended or dismissed except for a cause as
nature of the PNRC, there is nothing like it in terms of it structure, provided by lay’ (Article XII-B, Section 1 (3) , 1973 constitution).
but also in terms of history, public service, and official status making
its structure sui generis. CSC v. Salas Confidential employees are not only determined as such based on
executive/legislative declaration, but also, and more importantly, the
Since what was involved here is the enforcement of labor laws and nature of their job.
penal statutes, the PNRC can be treated as a GOCC.
Thus, having jurisdiction over the PNRC, the CSC had the authority to ADDENDUM: Competitive examination are dispensed with to
modify the penalty and order the dismissal of Torres from service. positions which are policy-determining, primarily confidential, or
highly technical, but not the requirement of merit and fitness. Merit
Moreover, the CSC has appellate jurisdiction on administrative cases and fitness can be determined in a different manner other than
involving the imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than 30 competitive examination.
days or fine in amount exceeding thirty days’ salary. Achacoso v. Macaraig It is settled that a permanent appointment can be issued only "to a
person who meets all the requirements for the position to which he
(temporary appointments) is being appointed, including the appropriate eligibility prescribed."

Samson v. CA As a general rule, position in all branches, subdivisions and Employees who do not meet the required qualifications for office are
instrumentalities of the governmentalities of the government, only considered temporary. Permanent status can only be given to
including those in GOCCs, belong to the competitive service. The employees that have the said requirements.
only exceptions are those expressly declared by law to be in the
noncompetitive service and those which are policy-determining, Term is understood at the outset as without any fixity and enduring
primarily confidential or highly technical in nature. at the pleasure of the appointing authority. When required to
relinquish his office, he cannot complain that he is being removed in
Asst. Secretaries are not among those expressly declared as violation of his security of tenure because removal imports the
noncompetitive. separation of the incumbent before the expiration of his term. This is
allowed by the Constitution only when it is for cause as provided by
An “assistant secretary”, although termed as “secretary” and may law.
incidentally perform work that is confidential is technically different
from a “secretary” of the mayor. Statutory exceptions (e.g. the one
MB.Fellone
 The acting appointee is separated precisely because his term has non-crippling activities during their free time, had taken a disruptive
expired. Expiration of the term is not covered by the constitutional approach to attain whatever it was they were specifically after.
provision on security of tenure.
As such, employees of covered GOCCs are part of the civil service
Santiago v. CSC The power to appoint is a matter of discretion. As explained in the system and are subject to circulars, rules and regulations issued by
Taduran vs CSC, the next-in-rank is only entitled to preference the Civil Service Commission (CSC) on discipline, attendance and
(“next in rank rule” not appointment but this does not assure him of the position. Rather, if general terms/conditions of employment, inclusive of matters
mandatory) there is no one qualified or if the positions has been left vacant, then involving self-organization, strikes, demonstrations and like
the next-in-rank shall take over concerted actions.

The Commission is only meant to check the eligibility of the Gloria v. CA Security of tenure is a fundamental and constitutionally guaranteed
appointed members and if he does possess the required qualification feature of our civil service.
he is then approved. No other criterion is permitted by law to be
employed by the Commission. The mantle of its protection extends not only to employees removed
without cause but also to cases of unconsented transfers which are
tantamount to illegal removals
Hernandez v. Villegas Officials/employees holding primarily confidential positions may not
be removed or suspended without cause. They continue only for so While a temporary transfer or assignment of personnel is
(loss of confidence as ground long as confidence in them endures. Their termination can be permissible even without the employee’s prior consent:
for termination – expiration justified on the ground of loss of confidence because it is an a. it cannot be done when the transfer is a preliminary step
of term not removal from expiration of, not removal from, office. toward his removal
office) b. a scheme to lure him away from his permanent position
c. designed to indirectly terminate his service, or force his
Briones v. Osmeña resignation.
It is well-settled that CSC eligibles that have rendered long and
(abolition in good faith) honorable service should not be sacrificed in favor of non-eligibles Flores v. Drilon The court held the Constitution seeks to prevent a public officer to
given positions of recent creation. Furthermore, the abolition done hold multiple functions since they are accorded with a public office
(as in the present case) in bad faith, undermining the security of (supra, Art. 7, Sec. 13; that is a full time job to let them function without the distraction of
tenure of the employees, are invalid. prohibition against other governmental duties.
designation of elective
officer during tenure)
For an abolition to be valid:
(1) done in good faith, Saduesta v. Municipality of The authority required by the Constitution to receive double or
(2) must not be for personal or political reasons, and Surigao additional compensation is a specific authority given to particular
(3) does not violate the law employee/s or officers of the Government because of peculiar or
exceptional reasons warranting the payment thereof.
Santos v. Yatco The Secretary of National Defense is not embraced within the terms: (specific authority from law
"officers and employees in the civil service" to review additional The purpose of the Constitution is to prohibit, generally, payment of
(electioneering or partisan compensation) additional or double compensation except in individual instances
political activity (par 4) Cabinet Members serve at the behest and pleasure of the President. where such appears to be not only just but necessary.
As such, their positions are essentially political.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Cayetano v. Monsod The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation
in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers
(meaning of practice of law) incident to actions and special proceedings, the management of such
GSIS v. Kapisanan Employees in the public service may not engage in strikes or in actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and
concerted and unauthorized stoppage of work. courts, and in addition, conveying.
(no strike)
The right of government employees to organize is limited to the In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in
formation of unions or associations, without including the right to matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment
strike. Fact remains that the erring employees, instead of exploring and condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a
judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a
MB.Fellone
 creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and Espiritu Decision by the Acting COA Chairman was inconsequential.
conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and Ratification cannot validate an act void ab initio because it was done
guardianship have been held to constitute law practice, as do the absolutely without authority. The act has to be done anew by the
preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done person or entity duly endowed with authority to do so.
involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal
effect of facts and conditions. Moreover, even conceding the contrary, no proper ratification or
validation could have been effected by the Acting Chairman since he
Atienza v. COMELEC Even if objections were raised, during the election proper, by the was not the Commission, and he himself had no power to decide any
faction of Atienza, the court held that since the NECO composition case brought before the Commission because, again, the power is
was already deemed valid, it can be said that said objections were lodged only in the Commission itself, as a collegial body.
voted against by the majority.
Blue Bar Coconut Phil.
Tantuico Private entities which handle government funds or subsidies in trust
may be examined or audited in the handling of said funds by the
(post-audit authority) government auditors (COA)

It is of no importance that the petitioner, or even other groups part
Arroyo v. DOJ The constitutional grant of prosecutorial power in the Comelec was of the PCA, are private corporations because it is made plain in
reflected in Section 265 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise Article IXD that groups being funded by the government are still
known as the Omnibus Election Code. subject to auditing by the COA.

The power to conduct preliminary investigation is vested POI v. Aud. Gen. Auditor General did not have jurisdiction over POI’s claim because
exclusively with the Comelec. The latter, however, was given by the such claim was unliquidated. The power of the treasury over the
same provision of law the authority to avail itself of the assistance of (power to settle accounts) settlement of accounts has always been distinguished from their
other prosecuting arms of the government. power over claims. An account is something, which may be adjusted
and liquidated by an arithmetical process.

Claims for unliquidated damages require for their settlement the
Omnibus Election Code application of the qualities of judgment and discretion. The results to
-- while the exclusive jurisdiction to conduct preliminary be reached in such cases can in no just sense be called an account
investigation had been lodged with the Comelec, the prosecutors and are not committed by law to the control and decision of treasury
had been conducting preliminary investigations pursuant to the accounting officers.
continuing delegated authority given by the Comelec.
ICNA v. Republic In the Mobil case, it was held that the Bureau of Customs, in
operating the arrastre service itself, does so in the performance of a
Thus, Comelec Resolution No. 9266, approving the creation of the (power to act on specific necessary incident to the prime governmental function of taxation,
Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team, should be viewed not as debt claim) and, as such, is not suable for alleged losses resulting therefrom. A
an abdication of the constitutional body’s independence but as a fortiori, neither is the Republic suable for said activity of the Bureau
means to fulfill its duty of ensuring the prompt investigation and of Customs.
prosecution of election offenses as an adjunct of its mandate of
ensuring a free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections.




COMMISSION ON AUDIT
Mison v CA It was the Commission, as a collegial body, which had the jurisdiction
to "(d)ecide any case brought before it within sixty days from the
(COA as collegial body) date of its submission for resolution," subject to review by the
Supreme Court on certiorari.

MB.Fellone