Nathalie Ang 2009-78224 Secretary of DOTC v Robert Mabalot G.R. No.

138200 | February 27, 2002 | Buena Facts: On 19 February 1996, then DOTC Secretary Jesus B. Garcia, Jr., issued Memorandum Order No. 96-735 addressed to Land Transportation Franchising Regulatory Board (LTFRB) Chairman Dante Lantin, directing him to effect the transfer of regional functions of that office to the DOTC-CAR Regional Office, pending the creation of a regular Regional Franchising and Regulatory Office thereat, pursuant to Section 7 of Executive Order No. 202. The memorandum required organic personnel of DOTC-CAR to perform the LTFRB functions on a concurrent capacity subject to the direct supervision and control of LTFRB Central Office. On 13 March 1996, herein respondent Roberto Mabalot filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction and/or restraining order, against petitioner and LTFRB Chairman Lantin, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 81, praying among others that Memorandum Order No. 96-735 be declared illegal and without effect. On 20 March 1996, the lower court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining petitioner from implementing Memorandum Order No. 96-735. On 08 April 1996, the lower court, upon filing of a bond by respondent, issued a writ of preliminary injunction. On 25 April 1996, then DOTC Secretary Amado Lagdameo, Jr. filed his answer to the petition. On 29 January 1997, Secretary Lagdameo issued the assailed Department Order No. 97-1025, which established the DOTC-CAR Regional Office, created by virtue of Executive Order No. 220 as the Regional Office of the LTFRB in the region and subject to the direct supervision and control of LTFRB Central Office. On 03 April 1997, respondent filed a Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Petition assailing the validity of Department Order No. 97-1025. The lower court declared Memorandum Order Nos. 96-735 and Department Order No. 97-1025 as null and void and without any legal effect for being violative of the provision of the Constitution against encroachment on the powers of the legislative department and also of the provision enjoining appointive officials from holding any other office or employment in the Government. Issue/Held: 1. WON the subject issuances of the DOTC Secretary are valid.

In the instant case, the creation and establishment of LTFRB-CAR Regional Office was made pursuant to the third mode - by authority of law, which could be decreed for instance, through an Executive Order issued by the President or an order of an administrative agency pursuant to the Administrative Code of 1987. In this case, the DOTC Secretary issued the assailed Memorandum and Department Orders pursuant to Administrative Order No. 36 which directed, in no uncertain terms, the various departments and agencies of government to immediately undertake the creation and establishment of their regional offices in the CAR. Administrative Order No. 36 is a clear and unequivocal directive and mandate - no less than from the Chief Executive - ordering the heads of government departments and bureaus to effect the establishment of their respective regional offices in the CAR. By the Chief Executives unequivocal act of issuing Administrative Order No. 36 ordering his alter ego - the DOTC Secretary in the present case - to effectuate the creation of Regional Offices in the CAR, the President, in effect, deemed it fit and proper under the circumstances to act and exercise his authority, albeit through the various Department Secretaries, so as to put into place the organizational structure and set-up in the CAR and so as not to compromise in any significant way the performance of public functions and delivery of basic government services in the Cordillera Administrative Region. Simply stated, it is as if the President himself carried out the creation and establishment of LTFRB-CAR Regional Office, when in fact, the DOTC Secretary, as alter ego of the President, directly and merely sought to implement the Chief Executives Administrative Order. Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution mandates that The President shall have control of all executive departments, bureaus and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. In Larin vs. Executive Secretary, this Court held that Section 62 of Republic Act 7645 (General Appropriations Act [G.A.A.] for FY 1993) evidently shows that the President is authorized to effect organizational changes including the creation of offices in the department or agency concerned. Section 20, Book III of E.O. No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, provides a strong legal basis for the Chief Executives authority to reorganize the National Government, as he was given Residual Powers which enables his to exercise other powers and functions vested in the President which are provided for under the laws and which are not specifically enumerated above or which are not delegated by the President in accordance with law. The President, also through PD 1772 which have yet been repealed or revoked, was also given continuing authority to reorganize the National Government. In fine, the designation and subsequent establishment of DOTC-CAR as the Regional Office of LTFRB in the Cordillera Administrative Region and the concomitant exercise and performance of functions by the former as the LTFRB-CAR Regional Office, fall within the scope of the continuing authority of the President to effectively reorganize the Department of Transportation and Communications. Reorganization is regarded as valid provided it is pursued in good faith. As a general rule, a reorganization is carried out in good faith if it is for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient. As petitioner points out, tapping the DOTC-CAR pending the eventual creation of the LTFRB Regional Office is economical in terms of manpower and resource requirements, thus, reducing expenses from the limited resources of the government. Furthermore, under Section 18, Chapter 5, Title XV, Book IV of E.O. 292 and Section 4 of E.O. 202, the Secretary of Transportation and Communications, through his duly designated Undersecretary, shall exercise

YES. There was no encroachment of legislative power as the creation of the public office was made by authority of law. The President - through his duly constituted political agent and alter ego, the DOTC Secretary in the present case - may legally and validly decree the reorganization of the Department, particularly the establishment of DOTC-CAR as the LTFRB Regional Office at the Cordillera Administrative Region, with the concomitant transfer and performance of public functions and responsibilities appurtenant to a regional office of the LTFRB. A public office may be created through any of the following modes, to wit, either (1) by the Constitution (fundamental law), (2) by law (statute duly enacted by Congress), or (3) by authority of law.

administrative supervision and control over the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (Board).

An entrapment was done by NBI and Sta. Maria. As soon as petitioner received the two envelopes with his right hand, thereafter placing them under his left armpit, he was accosted by the NBI men. The incident was recorded by camera. Petitioner was was charged before the Sandiganbayan with a violation of Sec. 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019 as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. As a public officer, being then the Project Manager/ Consultant of the Chemical Mineral Division of Industrial Technology Development Institute (ITDI), he allegedly either directly requested and/or demanded for himself or for another, the sum of P200,000.00 in connection with the construction of that government building wherein the accused had to intervene under the law in his capacity as Project Manager/Consultant of said construction. He was found guilty by the Sandiganbayan. Issue/Held: WON the Petitioner is a public officer and within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan YES. Petitioner falls under the non-career service category (formerly termed the unclassified or exemption service) of the Civil Service and thus is a public officer as defined by Sec. 2(b) of the AntiGraft & Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019). Petitioner asserts that he is not a public officer as defined by Sec. 2(b) of the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019 as amended), because he was neither elected nor appointed to a public office. Rather, petitioner maintains that he is merely a private individual hired by the ITDI on contractual basis for a particular project and for a specified period as evidenced by the contract of services he entered into with the ITDI. Petitioner, to further support his "theory," alleged that he was not issued any appointment paper separate from the abovementioned contract. He was not required to use the bundy clock to record his hours of work and neither did he take an oath of office. The definition of "public officer" in R.A. No. 3019 which, according to Sec. 2(b) thereof "includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exemption service receiving compensation, even nominal, from the government. . . ." The word "includes" used in defining a public officer in Sec. 2(b) indicates that the definition is not restrictive. The terms "classified, unclassified or exemption service" were the old categories of positions in the civil service which have been reclassified into Career Service and Non-Career Service by PD 807 providing for the organization of the Civil Service Commission and by the Administrative Code of 1987. Non-career service in particular is characterized by (1) entrance on bases other than those of the usual test 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 among others, (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.

2.

WON the assailed orders violated Sections 7 and 8, Article IX-B of the Constitution

No. The organic personnel of the DOTC-CAR were merely designated to perform the additional duties and functions of an LTFRB Regional Office subject to the direct supervision and control of LTFRB Central Office, pending the creation of a regular LTFRB Regional Office. As held in Triste vs. Leyte State College Board of Trustees: To designate a public officer to another position may mean to vest him with additional duties while he performs the functions of his permanent office. Or in some cases, a public officer may be designated to a position in an acting capacity as when an undersecretary is designated to discharge the functions of a Secretary pending the appointment of a permanent Secretary. Assuming arguendo that the appointive officials and employees of DOTC-CAR shall be holding more than one office or employment at the same time as a result of the establishment of such agency as the LTFRBCAR pursuant to Department Order No. 97-1025, this Court is of the firm view that such fact still does not constitute a breach or violation of Section 7, Article IX-B of the Constitution. On this matter, it must be stressed that under the aforementioned constitutional provision, an office or employment held in the exercise of the primary functions of ones principal office is an exception to, or not within the contemplation, of the prohibition embodied in Section 7, Article IX-B. Equally significant is that no evidence was adduced and presented to clearly establish that the appointive officials and employees of DOTC-CAR shall receive any additional, double or indirect compensation, in violation of Section 8, Article IX-B of the Constitution. Reversed and set aside. Preclaro v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 111091 | August 21, 1995 | Kapunan Facts: On 1 October 1989, the Chemical Mineral Division of the Industrial Technology Development Institute (ITDI), a component of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) employed Petitioner under a written contract of services as Project Manager to supervise the construction of the ITDI-CMD (JICA) Building at the DOST Compound in Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila. The contract was to remain in effect from October 1, 1989 up to the end of the construction period unless sooner terminated. Petitioner was to be paid a monthly salary drawn from counter-part funds duly financed by foreign-assisted projects and government funds duly released by the Department of Budget and Management. In November 1989, to build the aforementioned CMD Structure, DOST contracted the services of the Jaime Sta. Maria Construction Company with Engr. Alexander Resoso, as the company's project engineer. Allegedly, petitioner made some overtures that expenses in the Change Order will be deductive (meaning, charged to the contractor by deducting from the contract price), instead of additive (meaning, charged to the owner). Petitioner intimated that he can forget about the deductive provided he gets P200,000.00, a chunk of the contractor's profit which he roughly estimated to be around P460,000.00.

The fact that petitioner is not required to record his working hours by means of a bundy clock or did not take an oath of office became unessential considerations in view of the above-mentioned provision of law clearly including petitioner within the definition of a public officer. Affirmed. Maniego v. People G.R. No. L-2971 | April 20, 1951 | Bengzon Facts: On February 27, 1947, the accused, although appointed as a laborer, had been placed in charge of issuing summons and subpoenas for traffic violations in the Sala of Judge Crisanto Aragon of the Municipal Court of the City of Manila. On the day in question, Felix Rabia, the complainant herein, appeared and inquired from the accused about a subpoena that he received. He was informed that it was in connection with a traffic violation for which said Rabia had been detained and given traffic summons by an American MP. The accused after a short conversation went to Fiscal De la Merced and informed the Fiscal that the case had already prescribed. The Fiscal having found such to be the case, instructed the accused that if the traffic violator had no lawyer, he could write the motion for dismissal and have it signed by the party concerned. This was done by the accused and after the signing by Felix Rabia the matter was submitted to the Court, which granted the petition for dismissal. According to Felix Rabia and Agent No. 19 (Laforteza) of the National Bureau of Investigation, the accused informed Rabia that the latter was subject to a fine of P15; that Rabia inquired whether the same could be reduced because he had no money, and that the accused informed Rabia that he could fix the case if Rabia would pay him P10; which Rabia did and the accused pocketed. This charged was denied by the accused. Petitioner was convicted, by the Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals, of a violation of article 210 of the Revised Penal Code. Issue/Held: WON the Petitioner is a public officer and can be convicted of Article 210 of the RPC. YES. He is a public officer within the meaning of Article 203 of the RPC. There can be no question that petitioner was a public officer within the meaning of article 203, which includes all persons "who, by direct provision of law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Philippine Government, or shall perform in said government or any of its branches, public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official or any rank or class." That definition is quite comprehensive, embracing as it does, every public servant from the highest to the lowest. For the purposes of the Penal Code, it obliterates the standard distinction in the law of public officers between "officer" and "employee". Petitioner, however, contending that the Court of Appeals erred in regarding him as a public officer, expounded and discussed several grounds arranged under the following hearings: a. The doctrine of "the temporary performance of public functions by a laborer" should not apply in defendant's case. b. The overt act imputed on the accused does not constitute a circumstance by which he may be considered a public official.

c. His appointment as laborer came from one source, while the designation and delimitation of the functions of his appointment came from another source. The accused, although originally assigned to the preparation of summons and subpoenas, had been allowed in some instance to prepare motions for dismissal of traffic cases. The law is clear, and we perceive no valid reason to deny validity to the view entertained by the Spanish Supreme Court that, for the purposes of punishing bribery, the temporary performance of public functions is sufficient to constitute a person a public official. Affirmed. Laurel v Desierto G.R. No. 145368 | April 12, 2002 | Kapunan Facts: On June 13, 1991, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Administrative Order No. 223 "constituting a Committee for the preparation of the National Centennial Celebration in 1998." The Committee was mandated "to take charge of the nationwide preparations for the National Celebration of the Philippine Centennial of the Declaration of Philippine Independence and the Inauguration of the Malolos Congress. President Fidel V. Ramos issued Executive Order No. 128, "reconstituting the Committee for the preparation of the National Centennial Celebrations in 1988." It renamed the Committee as the "National Centennial Commission." Appointed to chair the reconstituted Commission was VicePresident Salvador H. Laurel. Presidents Diosdado M. Macapagal and Corazon C. Aquino were named Honorary Chairpersons. Per Section 6 of the Executive Order, the Commission was also charged with the responsibility to "prepare, for approval of the President, a Comprehensive Plan for the Centennial Celebrations within six (6) months from the effectivity of" the Executive Order. Subsequently, a corporation named the Philippine Centennial Expo 98 Corporation (Expocorp) was created. Petitioner was among the nine (9) Expocorp incorporators, who were also its first nine (9) directors. Petitioner was elected Expocorp Chief Executive Officer. On August 5, 1998, Senator Ana Dominique Coseteng delivered a privilege speech in the Senate denouncing alleged anomalies in the construction and operation of the Centennial Exposition Project at the Clark Special Economic Zone. On February 24, 1999, President Joseph Estrada issued Administrative Order No. 35, creating an ad hoc and independent citizens committee to investigate all the facts and circumstances surrounding the Philippine centennial projects, including its component activities. Former Senator Rene A.V. Saguisag was appointed to chair the Committee. On March 23, 1999, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee filed with the Secretary of the Senate its Committee Final Report No. 30 dated February 26, 1999. Among the Committees recommendations was "the prosecution by the Ombudsman/DOJ of Dr. Salvador Laurel, chair of NCC and of EXPOCORP for violating the rules on public bidding, relative to the award of centennial contracts to AK (Asia Construction & Development Corp.); for exhibiting manifest bias in the issuance of the NTP (Notice to Proceed) to AK to construct the FR (Freedom Ring) even in the absence of a valid contract that has caused material injury to government and for participating in the scheme to preclude audit by COA of the funds infused by the government for the implementation of the said contracts all in violation of the anti-graft law." Later, on November 5, 1999, the Saguisag Committee issued its own report. It recommended "the further investigation by the Ombudsman, and indictment, in proper cases of," among others, NCC

Chair Salvador H. Laurel for violations of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, Section 4(a) in relation to Section 11 of R.A. No. 6713, and Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. In an Order dated April 10, 2000, Pelagio S. Apostol, OIC-Director of the Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau, directed petitioner to submit his counter-affidavit and those of his witnesses. On April 24, 2000, petitioner filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a Motion to Dismiss questioning the jurisdiction of said office. This was denied. On October 25, 2000, petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari. Petitioner assails the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman on the ground that he is not a public. Issues/Held:

executive order. Book III (Office of the President), Chapter 2 (Ordinance Power), Section 2 describes the nature of executive orders: SEC. 2. Executive Orders. Acts of the President providing for rules of a general or permanent character in implementation or execution of constitutional or statutory powers shall be promulgated in executive orders. [Underscoring ours.] The centennial celebrations were also projects implemented for the promotion of industrialization and full employment is a fundamental state policy. As A.O. 223 put it, it was also a "vehicle for fostering nationhood and a strong sense of Filipino identity," an opportunity to "showcase Filipino heritage and thereby strengthen Filipino values." Clearly, the NCC performs sovereign functions. It is, therefore, a public office, and petitioner, as its Chair, is a public officer. That petitioner allegedly did not receive any compensation during his tenure is of little consequence. A salary is a usual but not a necessary criterion for determining the nature of the position. It is not conclusive. The salary is a mere incident and forms no part of the office. Where a salary or fees is annexed, the office is provided for it is a naked or honorary office, and is supposed to be accepted merely for the public good. Hence, the office of petitioner as NCC Chair may be characterized as an honorary office, as opposed to a lucrative office or an office of profit, i.e., one to which salary, compensation or fees are attached. But it is a public office, nonetheless. Neither is the fact that the NCC was characterized by E.O. No. 128 as an "ad-hoc body" make said commission less of a public office. The term office, it is said, embraces the idea of tenure and duration, and certainly a position which is merely temporary and local cannot ordinarily be considered an office. "But," says Chief Justice Marshall, "if a duty be a continuing one, which is defined by rules prescribed by the government and not by contract, which an individual is appointed by government to perform, who enters on the duties pertaining to his station without any contract defining them, if those duties continue though the person be changed, -- it seems very difficult to distinguish such a charge or employment from an office of the person who performs the duties from an officer." At the same time, however, this element of continuance can not be considered as indispensable, for, if the other elements are present "it can make no difference," says Pearson, C.J., "whether there be but one act or a series of acts to be done, -- whether the office expires as soon as the one act is done, or is to be held for years or during good behavior." Dismissed. Fernandez v. Sto. Tomas G.R. No. 116418 | March 7, 1995 | Feliciano Facts: Petitioner Fernandez was serving as Director of the Office of Personnel Inspection and Audit ("OPIA") while petitioner de Lima was serving as Director of the Office of the Personnel Relations ("OPR"), both at the Central Office of the Civil Service Commission in Quezon City, Metropolitan Manila. While petitioners were so serving, Resolution No. 94-3710 was signed by public respondents Patricia A. Sto. Tomas and Ramon Ereneta, Jr., Chairman and Commissioner, respectively. The Resolution reorganized several offices of the Commission. It merged the OCSS [Office of Career Systems and Standards], the OPIA

1.

WON Petitioner, as Chair of the NCC, was a public officer.

YES. NCC is a public office. Therefore, Petitioner, as chair of the NCC, is a public officer. Petitioner submits that some of these characteristics are not present in the position of NCC Chair, namely: (1) the delegation of sovereign functions; (2) salary, since he purportedly did not receive any compensation; and (3) continuance, the tenure of the NCC being temporary. NCC performs executive functions. The executive power "is generally defined as the power to enforce and administer the laws. It is the power of carrying the laws into practical operation and enforcing their due observance."17 The executive function, therefore, concerns the implementation of the policies as set forth by law. The Constitution provides in Article XIV (Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports) thereof: Sec. 15. Arts and letters shall enjoy the patronage of the State. The State shall conserve, promote, and popularize the nations historical and cultural heritage and resources, as well as artistic creations. IE.O. No. 128, reconstituting the Committee for the National Centennial Celebrations in 1998, cited the "need to strengthen the said Committee to ensure a more coordinated and synchronized celebrations of the Philippine Centennial and wider participation from the government and nongovernment or private organizations." It also referred to the "need to rationalize the relevance of historical links with other countries." The NCC was precisely created to execute the foregoing policies and objectives, to carry them into effect. Thus, the Commission was vested various functions, among them : (a) To undertake the overall study, conceptualization, formulation and implementation of programs and projects on the utilization of culture, arts, literature and media as vehicles for history, economic endeavors, and reinvigorating the spirit of national unity and sense of accomplishment in every Filipino in the context of the Centennial Celebrations. In this regard, it shall include a Philippine National Exposition 98 within Metro Manila, the original eight provinces, and Clark Air Base as its major venues; It bears noting the President, upon whom the executive power is vested created the NCC by

[Office of Personnel Inspection and Audit] and the OPR [Office of Personnel Relations] to form the RDO [Research and Development Office]. During the general assembly of officers and employees of the Commission held in the morning of 28 July 1994, Chairman Sto. Tomas, when apprised of objections of petitioners, expressed the determination of the Commission to implement Resolution No. 94-3710 unless restrained by higher authority. Petitioners then instituted this Petition. In a Resolution dated 23 August 1994, the Court required public respondents to file a Comment on the Petition. On 21 September 1994, petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order, alleging that petitioners had received Office Orders from the Commission assigning petitioner Fernandez to Region V at Legaspi City and petitioner de Lima to Region III in San Fernando, Pampanga and praying that public respondents be restrained from enforcing these Office Orders. The Court, in a Resolution dated 27 September 1994, granted this Motion and issued the Temporary Restraining Order prayed for by petitioners. Issues/Held:

by, on the one hand, the decentralization and devolution of the Commission's functions effected by the creation of fourteen (14) Regional Offices and ninety-five (95) Field Offices of the Commission throughout the country, to the end that the Commission and its staff may be brought closer physically to the government employees that they are mandated to serve. In the past, its functions had been centralized in the Head Office of the Commission in Metropolitan Manila and Civil Service employees all over the country were compelled to come to Manila for the carrying out of personnel transactions. Upon the other hand, the dispersal of the functions of the Commission to the Regional Offices and the Field Offices attached to various governmental agencies throughout the country makes possible the implementation of new programs of the Commission at its Central Office in Metropolitan Manila. The Commission's Office Order assigning petitioner de Lima to the CSC Regional Office No. 3 was precipitated by the incumbent Regional Director filing an application for retirement, thus generating a need to find a replacement for him. Petitioner de Lima was being assigned to that Regional Office while the incumbent Regional Director was still there to facilitate her take over of the duties and functions of the incumbent Director. Petitioner de Lima's prior experience as a labor lawyer was also a factor in her assignment to Regional Office No. 3 where public sector unions have been very active. Petitioner Fernandez's assignment to the CSC Regional Office No. 5 had, upon the other hand, been necessitated by the fact that the then incumbent Director in Region V was under investigation and needed to be transferred immediately to the Central Office. Petitioner Fernandez was deemed the most likely designee for Director of Regional Office No. 5 considering that the functions previously assigned to him had been substantially devolved to the Regional Offices such that his reassignment to a Regional Office would result in the least disruption of the operations of the Central Office. 4 It thus appears to the Court that the Commission was moved by quite legitimate considerations of administrative efficiency and convenience in promulgating and implementing its Resolution No. 94-3710 and in assigning petitioner Salvador C. Fernandez to the Regional Office of the Commission in Region V in Legaspi City and petitioner Anicia M. de Lima to the Commission's Regional Office in Region III in San Fernando, Pampanga. It is also clear to the Court that the changes introduced and formalized through Resolution No. 94-3710 re-naming of existing Offices; re-arrangement of the groupings of Divisions and Sections composing particular Offices; re-allocation of existing functions (and related personnel; budget, etc.) among the re-arranged Offices are precisely the kind of internal changes which are referred to in Section 17 (Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 3) of the 1987 Revised Administrative Code), quoted above, as "chances in the organization" of the Commission. Petitioners argue that Resolution No. 94-3710 effected the "abolition" of public offices, something which may be done only by the same legislative authority which had created those public offices in the first place. The Court is unable, in the circumstances of this case, to accept this argument. The term "public office" is frequently used to refer to the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for a given period either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of government, to be exercised by that individual for the benefit of the public. 5 Resolution No. 94-3710 has not abolished any public office as that term is used in the law of public officers. 6 It is essential to note that none of the "changes in organization" introduced by Resolution No. 94-3710 carried with it or necessarily involved the termination of the relationship of public employment between the Commission and any of its officers and employees. The legislative authority had expressly authorized the Commission to carry out "changes in the organization," as the need [for such changes] arises." Assuming, for purposes of argument merely, that legislative authority was necessary to carry out the kinds off changes contemplated in Resolution No. 94-3710 (and the Court is

1.

Whether or not the Civil Service Commission had legal authority to issue Resolution No. 94-3710 to the extent it merged the OCSS [Office of Career Systems and Standards], the OPIA [Office of Personnel Inspection and Audit] and the OPR [Office of Personnel Relations], to form the RDO [Research and Development Office]

YES. Section 17 of the 1987 Revised Administrative Code provides that as an independent constitutional body, the Commission may effect changes in the organization as the need arises. The OCSS, OPIA and OPR, and as well each of the other Offices listed in Section 16 of the same Code, consist of aggregations of Divisions, each of which Divisions is in turn a grouping of Sections. Each Section, Division and Office comprises a group of positions within the agency called the Civil Service Commission, each group being entrusted with a more or less definable function or functions. These functions are related to one another, each of them being embraced by a common or general subject matter. Clearly, each Office is an internal department or organizational unit within the Commission and that accordingly, the OCSS, OPIA and OPR, as well as all the other Offices within the Commission constitute administrative subdivisions of the CSC. Put a little differently, these offices relate to the internal structure of the Commission. What did Resolution No. 94-3710 of the Commission do? Examination of Resolution No. 94-3710 shows that thereby the Commission re-arranged some of the administrative units (i.e., Offices) within the Commission and, among other things, merged three (3) of them (OCSS, OPIA and OPR) to form a new grouping called the "Research and Development Office (RDO)." The same Resolution renamed some of the Offices of the Commission, e.g., the Office for Human Resource Development (OHRD) was renamed Human Resource Development Office (HRDO); the Office for Central Personnel Records (OCPR) was renamed Management Information Office (MIO). The Commission also re-allocated certain functions moving some functions from one Office to another; e.g., the information technology function of OPM (Office of Planning and Management) was transferred to the newly named Management Information Office (MIO). This re-allocation or re-assignment of some functions carried with it the transfer of the budget earmarked for such function to the Office where the function was transferred. Moreover, the personnel, records, fixtures and equipment that were devoted to the carrying out of such functions were moved to the Offices to where the functions were transferred. The objectives sought by the Commission in enacting Resolution No. 94-3710 were described in that Resolution in broad terms as "effect[ing] changes in the organization to streamline [the Commission's] operations and improve delivery of service." These changes in internal organization were rendered necessary

not saying that such authority is necessary), such legislative authority was validly delegated to the Commission by Section 17 earlier quoted.

WON the trial judge erred in declaring that the limitation regarding the age of justices of the peace provided by section 1 of Act No. 3107 is not applicable to justices of the peace and auxiliary justices of the peace appointed and acting before said law went into effect. NO. The interpretation should be prospective. Section 67 of Act No. 136, wherein it was provided that justices of the peace shall hold office during the pleasure of the Commission. Act No. 1450, was in force when Vicente Segovia was originally appointed justice of the peace, amended section 67 of the Judiciary Law by making the term of office of justices and auxiliary justices of the peace two years from the first Monday in January nearest the date of appointment. Shortly after Segovia's appointment, however, the law was again amended by Act No. 1627 by providing that "all justices of the peace and auxiliary justices of the peace shall hold office during good behavior and those now in office shall so continue." Later amended by Acts Nos. 2041 and 2617, the law was ultimately codified in sections 203 and 206 of the Administrative Code. Codal section 203 in its first paragraph provides that "one justice of the peace and one auxiliary justice of the peace shall be appointed by the Governor-General for the City of Manila, the City of Baguio, and for each municipality, township, and municipal district in the Philippine Islands, and if the public interests shall so require, for any other minor political division or unorganized territory in said Islands." It was this section which section 1 of Act No. 3107 amended by adding at the end thereof the following proviso: "Provided, That justices and auxiliary justices of the peace shall be appointed to serve until they have reached the age of sixty-five years." But section 206 of the Administrative Code entitled "Tenure of office," and reading "a justice of the peace having the requisite legal qualifications shall hold office during good behavior unless his office be lawfully abolished or merged in the jurisdiction of some other justice," was left unchanged by Act No. 3107. A sound canon of statutory construction is that a statute operates prospectively only and never retroactively, unless the legislative intent to the contrary is made manifest either by the express terms of the statute or by necessary implication. A statute ought not to receive a construction making it act retroactively, unless the words used are so clear, strong, and imperative that no other meaning can be annexed to them, or unless the intention of the legislature cannot be otherwise satisfied. No court will hold a statute to be retroactive when the legislature has not said so. As our Civil Code has it in article 3, "Law shall not have a retroactive effect unless therein otherwise provided." The same rule is followed by the courts with reference to public offices. A well-known New York decision held that "though there is no vested right in an office, which may not be disturbed by legislation, yet the incumbent has, in a sense, a right to his office. If that right is to be taken away by statute, the terms should be clear in which the purpose is stated." (People ex rel. Ryan vs. Green [1874], 58 N.Y., 295.) In another case, a new constitutional provision as to the advanced age which should prevent the incumbents of certain judicial offices from retaining them was held prospective; it did not apply to persons in office at the time of its taking effect. (People vs. Gardner, 59 Barb., 198; II Lewis' Sutherland Statutory Construction, Chap. XVII, particularly pages 1161, 1162; Mechem on Public Officers, sec. 389.) The case at bar is not the same as the case of Chanco vs. Imperial ( [1916], 34 Phil., 329). In that case, the question was as to the validity of section 7 of Act No. 2347. The law under consideration not only provided that Judges of First Instance shall serve until they have reached the age of sixty-five years, but it further provided "that the present judges of Courts of First Instance ... vacate their positions on the taking effect of this Act: and the Governor-General, with the advice and consent of the Philippine Commission, shall make new appointments of judges of Courts of First Instance ... ." There the intention of the Legislature to vacate the office was clearly expressed. Here, it is not expressed at all.

2.

Whether or not their right to security of tenure was breached by the respondents in promulgating Resolution No. 94-3710 and ordering petitioners' assignment to the Commission's Regional Offices in Regions III and V. Section 2(3) of Article IX(B) of the 1987 Constitution declared that "no officer or employee of the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law."

NO. Appointments to the staff of the Commission are not appointments to a specified public office but rather appointments to particular positions or ranks. Thus, a person may be appointed to the position of Director III or Director IV; or to the position of Attorney IV or Attorney V; or to the position of Records Officer I or Records Officer II; and so forth. In the instant case, petitioners were each appointed to the position of Director IV, without specification of any particular office or station. The same is true with respect to the other persons holding the same position or rank of Director IV of the Commission. Section 26(7), Book V, Title I, Subtitle A of the 1987 Revised Administrative Code recognizes reassignment as a management prerogative vested in the Commission and, for that matter, in any department or agency of government embraced in the civil service. Thus, the reassignment of petitioners Fernandez and de Lima from their previous positions in OPIA and OPR, respectively, to the Research and Development Office (RDO) in the Central Office of the Commission in Metropolitan Manila and their subsequent assignment from the RDO to the Commission's Regional Offices in Regions V and III had been effected with express statutory authority and did not constitute removals without lawful cause. It also follows that such re-assignment did not involve any violation of the constitutional right of petitioners to security of tenure considering that they retained their positions of Director IV and would continue to enjoy the same rank, status and salary at their new assigned stations which they had enjoyed at the Head Office of the Commission in Metropolitan Manila. Petitioners had not, in other words, acquired a vested right to serve at the Commission's Head Office. Segovia v. Noel G.R. No. L-23226 | March 4, 1925 | Malcolm Facts: Vicente Segovia was appointed justice of the peace of Dumanjug, Cebu, on January 21, 1907. He continuously occupied this position until having passed sixty-five mile- stones, he was ordered by the Secretary of Justice on July 1, 1924, to vacate the office. Since that date, Pedro Noel, the auxiliary justice of the peace has acted as justice of the peace for the municipality of Dumanjug. Mr. Segovia being desirous of avoiding a public scandal and of opposing physical resistance to the occupancy of the office of justice of the peace by the auxiliary justice of the peace, instituted friendly quo warranto proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Cebu to inquire into the right of Pedro Noel to occupy the office of justice of the peace, to oust the latter therefrom, and to procure reinstatement as justice of the peace of Dumanjug. To this complaint, Pedro Noel interposed a demurrer on the ground that it did not allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, because Act No. 3107 was constitutional and because Mr. Segovia being sixty-five years old had automatically ceased to be justice of the peace. On the issue thus framed and on stipulated facts, judgment was rendered by Honorable Adolph Wislizenus, Judge of First Instance, overruling the demurrer, and in favor of petitioner and against respondent. Issue/Held:

Dario v. Mison G.R. No. 81954 | August 8, 1989 | Sarmiento Facts: On March 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino promulgated Proclamation No. 3, "DECLARING A NATIONAL POLICY TO IMPLEMENT THE REFORMS MANDATED BY THE PEOPLE..., the mandate of the people to Completely reorganize the government. January 30, 1987, the President promulgated Executive Order No. 127, "REORGANIZING THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE". Among other offices, Executive Order No. 127 provided for the reorganization of the Bureau of Customs and prescribed a new staffing pattern therefor. February 2, 1987, the Filipino people adopted the new Constitution January 6, 1988, incumbent Commissioner of Customs Salvador Mison issued a Memorandum, in the nature of "Guidelines on the Implementation of Reorganization Executive Orders," prescribing the procedure in personnel placement. It also provided that by February 28, 1988, all employees covered by Executive Order 127 and the grace period extended to the Bureau of Customs by the President of the Philippines on reorganization shall be: a) informed of their re-appointment, or b) offered another position in the same department or agency, or c) informed of their termination. On January 26, 1988, Commissioner Mison addressed several notices to various Customs officials stating that they shall continue to perform their respective duties and responsibilities in a hold-over capacity, and that those incumbents whose positions are not carried in the new reorganization pattern, or who are not reappointed, shall be deemed separated from the service. A total of 394 officials and employees of the Bureau of Customs were given individual notices of separation. On June 30, 1988, the Civil Service Commission promulgated its ruling ordering the reinstatement of the 279 employees, the 279 private respondents in G.R. No. 85310 Commissioner Mison, represented by the Solicitor General, filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Commissioner Mison instituted certiorari proceedings. On November 16, 1988, the Civil Service Commission further disposed the appeal (from the resolution of the Reorganization Appeals Board) of five more employees. Commissioner Mison challenged the Civil Service Commission's Resolution. On June 10, 1988, Republic Act No. 6656, "AN ACT TO PROTECT THE SECURITY OF TENURE OF CIVIL SERVICE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION," was signed into law: Sec. 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, including casuals and temporary employees, who have been separated pursuant to reorganization shall, if entitled thereto, be paid the appropriate separation pay and retirement and other benefits... On June 23, 1988, Benedicto Amasa and William Dionisio, customs examiners appointed by Commissioner Mison pursuant to the ostensible reorganization subject of this controversy, petitioned the Court to contest the validity of the statute. On October 21, 1988, thirty-five more Customs officials whom the Civil Service Commission had ordered reinstated by its June 30, 1988 Resolution filed their own petition to compel the Commissioner of Customs to comply with the said Resolution.

Cesar Dario was one of the Deputy Commissioners of the Bureau of Customs until his relief on orders of Commissioner Mison on January 26, 1988. In essence, he questions the legality of his dismissal, which he alleges was upon the authority of Section 59 of Executive Order No. 127 (SEC. 59. New Structure and Pattern. Upon approval of this Executive Order, the officers and employees of the Ministry shall, in a holdover capacity, continue to perform their respective duties and responsibilities and receive the corresponding salaries and benefits unless in the meantime they are separated from government service pursuant to Executive Order No. 17 (1986) or Article III of the Freedom Constitution. Incumbents whose positions are not included therein or who are not reappointed shall be deemed separated from the service. Those separated from the service shall receive the retirement benefits to which they may be entitled. A provision he claims the Commissioner could not have legally invoked. He avers that he could not have been legally deemed to be an "incumbent whose position is not included therein or who is not reappointed to justify his separation from the service. He contends that neither the Executive Order (under the second paragraph of the section) nor the staffing pattern proposed by the Secretary of Finance abolished the office of Deputy Commissioner of Customs, but, rather, increased it to three. Nor can it be said, so he further maintains, that he had not been "reappointed" (under the second paragraph of the section) because "reappointment therein presupposes that the position to which it refers is a new one in lieu of that which has been abolished or although an existing one, has absorbed that which has been abolished." He claims, finally, that under the Provisional Constitution, the power to dismiss public officials without cause ended on February 25, 1987, and that thereafter, public officials enjoyed security of tenure under the provisions of the 1987 Constitution Vicente Feria asserts his security of tenure and that he cannot be said to be covered by Section 59 of Executive Order No. 127, having been appointed on April 22, 1986 - during the effectivity of the Provisional Constitution. He adds that under Executive Order No. 39, "ENLARGING THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS," the Commissioner of Customs has the power "to appoint all Bureau personnel, except those appointed by the President," and that his position, which is that of a Presidential appointee, is beyond the control of Commissioner Mison for purposes of reorganization. Provisions of Section 16, Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) explicitly authorize the removal of career civil service employees "not for cause but as a result of the reorganization pursuant to Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25, 1986 and the reorganization following the ratification of this Constitution. For this reason, Mison posits, claims of violation of security of tenure are allegedly no defense. That contrary to the employees' argument, Section 59 of Executive Order No. 127 is applicable (in particular, to Dario and Feria), in the sense that retention in the Bureau, under the Executive Order, depends on either retention of the position in the new staffing pattern or reappointment of the incumbent, and since the dismissed employees had not been reappointed, they had been considered legally separated. Moreover, Mison proffers that under Section 59 incumbents are considered on holdover status, "which means that all those positions were considered vacant." The Commissioner's twin petitions are direct challenges to three rulings of the Civil Service Commission: (1) the Resolution, dated June 30, 1988, reinstating the 265 customs employees above-stated; (2) the Resolution, dated September 20, 1988, denying reconsideration; and (3) the Resolution, dated November 16, 1988, reinstating five employees Issue/Held: WON Section 16 of Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution is a grant of a license upon the Government to remove career public officials it could have validly done under an "automatic"-vacancy-authority and to remove them without rhyme or reason.

NO. The State can still carry out reorganizations provided that it is done in good faith. Removal of career officials without cause cannot be done after the passing of the 1987 Constitution. Section 16 Article XVIII, of the 1987 Constitution: Sec. 16. Career civil service employees separated from the service not for cause but as a result of the reorganization pursuant to Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25, 1986 and the reorganization following the ratification of this Constitution shall be entitled to appropriate separation pay and to retirement and other benefits accruing to them under the laws of general application in force at the time of their separation. In lieu thereof, at the option of the employees, they may be considered for employment in the Government or in any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries. This provision also applies to career officers whose resignation, tendered in line with the existing policy The above provision comes as a mere recognition of the right of the Government to reorganize its offices, bureaus, and instrumentalities. Under Section 4, Article XVI, of the 1935 Constitution: Invariably, transition periods are characterized by provisions for "automatic" vacancies. They are dictated by the need to hasten the passage from the old to the new Constitution free from the "fetters" of due process and security of tenure. As we have seen, since 1935, transition periods have been characterized by provisions for "automatic" vacancies. We take the silence of the 1987 Constitution on this matter as a restraint upon the Government to dismiss public servants at a moment's notice. If the present Charter envisioned an "automatic" vacancy, it should have said so in clearer terms. Plainly the concern of Section 16 is to ensure compensation for "victims" of constitutional revamps - whether under the Freedom or existing Constitution - and only secondarily and impliedly, to allow reorganization. In order to be entitled to the benefits granted under Section 16 of Article XVIII of the Constitution of 1987, two requisites, one negative and the other positive, must concur, to wit: 1. The separation must not be for cause, and 2. The separation must be due to any of the three situations mentioned. By its terms, the authority to remove public officials under the Provisional Constitution ended on February 25, 1987, advanced by jurisprudence to February 2, 1987. It can only mean, then, that whatever reorganization is taking place is upon the authority of the present Charter, and necessarily, upon the mantle of its provisions and safeguards. Hence, it cannot be legitimately stated that we are merely continuing what the revolutionary Constitution of the Revolutionary Government had started. We are through with reorganization under the Freedom Constitution - the first stage. We are on the second stage - that inferred from the provisions of Section 16 of Article XVIII of the permanent basic document. After February 2, 1987, incumbent officials and employees have acquired security of tenure. The present organic act requires that removals "not for cause" must be as a result of reorganization. As we observed, the Constitution does not provide for "automatic" vacancies. It must also pass the test of good faith. As a general rule, a reorganization is carried out in "good faith" if it is for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient. In that event, no dismissal (in case of a dismissal) or separation actually occurs because the position itself ceases to exist. And in that case, security of tenure would not be a Chinese wall. Be that as it may, if the "abolition," which is nothing else but a separation or removal, is done for political reasons or purposely to defeat security of tenure, or otherwise not in good faith, no valid "abolition" takes place and whatever "abolition" is done, is void ab initio. There is an invalid "abolition" as where there is merely a change of nomenclature of positions, or where claims of economy are belied by the existence of ample funds.

The Court finds that Commissioner Mison did not act in good faith since after February 2, 1987 no perceptible restructuring of the Customs hierarchy - except for the change of personnel - has occurred, which would have justified (all things being equal) the contested dismissals. There is also no showing that legitimate structural changes have been made - or a reorganization actually undertaken, for that matter - at the Bureau since Commissioner Mison assumed office, which would have validly prompted him to hire and fire employees. With respect to Executive Order No. 127, Commissioner Mison submits that under Section 59 thereof, "Those incumbents whose positions are not included therein or who are not reappointed shall be deemed separated from the service." He submits that because the 394 removed personnel have not been "reappointed," they are considered terminated. To begin with, the Commissioner's appointing power is subject to the provisions of Executive Order No. 39. Under Executive Order No. 39, the Commissioner of Customs may "appoint all Bureau personnels except those appointed by the President." Thus, with respect to Deputy Commissioners Cesar Dario and Vicente Feria, Jr., Commissioner Mison could not have validly terminated them, they being Presidential appointees. That Customs employees, under Section 59 of Executive Order No. 127 had been on a mere holdover status cannot mean that the positions held by them had become vacant. The occupancy of a position in a holdover capacity was conceived to facilitate reorganization and would have lapsed on 25 February 1987 (under the Provisional Constitution), but advanced to February 2, 1987 when the 1987 Constitution became effective. After the said date the provisions of the latter on security of tenure govern Mathay v CA G.R. No. 124374 | December 15, 1999 | Ynares-Santiago Facts: During his term as Mayor of Quezon City, Mr. Brigido R. Simon appointed private respondents to positions in the Civil Service Unit ("CSU") of the local government of Quezon City. Civil Service Units were created pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 51 which was allegedly signed into law on November 15 or 16, 1972. On February 23, 1990, the Secretary of Justice rendered Opinion No. 33, stating that Presidential Decree No. 51 was never published in the Official Gazette. Therefore, conformably with our ruling in Tanada vs. Tuvera the presidential decree is deemed never "in force or effect and therefore cannot at present, be a basis for establishment of the CSUs . . . ." On June 4, 1990, the Civil Service Commission issued Memorandum Circular No. 30, directing all Civil Service Regional or Field Offices to recall, revoke and disapprove within one year from issuance of the said Memorandum, all appointments in CSUs created pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 51 on the ground that the same never became law. Among those affected by the revocation of appointments are private respondents in these three petitions. For Quezon City CSU employees, the effects of the circular were temporarily cushioned by the enactment of City Ordinance No. NC-140, Series of 1990, which established the Department of Public Order and Safety ("DPOS"). Section 3 of the Ordinance directed that present personnel of the Civil Service Unit be absorbed into the department established , given appropriate position titles without reduction in salary, seniority rights and other benefits. Despite the provision on absorption, the regular and permanent positions in the DPOS were not filled due to lack of funds for the new DPOS and the insufficiency of regular and permanent positions created. Mayor Brigido R. Simon remedied the situation by offering private respondents contractual appointments for the period of June 5, 1991 to December 31, 1991. The appointments were renewed by Mayor Simon for the period of January 1, 1992 to June 30, 1992. On May 11, 1992, petitioner Ismael A. Mathay, Jr. was elected Mayor of Quezon City. On July 1, 1992, Mayor Mathay again renewed the contractual appointments of all private respondents effective July 1 to July 31, 1992. Upon their expiry, these appointments, however, were no longer renewed.

After the non-renewal of their appointments, private respondents in these two petitions appealed to the Civil Service Commission. The CSC issued separate resolutions holding that the reappointment of private respondents to the DPOS was automatic, pursuant to the provision on absorption in Quezon City Ordinance No. NC-140, Series of 1990, and ordering their reinstatement to their former positions in the DPOS. Petitioner brought petitions for certiorari to this Court, to annul the resolutions but, in accordance with Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, the petition were referred to the Court of Appeals. As stated, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petitions for certiorari. Issues/Held:

When the Civil Service Commission ordered the reinstatement of private respondents, it technically issued a new appointment. This task, i.e. of appointment, is essentially discretionary and cannot be controlled even by the courts as long as it is properly and not arbitrarily exercised by the appointing authority.

2.

WON private respondents should be automatically absorbed in the DPOS pursuant to Section 3 of the Ordinance.

No. Even assuming the validity of Section 3 of the Ordinance, the absorption contemplated therein is not possible. Since the CSU never legally came into existence, the private respondents never held permanent positions. It is axiomatic that the right to hold public office is not a natural right. The right exists only by virtue of a law expressly or impliedly creating and conferring it. Since Presidential Decree 51 creating the CSU never became law, it could not be a source of rights. Neither could it impose duties. It could not afford any protection. It did not create an office. It is as inoperative as though it was never passed. In Debulgado vs. Civil Service Commission 18 we held that "a void appointment cannot give rise to security of tenure on the part of the holder of the appointment." While the Court of Appeals was correct when it stated that "the abolition of an office does not mean the invalidity of appointments thereto," 19 this cannot apply to the case at bar. In this case, the CSU was not abolished. It simply did not come into existence as the Presidential Decree creating it never became law. At the most, private respondents held temporary and contractual appointments. The non-renewal of these appointments cannot therefore be taken against petitioner. Reversed and set aside.

1.

WON respondent Civil Service Commission had the authority to direct him to "reinstate" private respondents in the DPOS.

No. Civil Service Commission has no power to order petitioner Ismael A. Mathay, Jr., to reinstate private respondents. The law applicable is B.P. 337 or the old Local Government Code and not the Local Government Code of 1992 which became effective only on January 1, 1992, when the material events in this case transpired. Applying the said law, we find that the Civil Service Commission erred when it applied the directives of Ordinance NC-140 and in so doing ordered petitioner to "reinstate" private respondents to positions in the DPOS. Section 3 of the said Ordinance is invalid for being inconsistent with B.P. 337. Section 3 of the questioned Ordinance directs the absorption of the personnel of the defunct CSU into the new DPOS. The Ordinance refers to personnel and not to positions. Hence, the city council or sanggunian, through the Ordinance, is in effect dictating who shall occupy the newly created DPOS positions. However, a review of the provisions of B.P. 337 shows that the power to appoint rests exclusively with the local chief executive and thus cannot be usurped by the city council or sanggunian through the simple expedient of enacting ordinances that provide for the "absorption" of specific persons to certain positions. The provisions of B.P. 337 are clear. As stated above, the power to appoint is vested in the local chief executive. The power of the city council or sanggunian, on the other hand, is limited to creating, consolidating and reorganizing city officers and positions supported by local funds. The city council has no power to appoint. This is clear from Section 177 of B.P. 337 which lists the powers of the sanggunian. The power to appoint is not one of them. Expressio inius est exclusio alterius. Had Congress intended to grant the power to appoint to both the city council and the local chief executive, it would have said so in no uncertain terms. By ordering petitioner to "reinstate" private respondents pursuant to Section 3 of the Ordinance, the Civil Service Commission substituted its own judgment for that of the appointing power. The Civil Service Commission's power is limited to approving or disapproving an appointment. It does not have the authority to direct that an appointment of a specific individual be made. Once the Civil Service Commission attests whether the person chosen to fill a vacant position is eligible, its role in the appointment process necessarily ends. The Civil Service Commission cannot encroach upon the discretion vested in the appointing authority. The Civil Service Commission argues that it is not substituting its judgment for that of the appointing power and that it is merely implementing Section 3 of Ordinance NC-140. The Ordinance refers to the "personnel of the CSU", the identities of which could not be mistaken. The resolutions of the Civil Service Commission likewise call for the reinstatement of named individuals. There being no issue as to who are to sit in the newly created DPOS, there is therefore no room left for the exercise of discretion. In Farinas vs. Barba, we held that the appointing authority is not bound to appoint anyone recommended by the sanggunian concerned, since the power of appointment is a discretionary power.