Commission on Human Rights Employee’s
Association (CHREA) vs Commission on
Human Rights (CHR)
(G.R. No. 155336, 25 November 2004)
Ponente: J. Chico-Nazario
Action: Petition for review on certiorari of the
decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals
Facts:
(1) Congress passed RA 8522 (General
appropriations Act) with Special Provisions
of which indicated that CHR is covered in
so far as modifications in Organizational
Structure and discretion as to the use of
Savings.
(2) C H R t h r o u g h i t s C h a i r p e r s o n a n d
Commissioners promulgated Resolution
No. A98-047 which enacted an upgrading
and reclassification scheme which granted
retirement gratuities and separation pay,
creation of additional positions, upgrading
of salary grades, and collapse of vacant
positions to provide additional funding for
staffing modifications.
(3) All of these were forwarded to the DBM
(Department of Budget and Management)
with a request for approval subsequently
denied by said department, on the basis
that several elevations of status which did
not reflect in the job descriptions of said
positions, which were essentially
unchanged.
(4) In light of the disapproval the CSC -NCR
recommended to CSC-Central Office that
the subject appointments be rejected owing
to the DBM disapproval.
(5) CHREA requested CSC-Central to affirm
the recommendation of CSC-NCR but CSC-
Central denied it and allowed the upgrading
scheme to prosper.
(6) The matter was raised to the CA which
affirmed the pronouncement of CSC-
Central Office which upheld the validity of
the upgrading scheme on the grounds that
such acts were within the ambit of CHR’s
fiscal autonomy.
Issue/s:
WON the CHREA has locus standi to assail the
alleged controversy? YES
WON the upgrading and reclassification of
positions in the CHR is valid despite the prior
disapproval of the DBM? NO
Held:
Petition GRANTED, Decision of Court of
Appeals and Resolution by the same is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Ruling of the Civil
Service Commission is REINSTATED (CSC-
NCR).
CHR Resolutions without the approval of the
DBM are DISALLOWED.
Ratio:
PROCEDURAL ISSUE RATIO
Petitioner (CHREA) consists of rank and file
employees of CHR. The protests regarding
upgrading and collapsing of positions to the
benefit of those in the upper level positions
sufficiently meets the INJURY TEST.
If proven valid, the upgrading scheme entails
allocation of Commission’s savings otherwise
used for personnel services. Again, directly
affecting rank and file employees.
If Court of Appeals saw the personality of
CHREA as a non-issue in passing upon the
merits of the case, neither should this court.
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE RATIO
CHR is not exempt from the Salary
Standardization Law administered and
established by the DBM.
In precedents, Philippine Retirement Authority
vs Buñag and Victorina Cruz vs Court of
Appeals, this court ruled that (1) without the
requisite approval of the DBM, compensation,
allowances, and other benefits of PRA officials
are unauthorized and irregular; (2) DBM has
sole power and discretion to administer the
compensation and position classification system
of the Natl Govt.
CHR itself recognizes this authority, manifested
in its 3 letters seeking the DBM’s approval.
CA is mistaken in believing that CHR is a
constitutional commission and so does not enjoy
fiscal autonomy. It is merely a Constitutional
Creation but it does not belong to the genus
expressly stated to have Fiscal Autonomy, which
are Civil Service Commission, Commission on
Elections, and Commision on Audit are
Constitutional Commissions.
Express mention of one thing excludes others
(expressio unius est exclusio alterius) is the rule
here.
Fiscal Autonomy is a CONSTITUTIONAL
GRANT not a tag obtained by membership in
CFAG (Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group)

However, even accepting the argument that it is

Fiscally Autonomous, it must still adhere to
Salary Standardization Law as all govt offices
do.

Finally RA 8522 itself states that the

implementation hereof must be in accordance
with salary rates, allowances nad other benefits
authorized under compensation standardization
laws.

The GA Act of FY 1998 also states that no

organizational unit or changes in key positions
shall be authorized unless provided by law or
directed by the President.