1
ART. IX – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
A. Common Provisions
Section 1. The Constitutional Commissions, which shall be
independent, are the Civil Service Commission, the
Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.
Section 2.
1. No member of a Constitutional Commission shall,
during his tenure, hold any other office or
employment.
2. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any
profession or in the active management or control
of any business which, in any way, may be affected
by the functions of his office…
3. …nor shall he be financially interested, directly or
indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise
or privilege granted by the Government, any of its
subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities,
including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries.
Section 3. The salary of the Chairman and the
Commissioners shall be fixed by law and shall not be
decreased during their tenure.
Section 4. The Constitutional Commissions shall appoint
their officials and employees in accordance with law.
Section 5. The Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.
Their approved annual appropriations shall be automatically
and regularly released.
Section 6. Each Commission en banc may promulgate its
own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or
before any of its offices. Such rules, however, shall not
diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote
of all its Members, any case or matter brought before it
within 60 days from the date of its submission for decision
or resolution. /
A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or
resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or
memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by
the Commission itself. /
Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law,
any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved
party within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof.//
Section 8. Each Commission shall perform such other
functions as may be provided by law.
B. Civil Service Commission
Section 1.
(1) The civil service shall be administered by the Civil
Service Commission composed of a Chairman and
two Commissioners who shall be:
a. natural-born citizens of the Philippines
and, at the time of their appointment,
b. at least 35 years of age,
c. with proven capacity for public
administration,
d. and must not have been candidates for any
elective position in the elections
immediately preceding their appointment.
(2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be
appointed by the President with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments for a term of 7 years
without reappointment. Of those first appointed, the
Chairman shall hold office for 7 years, a
Commissioner for 5 years, and another
Commissioner for 3 years, without reappointment./
Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the
unexpired term of the predecessor. /
In no case shall any Member be appointed or
designated in a temporary or acting capacity.
Section 2.
(1) The civil service embraces all branches,
subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the
Government, including government-owned or
controlled corporations with original charters.
(2) Appointments in the civil service shall be made
only according to merit and fitness to be
determined, as far as practicable, and, except to
positions which are policy-determining, primarily
confidential, or highly technical, by competitive
examination.
(3) No officer or employee of the civil service shall be
removed or suspended except for cause provided by
law.
(4) No officer or employee in the civil service shall
engage, directly or indirectly, in any electioneering
or partisan political campaign.
(5) The right to self-organization shall not be denied to
government employees.
(6) Temporary employees of the Government shall be
given such protection as may be provided by law.
Section 3. The Civil Service Commission, as the central
personnel agency of the Government, shall establish a career
service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency,
integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in
the civil service./
It shall strengthen the merit and rewards system, integrate all
human resources development programs for all levels and
ranks, and institutionalize a management climate conducive
to public accountability./
 2
It shall submit to the President and the Congress an annual
report on its personnel programs.

Section 4. All public officers and employees shall take an

oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution.

Section 5. The Congress shall provide for the

standardization of compensation of government officials and
employees, including those in government-owned or
controlled corporations with original charters, taking into
account the nature of the responsibilities pertaining to, and
the qualifications required for, their positions.

Section 6. No candidate who has lost in any election, shall

within one year after such election, be appointed to any
office in the Government or any Government-owned or
controlled corporations or in any of their subsidiaries.

Section 7. No elective official shall be eligible for

appointment or designation in any capacity to any public
office or position during his tenure.

Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions

of his position, no appointive official shall hold any other
office or employment in the Government or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, including Government-
owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

Section 8. No elective or appointive public officer or

employee shall receive additional, double, or indirect
compensation, unless specifically authorized by law,/

nor accept without the consent of the Congress, any present,

emolument, office, or title of any kind from any foreign
government.

Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as additional,

double, or indirect compensation.

Article IX
Constitutional Commissions
A. Common Provisions
Section 1. The Constitutional Commissions, which shall be
independent, are the Civil Service Commission, the
Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.
Section 2.
4. No member of a Constitutional Commission shall,
during his tenure, hold any other office or
employment.
5. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any
profession or in the active management or control
of any business which, in any way, may be affected
by the functions of his office…
6. …nor shall he be financially interested, directly or
indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise
or privilege granted by the Government, any of its
subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities,
including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries.
Safeguards insuring the independence of the Commissions:
1) They are constitutionally created; may not be
abolished by statute.
2) Each is expressly described as independent.
3) Each is conferred certain powers and functions
which cannot be reduced by statute
4) The Chairmen and members cannot be removed
except by impeachment.
5) The Chairmen and members are given a fairly long
term of office of seven years.
6) The Chairmen and members may not be reappointed
or appointed in an acting capacity.
7) The salaries of the chairman and members are
relatively high and may not be decreased during
continuance in office.
8) The Commissions enjoy fiscal autonomy.
9) Each commission may promulgate its own
procedural rules, provided they do not diminish,
increase or modify substantive rights.
 Though subject to disapproval by the SC.
10) The Chairmen and members are subject to certain
disqualifications calculated to strengthen their
integrity.
11) The Commissions may appoint their own officials
and employees in accordance with Civil Service
Law.
Inhibitions / Disqualifications:
1) Shall not, during tenure, hold any other office or
employment.
2) Shall not engage in the practice of any profession.
3
3) Shall not engage in any active management or
control of any business which in any way may be
affected by the functions of his office.
4) Shall not be financially interested, directly or
indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise
or privilege granted by the Government, any of its
subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities,
including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries.
Rotational Scheme of Appointments
 The first appointees shall serve terms of seven, five
and three years respectively.
 After the first commissioners are appointed, the
rotational scheme is intended to prevent the
possibility of one President appointing all the
Commissioners.
1) Funa v. CSC – G.R. No. 191672, November 25, 2014
D: The designation of Duque as member of the Board of
Directors or Trustees of the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and
HDMF, in an ex officio capacity, impair the independence of
the CSC and violate the constitutional prohibition against the
holding of dual or multiple offices for the Members of the
Constitutional Commissions because as member of the Board
in these office, he will be able to exercise powers that are
beyond those contemplated by his position as CSC Chariman
(corp. powers).
 President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appointed
Francisco T. Duque as Chairman of the Civil Service
Commission (CSC).
 PGMA then issued EO 864 designating Duque as an
ex officio member of the Board of Directors/ Trustees
of the GSIS, PhilHealth, Employees Compensation
Commission (ECC), and Home Development Mutual
Fund (HDMF).
o This is in pursuance of the Administrative
Code which provides in Sec. 14, Chapter 3,
Title I-A, Book V:
 Section 14. Membership of the
Chairman in Boards.—The
Chairman shall be a member of the
Board of Directors or of other
governing bodies of government
entities whose functions affect the
career development, employment
status, rights, privileges, and
welfare of government officials and
employees, such as the Government
Service Insurance System, Foreign
Service Board, Foreign Trade
Service Board, National Board for
Teachers, and such other similar
boards as may be created by law.
 Dennis Funa filed a petition challenging the
constitutionality of Duque’s designation, claiming that
violates Sec. 1 and 2 or Art. IX-A of the Constitution.
o That the designation violates the
independence of the CSC and violates the
prohibition imposed upon members of

constitutional commissions from holding any
other office or employment.
Issue: Does the designation of Duque as member of the Board
of Directors or Trustees of the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and
HDMF, in an ex officio capacity, impair the independence of
the CSC and violate the constitutional prohibition against the
holding of dual or multiple offices for the Members of the
Constitutional Commissions?
Ruling: Yes.
 Art. IX-A provides:
o Section 1. The Constitutional Commissions,
which shall be independent, are the Civil
Service Commission, the Commission on
Elections, and the Commission on Audit.
o Section 2. No Member of a Constitutional
Commission shall, during his tenure, hold
any other office or employment. Neither shall
he engage in the practice of any profession or
in the active management or control of any
business which in any way may be affected
by the functions of his office, nor shall he be
financially interested, directly or indirectly,
in any contract with, or in any franchise or
privilege granted by the Government, any of
its subdivisions, agencies, or
instrumentalities, including government-
owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries.
 GR: All appointive officials in the civil service are
allowed to hold other office or employment in the
government during their tenure when such is allowed
by law or by the primary functions of their positions.
o Sec. 7 (par. 2), Art. IX-B: xxx Unless
otherwise allowed by law or the primary
functions of his position, no appointive
official shall hold any other office or
employment in the Government or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
o Exception: The President, Vice-President,
Members of the Cabinet, their deputies and
assistants.
 May hold another office or
employment in the government only
when authorized by the
Constitution.
 Being an appointive public official who does not
occupy a Cabinet position (i.e., President, the Vice-
President, Members of the Cabinet, their deputies and
assistants), Duque was thus covered by the general
rule.
o He can hold any other office or employment
in the Government during his tenure if such
holding is allowed by law or by the primary
functions of his position.
 However, consistent with the Administrative Code, the
CSC Chairman’s membership in a governing body is
dependent on the condition that the functions of the
4
government entity where he will sit as its Board
member must affect the career development,
employment status, rights, privileges, and welfare of
government officials and employees.
o While powers and functions associated with
appointments, compensation and benefits
affect the career development, employment
status, rights, privileges, and welfare of
government officials and employees, the
GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF are
also tasked to perform other corporate powers
and functions that are not personnel-related.
o All of these powers and functions, whether
personnel-related or not, are carried out and
exercised by the respective Boards of the
GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF.
o Hence, when the CSC Chairman sits as a
member of the governing Boards of the GSIS,
PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF, he may
exercise these powers and functions, which
are not anymore derived from his position as
CSC Chairman, such as imposing interest on
unpaid or unremitted contributions, issuing
guidelines for the accreditation of healthcare
providers, or approving restructuring
proposals in the payment of unpaid loan
amortizations. The Court also notes that
Duque’s designation as member of the
governing Boards of the GSIS,
PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF entitles
him to receive per diem, a form of additional
compensation that is disallowed by the
concept of an ex officio position by virtue of
its clear contravention of the proscription set
by Section 2, Article IX-A of the 1987
Constitution.
 Ex officio
 Means "from office; by
virtue of office."
 It refers to an "authority
derived from official
character merely, not
expressly conferred upon
the individual character,
but rather annexed to the
official position."
 It likewise denotes an "act
done in an official
character, or as a
consequence of office, and
without any other
appointment or authority
other than that conferred
by the office."
 An ex officio member of a board is
one who is a member by virtue of his
title to a certain office, and without
further warrant or appointment.
 The ex officio position being
actually and in legal contemplation
part of the principal office, it follows

that the official concerned has no
right to receive additional
compensation for his services in the
said position.
 Reason: These services are
already paid for and
covered by the
compensation attached to
his principal office.
Section 3. The salary of the Chairman and the
Commissioners shall be fixed by law and shall not be
decreased during their tenure.
Section 4. The Constitutional Commissions shall appoint
their officials and employees in accordance with law.
Section 5. The Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.
Their approved annual appropriations shall be automatically
and regularly released.
A. Fiscal Autonomy
2) CSC v. Department of Budget – July 22. 2005
D: The “no report, no release” policy may not be validly
enforced against offices vested with fiscal autonomy.
“Automatic” means no condition to release funds may be
imposed. Shortage of funds cannot excuse non-release of funds
to offices with fiscal autonomy.
The CSC via a petition for mandamus seeks to compel DBM
to release the balance of its budget for FY 2002.
 CSC claims that the reason for the withholding was
the “no report, no release” policy.
DBM claims that the failure to release the fund in full is due
to shortage of funds.
W/N the “no report, no release” policy may be validly
enforced against CSC?
NO. The policy may not be validly enforced against offices
vested with fiscal autonomy.
Being “automatic” connotes something mechanical,
spontaneous and perfunctory.
 It means that no condition to fund releases to it may
be imposed.
The justification of the DBM does not lie.
 Shortage of funds is not an excuse for not releasing
the fund in full of offices vested with fiscal
autonomy.
Section 6. Each Commission en banc may promulgate its
own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or
before any of its offices. Such rules, however, shall not
diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
5
A. Rules of procedure
3) Aruelo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals - 227 SCRA 311
D: COMELEC cannot adopt a rule prohibiting the filing of
certain pleadings in the regular court – this power is vested
alone in the SC. COMELEC Rules of Procedure are N/A in
proceedings before regular courts.
Hence, we follow the ROC. Under Section 1 (b), Rule 12 of the
Revised Rules of Court, a party has at least five days to file his
answer after receipt of the order denying his motion for a bill of
particulars. Private respondent (Gatchalian) received a copy of
the order of the Regional Trial Court denying his motion for a
bill of particulars on August 6, 1992. Private respondent,
therefore, had until August 11, 1992 within which to file his
answer. The Answer with Counter-Protest and Counterclaim
filed by him on August 11, 1992 was filed timely.
 Petitioner Aruelo & Gatchalian were rival
candidates for vice-mayor in Balagtas, Bulacan –
Gatchalian won (1992 elections).
 Aruelo filed w/ the RTC a civil case protesting such
elections.
 Gatchalian responded w/ pleadings – motion to
dismiss & motion for bill of particulars – which were
denied so he was only able to submit his counter-
protest & counterclaim after 2 mos.
 Aruelo now claims that in election contests, comelec
rules give respondents only 5 days from summon to
file his answer – gatchalian’s 5 days had now lapsed.
 Aruelo further contended that his pleadings did not
suspend the running of the 5-day period as such
motions are prohibited by sec 1 rule 13 of comelec
rules of procedures.
Issue: Is the contention of aruelo correct? NO
Aruelo filed the election protest with the Regional Trial Court,
whose proceedings are governed by the Revised Rules of
Court.
 Section 1, Rule 13, Part III of the COMELEC Rules
of Procedure is not applicable to proceedings before
the regular courts.
 As expressly mandated by Section 2, Rule 1, Part I
of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the filing of
motions to dismiss and bill of particulars, shall apply
only to proceedings brought before the COMELEC.
Since part 6 of the comelec rules does not provide that MTD
& bill of particulars are not allowed in election contest
pending before the regular courts.
Constitutionally speaking, comelec cannot adopt a rule
prohibiting the filing of certain pleadings in the regular court
– this power is vested alone in the SC. Thus, pending his
submission of appeals, the 5-day period is suspended – he
filed his answer on the right time. The power to promulgate
rules concerning pleadings, practice and procedure in all
courts is vested in the SC.

Here, Private respondent (Gatchalian) received a copy of the
order of the Regional Trial Court denying his motion for a bill
of particulars on August 6, 1992. Under Section 1 (b), Rule 12
of the Revised Rules of Court, a party has at least five days to
file his answer after receipt of the order denying his motion for
a bill of particulars. Private respondent, therefore, had until
August 11, 1992 within which to file his answer. The Answer
with Counter-Protest and Counterclaim filed by him on August
11, 1992 was filed timely.
The instant case is different from a pre-proclamation
controversy which the law expressly mandates to be resolved in
a summary proceeding (B.P. Blg. 881, Art. XX, Sec. 246;
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, Part V, Rule 27, Sec. 2;
Dipatuan v. Commission on Elections, 185 SCRA 86 [1990]).
4) Macalintal v. COMELEC – 405 SCRA 614
D: COMELEC may promulgate its own rules concerning
pleadings and practice before it or before any of its offices.
Congress may not assume power to review rules promulgated
by Comelec. Congress may not confer upon itself the authority
to approve or disapprove the countries wherein voting by mail
shall be allowed, as determined by the COMELEC.
FACTS:
 Petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by
Petitioner Romulo Macalintal.
 Petitioner is seeking a declaration that certain
provisions of RA 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Act
of 2003) suffer from constitutional infirmity, such
as the provision authorizing Congress to review IRR
promulgated by the Comelec.
May Congress assume power to review rules promulgated
by the Comelec? NO
Congress may not assume power to review rules promulgated
by Comelec.
 By vesting itself with the powers to approve, review,
amend, and revise the IRR for the Overseas Absentee
Voting Act of 2003, Congress went beyond the
scope of its constitutional authority. Congress
trampled upon the constitutional mandate of
independence of the Comelec.
The phrase “subject to the approval of the Congressional
Committee”, which empowers the Commission to authorize
the voting by mail in not more than 3 countries for the May
2004 elections; and the phrase “only upon review and
approval of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee”
are unconstitutional as they require review and approval or
disapproval of voting by mail in any country after the 2004
elections.
 Congress may not confer upon itself the authority to
approve or disapprove the countries wherein voting
by mail shall be allowed, as determined by the
COMELEC.
6
Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote
of all its Members, any case or matter brought before it
within 60 days from the date of its submission for decision
or resolution. /
A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or
resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or
memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by
the Commission itself. /
Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law,
any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved
party within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof.//
How Commissions Decide
5) Estrella v. Comelec – May 27, 2004
D: The provision of the Constitution is clear that decisions
reached by the COMELEC En Banc should be the majority
vote of all its members and not only those who participated
and took part in the deliberations.
FACTS:
 This is an MR filed by Private Respondent Salvador
against the nullification of the COMELEC’s status
quo ante order that was sought by Petitioner. The
nullification of this status quo ante order effectively
declared Petitioner as the Mayor of Baliwag,
Bulacan.
 The nullification was based on the P’s argument that
the COMELEC’s decision was not decided by a
majority vote of ALL ITS MEMBERS
 This is because only 3 of the 7 COMELEC members
voted
 R argues that 3 is the majority vote as held in CUA
v. COMELEC, because majority is determined by
majority of the members who deliberated and voted
thereon and not of all members.
o From the 7 members only 5 participated.
From the 5 participants 1 dissented.
According to the Constitution 4 will
constitute the majority. However, Lantion,
one of the 4 members who agreed to the order
was disallowed by the SC to participate
because he had previously. So, only 3 voted
in the status quo ante order
I: W/N the vote of the 3 participants in the en banc
proceeding can be considered a majority vote? NO
The provision of the Constitution is clear that it should be
the majority vote of all its members and not only those who
participated and took part in the deliberations. Since the
above-quoted constitutional provision states "all of its
members," without any qualification, it should be
interpreted as such.
Even former Constitutional Commissioner Fr. Joaquin
Bernas, SJ, questions the Cua ruling in light of Section 7,

which says "majority of all the Members." He thus concludes
that "three is not the majority of seven.”
Section 5(a) of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure was lifted
from Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution which
provides: SECTION 7. Each Commission shall decide by a
majority vote of all its members any case or matter brought
before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for
decision or resolution. x x x (Emphasis and italics supplied) The
provision of the Constitution is clear that it should be the
majority vote of all its members and not only those who
participated and took part in the deliberations.
6) Mateo v. Court of Appeals – 247 SCRA 284
D: Regional Trial Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain
cases involving dismissal of officers and employees covered
by the Civil Service Law. The Civil Service Commission,
under the consti, is the single arbiter of all contests relating
to the civil service. The hiring and firing of employees of
government-owned and controlled corporations are
governed by the provisions of the Civil Service Law and
Rules and Regulations.
FACTS:
 Petitioners are employees of MOWAD (Morong
Water District) – w/c is a quasi-public corp created
pursuant to PD 198.
 Upon complaint by the petitioners against the
general manager, the BOD of MOWAD conducted
an investigation – General Manager Sta Maria was
placed under preventive suspension so such
position was vacated – another person was
designated - & was eventually dismissed.
 GM Sta Maria filed a special civil action for quo
warranto & mandamus before the RTC
challenging his dismissal by the BOD.
 The board filed a motion to dismiss arguing that
the RTC had no jurisdiction because the case is
under the jurisdiction of the CSC because it
involves a government employee. However, the
motion was denied
Issue: W/n the RTC has jurisdiction over the case involving
the dismissal of an employee of a quasi-public corp? NO
Sta Maria was an officer of a GOCC – as such, his hiring
& firing is governed by the Civil Service Law.
The RTC has no jurisdiction to hear cases involving
dismissal of officers covered by the Civil Service Law.
 The Civil Service Commission, under the consti, is
the single arbiter of all contests relating to the civil
service.
 RTCs have no jurisdiction to entertain cases
involving dismissal of officers and employees
covered by the Civil Service Law.
Note: Under the present rule, final resolutions of the Civil
Service Commission shall be appealable to the Court of
Appeals. In any event, whether under the old rule or the present
rule, Regional Trial Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain
7
cases involving dismissal of officers and employees covered by
the Civil Service Law.
7) Ambil v. Comelec -344 SCRA 358
D: The Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari an
interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a Division of
the Commission on Elections. This has to be brought to the
COMELEC en banc first via a motion for reconsideration,
before the SC. This is pursuant to Art. 9 Sec. 3 of the Consti.
 “Section 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en
banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules
of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election
cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All
such election cases shall be heard and decided in
division, provided that motions for reconsideration of
decisions shall be decided by the Commission en
banc.”
Facts:
 Petitioner Ambil won as Governor of Eastern
Samar.
 Private respondent Ramirez (his competitor)
filed an election protest with the COMELEC.
 Commissioner Guiani of the First Division of
COMELEC prepared and signed a proposed
resolution in favor of Ramirez. But, the said
resolution was not promulgated.
 On March 31, 2000, the Comelec, First Division,
issued an order setting the promulgation of the
resolution in the case (EPG Case No. 98-29) on
April 6, 2000, at 2:00 in the afternoon.
 Without waiting for the promulgation of the resolution
of the COMELEC Division, petitioner interposed the
instant petition for certiorari and prohibition under
Rule 65 with the SC
I: Is the Petition proper?
H: No.
The Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari an
interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a Division of
the Commission on Elections.
The mode by which a decision, order or ruling of the
Comelec en banc may be elevated to the Supreme Court is by
the special civil action of certiorari Rule 65, Section 1, 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, requires that there be no
appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law. A motion for reconsideration is a
plain and adequate remedy provided by law. Failure to
abide by this procedural requirement constitutes a ground for
dismissal of the petition.
A decision, order or resolution of a division of the Comelec
must be reviewed by the Comelec en banc via a motion for
reconsideration before the final en banc decision may be
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari.
Section 8. Each Commission shall perform such other

functions as may be provided by law.
B. Civil Service Commission
Section 1.
(3) The civil service shall be administered by the Civil
Service Commission composed of a Chairman and
two Commissioners who shall be:
a. natural-born citizens of the Philippines
and, at the time of their appointment,
b. at least 35 years of age,
c. with proven capacity for public
administration,
d. and must not have been candidates for any
elective position in the elections
immediately preceding their appointment.
(4) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be
appointed by the President with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments for a term of 7 years
without reappointment. Of those first appointed, the
Chairman shall hold office for 7 years, a
Commissioner for 5 years, and another
Commissioner for 3 years, without reappointment./
Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the
unexpired term of the predecessor. /
In no case shall any Member be appointed or
designated in a temporary or acting capacity.
Section 2.
(7) The civil service embraces all branches,
subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the
Government, including government-owned or
controlled corporations with original charters.
(8) Appointments in the civil service shall be made
only according to merit and fitness to be
determined, as far as practicable, and, except to
positions which are policy-determining, primarily
confidential, or highly technical, by competitive
examination.
(9) No officer or employee of the civil service shall be
removed or suspended except for cause provided by
law.
(10) No officer or employee in the civil service shall
engage, directly or indirectly, in any electioneering
or partisan political campaign.
(11) The right to self-organization shall not be denied to
government employees.
(12) Temporary employees of the Government shall be
given such protection as may be provided by law.
Classes of Service:
1. Career Service
 Characterized by entrance based on merit
and fitness to be determined as far as
practicable by competitive examinations, or
8
based on highly technical qualifications.
 Opportunity for advancement to higher
career positions.
 Security of tenure.
2. Non-Career Service
 Characterized by entrance on bases other
than those of the usual tests utilized for the
career service
 Tenure limited to a period specified by law,
or which is co-terminus with that of the
appointing power for which purpose the
employment was made.
Exempt from the competitive examination requirement:
1. Policy determining
 Where officer lays down principal or
fundamental guidelines or rules; or
formulates a method of action for
government or any of its subdivisions.
2. Primarily confidential
 Denoting not only confidence in the
aptitude of the appointee for the duties of
the office but primarily close intimacy
which ensures freedom of intercourse
without embarrassment or freedom from
misgivings or betrayals on confidential
matters of state; or one declared to be so by
the President of the Philippines upon
recommendation of the CSC.
3. Highly technical
 Which requires possession of technical
skill or training in a supreme or superior
degree.
Discretion of the appointing authority
 Has the right of choice which he may exercise freely
according to his best judgment, deciding for himself
who is best qualified among those who have the
necessary qualifications and eligibilities.
Section 3. The Civil Service Commission, as the central
personnel agency of the Government, shall establish a career
service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency,
integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in
the civil service./
It shall strengthen the merit and rewards system, integrate all
human resources development programs for all levels and
ranks, and institutionalize a management climate conducive
to public accountability./
It shall submit to the President and the Congress an annual
report on its personnel programs.
Section 4. All public officers and employees shall take an
oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution.
Section 5. The Congress shall provide for the
standardization of compensation of government officials and
employees, including those in government-owned or
controlled corporations with original charters, taking into
account the nature of the responsibilities pertaining to, and

the qualifications required for, their positions.
Section 6. No candidate who has lost in any election, shall
within one year after such election, be appointed to any
office in the Government or any Government-owned or
controlled corporations or in any of their subsidiaries.
Section 7. No elective official shall be eligible for
appointment or designation in any capacity to any public
office or position during his tenure.
Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions
of his position, no appointive official shall hold any other
office or employment in the Government or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, including Government-
owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
Section 8. No elective or appointive public officer or
employee shall receive additional, double, or indirect
compensation, unless specifically authorized by law,/
nor accept without the consent of the Congress, any present,
emolument, office, or title of any kind from any foreign
government.
Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as additional,
double, or indirect compensation.
A. Civil Service Commission ("CSC")
Scope
8) CSC vs. Alfonso - G.R. No. 179452, June 11, 2009
D: Even though the CSC has appellate jurisdiction over
disciplinary cases decided by government departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities, a complaint may be filed
directly with the CSC. Here, since the complaints were filed
directly with the CSC and the CSC had opted to assume
jurisdiction over the complaint, the CSC’s exercise of
jurisdiction shall be to the exclusion of other tribunals
exercising concurrent jurisdiction.
 Alfonso, Director of the HRM Department of PUP
was charged with grave misconduct, conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the Service, and
violation of the Civil Service Law.
 The affidavit-complaint was lodged before the
CSC.
 The CSC finally charged him and imposed a 90-
day suspension.
 Alfonso now argues that the CSC had no
jurisdiction to hear and decide the administrative
case because it is the PUP Board of Regents that
has the exclusive authority to appoint and remove
PUP employees.
I: W/N the CSC has jurisdiction to hear and decide the
complaint filed against Alfonso?
9
YES.
As the central personnel agency of the government, the
CSC has jurisdiction to supervise the performance of and
discipline if need be, all government employees, including
those employed in government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters such as PUP.
Even though the CSC has appellate jurisdiction over
disciplinary cases decided by government departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities, a complaint may be filed
directly with the CSC.
 CSC has the authority to hear and decide the case,
although it may in its discretion opt to deputize a
department or an agency to conduct the
investigation, as provided in the CSL of 1975.
The SC also ruled that since the complaints were filed
directly with the CSC and the CSC had opted to assume
jurisdiction over the complaint, the CSC’s exercise of
jurisdiction shall be to the exclusion of other tribunals
exercising concurrent jurisdiction.
9) PNOC-EDC v. Leogardo- July 5, 1989
D: The civil service system under the new Constitution covers
only government owned and controlled corporations with
original charters. The test in determining whether a
government-owned or controlled corporation is subject to the
Civil Service Law is the manner of its creation such that
government corporations created by special charter are subject
to its provisions while those incorporated under the general
Corporation Law are not within its coverage.
Facts:
 Petitioner (PNOC-EDC) is a subsidiary of the
PNOC.
 On 1978, it filed with the MOLE (Ministry of Labor
and Employment) a clearance application to dismiss
the services of Vicente Ellelina, a contractual
employee.
o The application for clearance was premised
on Ellelina’s alleged commission of a crime
(Alarm or Public Scandal) during a
Christmas party on 19 December 1977 at
petitioner’s camp in Uling, Cebu, when,
because of the refusal of the raffle
committee to give him the prize
corresponding to his lost winning ticket, he
tried to grab the armalite rifle of the PC
Officer outside the building despite the
warning shots fired by the latter
 MOLE granted the clearance but subsequently
revoked it.
 PNOC-EDC appealed on the ground that the
MOLE has no jurisdiction over PNOC-EDC since
it is a GOCC.
I: W/N PNOC-EDC is governed by the Labor Code? YES
PNOC-EDC having been incorporated under the general

Corporation Law is a GOCC whose employees are subject
to the provisions of the Labor Code.
 The 1973 Constitution provided: The Civil
Service embraces every branch, agency,
subdivision and instrumentality of the
government, including government-owned or
controlled corporations.
 Hence, employees of GOCC, whether created by
special law or formed as subsidiaries under the
general Corporation Law, are governed by the
Civil Service Law and not by the Labor Code.
 Yet the 1987 Constitution supplanted, providing
that the CSC covers only GOCC with original
charter.
The civil service system under the new Constitution covers
only government owned and controlled corporations with
original charters.
 Since PNOC-EDC does not have its own charter,
then it is not covered by the CSC.
 Moreover, even if a case arose under the 1973
Constitution but it is to be decided under the 1987
Constitution, the applicable rule is that of the 1987
Constitution.
10) Philippine Fisheries v. NLRC – September 4,
1992
D: The petitioner is a government-owned or controlled
corporation with a special charter. This places it under the
scope of the civil service (Art. XI [B] [1] and [2], 1987
Constitution). However, the guards are not employees of the
petitioner. The contract of services explicitly states that the
security guards are not considered employees of the petitioner.
There being no employer-employee relationship between the
petitioner and the security guards, the jurisdiction over the
non-payment of wages of the security guards should be with
the Labor Arbiter (Solidary liability of contractor and
“indirect employer” for unpaid wages ) and not of the Civil
Service Commission may not be invoked in this case.
FACTS:
 Philippine Fisheries is a GOCC created by P.D. No.
977.
 It entered a contract with the Odin Security Agency
for security services.
 Two of the security guards filed with the Office of
the Sub-Regional Arbitrator a complaint for re-
adjustment rate under Wage Order No. 6 together
with wage salary differentials.
 The Labor Arbiter issued an Order dismissing the
complaint, t h a t t h e Philippine fisheries is a
GOCC, hence it would place it under the scope and
jurisdiction of the CSC and not within the ambit of
the NLRC.
I: W/N Philippine Fisheries is under the scope of the
Civil Service or NLRC?
CSC. Philippine Fisheries is a GOCC with special
charter, which places it under the scope of the Civil
10
Service.
 However the contract of services explicitly states
that the security guards are not considered
employees of the Philippine Fisheries, hence the
jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission may
not be invoked in the case.
11) Buenaflor v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 201607, 15
February 2017
D: CSC has jurisdiction over a case involving a civil servant if
it can be regarded as equivalent to a labor dispute resoluble
under the Labor Code; Regular courts have jurisdiction if the
case can be decided under the general laws, such as when the
case is for the recovery of private debts, or for the recovery of
damages due to slanderous remarks of the employer, or for
malicious prosecution of the employees.
 On August 27, 2001, Chairman Eufemio Domingo of
the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC)
appointed respondent Jose R. Ramirez, Jr. as
Executive Assistant III and concurrently designated
him as Assistant Accountant.
 On September 28, 2001, Chairman Domingo
resigned, and petitioner Cesar D. Buenaflor succeeded
him.
 The petitioner terminated Ramirez as of the same date
as Chairman Eugenio's resignation on the ground that
his tenure had expired by virtue of the position of
Executive Assistant being personal and confidential,
and, hence, co-terminous with that of the appointing
authority.
 Ramirez sued in the RTC to declare his dismissal null
and void (appointment contractual in nature)
 Buenaflor Ans: failure to exhaust administrative
remedies; should have filed admin. Complaint in CSC
 RTC declared Buenaflor guilty of unlawful
termination
 CA dismissed Buenaflor’s petition for certiorari
ISSUE:
W/N RTC had jurisdiction over Ramirez’s complaint – NO
(CSC dapat)
RATIO:
 Jurisdiction over SM determined by plaintiff’s
allegations and principal relief sought in accordance
with the law that apportions jurisdiction of courts
 Disciplinary cases and cases involving personnel
actions affecting employees in the Civil Service, like
appointment or separation from the service, are within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the CSC.
 Constitution vests in the CSC the jurisdiction over all
employees of the Government, including all its
branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and
agencies, as well as government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters.
 Ramirez appointed to agency under Office of the Pres.

 Any question regarding the appointment or separation
from the service of a civil servant was lodged in the
CSC as the sole arbiter of controversies relating to the
Civil Service.
 CSC has jurisdiction over a case involving a civil
servant if it can be regarded as equivalent to a labor
dispute resoluble under the Labor Code; Regular court
has jurisdiction if the case can be decided under the
general laws, such as when the case is for the recovery
of private debts, or for the recovery of damages due to
slanderous remarks of the employer, or for malicious
prosecution of the employees.
 The mere fact that the parties are members of the Civil
Service should not remove the controversy from the
general jurisdiction of the courts of justice and place
them under the special jurisdiction of the CSC
 RTC should have dismissed the complaint; RTC
judgment void
12) Career Executive Service Board v. CSC – G.R. No.
197762, 07 March 2017
D: It is evident from the deliberations of the framers that the
concept of a "central personnel agency" was considered all-
encompassing. The concept was understood to be sufficiently
broad as to include the authority to promulgate and enforce
policies on personnel actions, to classify positions, and to
exercise all powers and functions inherent in and incidental to
human resources management. It includes the broad authority
and the specific powers to pass upon all civil service matters.
The mandate of the CSC should therefore be read as the
comprehensive authority to perform all functions necessary to
ensure the efficient administration of the entire civil service,
including the CES.
 On 24 September 2010, the PAO received a copy of
the CESB Report on the CES Occupancy of the
Department of Justice (DOJ). This document stated,
among others, that out of 35 filled positions in the
PAO, 33 were occupied by persons without the
required CES eligibility.
 1st letter from PAO Deputy Chief to CESB Exec. Dir.
Informing her that he positions of Chief Public
Attorney, Deputy Chief Public Attorneys, and
Regional Public Attorneys (subject positions) were
already permanent in nature pursuant to Section 6 of
Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9406, which accorded
security of tenure to the occupants
 2nd letter to CESB Deputy Chief to reiterate 1st letter
o Positions permanent posts; occupants may
only be removed for causes authorized by law
o PAO requested the deletion of its office from
the Data on CES Occupancy for the
Department of Justice (DOJ).
 CESB Reply: CESB would conduct a position
classification study on the specified PAO positions to
determine whether they may still be considered CES
positions in the DOJ
 DOJ legal opinion:
o Appointments of the Chief Public Attorney,
Deputy Chief Public Attorneys and Regional
11
Public Attorneys are not permanent, despite
your claims to the contrary, considering that
they do not possess the required CES
eligibility for the said positions. As such, they
cannot invoke their right to security of tenure
even if it was expressly guaranteed to them
by the PAO Law.
o permanent nature of an appointment does not
automatically translate to an exemption from
CES coverage, as it is only the CESB that has
the authority to exempt certain positions from
CES requirements.
 CSC Legal Opinion
o Commission's opinion that for purposes of
permanent appointment to the positions of
Chief Public Attorney, Deputy Chief Public
Attorney and Regional Public Attorney, no
third-level eligibility is required but only RA
1080 (BAR) civil service eligibility
 CESB Reso. 918 denied PAO’S request to declassify
the subject positions because they require leadership
and management competence, thus part of the CES.
 PAO appealed to CSC – granted by CSC
o CSC ruled that it could assume jurisdiction
over the appeal, which involved the
employment status and qualification
standards of employees belonging to the civil
service. It was supposedly a matter falling
within its broad and plenary authority under
the Constitution and the Administrative
Code.
o The CSC also declared that the authority of
the CESB over third-level employees was
limited to the imposition of entry
requirements and "should not be interpreted
as cutting off the reach of the Commission
over this particular class of positions."
o CESB under CSC’s supervision
o On the merits, the CSC ruled in favor of the
PAO officials. It declared that the CESB
would be in violation of R.A. 9406 if the
latter would require an additional
qualification - in this case, third-level
eligibility - for purposes of permanent
appointments to certain PAO positions
 CESB filed petition for certiorari with SC
ISSUE:
W/N CSC had jurisdiction to resolve PAO’s appeal and to
reverse CESB reso. 918 - YES
RATIO:
 Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution entrusts to the
CSC the administration of the civil service, which is
comprised of "all branches, subdivisions,
instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government,
including government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters." In particular,
Section 3 of Article IX-B provides for the mandate of
this independent constitutional commission.

 Con-Comm. Proceedings reveal intention to
emphasize the status of the CSC as the "central
personnel agency of the Government with all powers
and functions inherent in and incidental to human
resources management
 Evident from the deliberations of the framers that the
concept of a "central personnel agency" was
considered all-encompassing. The concept was
understood to be sufficiently broad as to include the
authority to promulgate and enforce policies on
personnel actions, to classify positions, and to exercise
all powers and functions inherent in and incidental to
human resources management. It includes the broad
authority and the specific powers to pass upon all civil
service matters.
 Mandate of the CSC should therefore be read as the
comprehensive authority to perform all functions
necessary to ensure the efficient administration of
the entire civil service, including the CES
 Reinforced by Admin. Code of 1987 which
enumerates CSC’s powers
 The CES was created to "form a continuing pool of
well-selected and development-oriented career
administrators who shall provide competent and
faithful service." The CESB was likewise established
to serve as the governing body of the CES with the
following functions:
o (a) to promulgate rules, standards and
procedures for the selection, classification,
compensation and career development of
members of the CES;
o (b) to set up the organization and operation of
the civil service in accordance with the
guidelines provided in the plan;
o (c) to prepare a program of training and
career development for members of the CES;
o (d) to investigate and adjudicate
administrative complaints against members
of the CES.
 When the Administrative Code was enacted in 1987,
the CESB was given the additional authority to (a)
identify other officers belonging to the CES in keeping
with the conditions imposed by law; and (b) prescribe
requirements for entrance to the third-level.
 Based on the foregoing provisions, it is clear that the
powers granted to the CESB are specific and limited.
 The specific powers of the CESB must be narrowly
interpreted as exceptions to the comprehensive
authority granted to the CSC by the Constitution and
relevant statutes.
 CSC, as the central personnel agency of the
government, is given the comprehensive mandate to
administer the civil service. It has also been expressly
granted the power to promulgate policies, standards,
and guidelines for the civil service; and to render
opinions and rulings on all personnel and other civil
service matters
 Issue of whether PAO positions belong to CES is a
civil service matter considering the repercussions of
the issue concerning the appointments of those
12
occupying the posts in question, the jurisdiction of the
CSC over personnel actions is implicated.
 CSC has been granted the authority to review the
decisions of agencies attached to it under Admin. Code
 rule on appeals to the Office of the President only
covers disciplinary cases involving members of the
CES
Appointments
13) Santiago, Jr. v. CSC- 178 SCRA 733
D: The power to appoint is discretionary. The appointing
authority is granted discretion and prerogative of choice of the
one he deems fit for appointment. Moreover, while it is true that
the Commission is empowered to approve all appointments,
whether original or promotional, to positions in the civil service
and disapprove those where the appointees do not possess the
appropriate eligibility or required qualification, all the
commission is actually allowed to do is check whether or not
the appointee possesses the appropriate civil service eligibility
or the required qualifications.
 Customs Commissioner Wigberto Tanada extended to
Narciso Y. Santiago a permanent promotional
appointment from Customs Collector I to Customs
Collector III.
 Leonardo Jose, a Customs Collector II, protested,
claiming that he was the next-in-rank to the position of
Collector of Customs III.
 The Civil Service Commission revoked Santiago’s
promotion. Hence, the present petition.
Issue: Whether or not the next-in-rank rule applies in making
appointments?
Ruling: No. 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 neither grants a vested right to the holder nor
imposes a ministerial duty on the appointing authority
to promote such person.
 The power to appoint is a matter of discretion.
o The appointing power has a wide latitude of
choice as to who is best qualified for the
position.
 To apply the next-in-rank rule peremptorily would
impose a rigid 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
 CSC Resolution No. 83-343 provides:
o Section 4. An employee who holds a next-in-
rank position who is deemed the most
competent and qualified, possesses an
appropriate civil service eligibility, and meets
the other conditions for promotion shall be
promoted to the higher position when it
becomes vacant.

However, the appointing authority may
promote an employee who is not next-in-rank
but who possesses superior qualifications and
competence compared to a next-in-rank
employee who merely meets the minimum
requirements for the position.
 The Customs Commissioner, in giving his reason for
promoting Santiago, provided that there was no
official record of any activity that recommends Jose
for promotion. In contrast, Santiago had been credited
with the seizure of millions of pesos worth of
smuggled shipments, as well as being the recipient of
several citations for exemplary performance.
 Finally, while it is true that the Commission is
empowered to approve all appointments, whether
original or promotional, to positions in the civil service
and disapprove those where the appointees do not
possess the appropriate eligibility or required
qualification, all the commission is actually allowed to
do is check whether or not the appointee possesses the
appropriate civil service eligibility or the required
qualifications.
o If he does, his appointment is approved; if
not, it is disapproved. No other criterion is
permitted by law to be employed by the
Commission when it acts on, or as the decree
says, "approves" or "disapproves" an
appointment made by the proper authorities.
o It has no authority to revoke the said
appointment simply because it believed that
the Jose was better qualified for that would
have constituted an encroachment on the
discretion vested solely (in the appointing
authority).
14) Aquino v. CSC - 208 SCRA 240
D: CSC has no authority to revoke an appointment simply
because it believed that another person is better qualified
than the appointee for it would constitute an encroachment
on the discretion solely vested on the appointing authority.
The moment the discretionary power of appointment has
been exercised and the appointee assumed the duties and
functions of the position, the said appointment cannot be
revoked by the appointing authority on the ground merely
that the protestant is more qualified than the first appointee,
subject however to the condition that the first appointee
should possess the minimum qualifications required by law.
Otherwise, the security of tenure guaranteed by Article IX-
B, Section 2 par. (3) of the 1987 Constitution would be
rendered meaningless if the appointing authority is allowed
to flip-flop in exercising its discretionary power of
appointment.
 Victor Aquino was designated as Property
Inspector and In-Charge of the Supply Office
performing the duties and responsibilities of the
Supply Officer.
 2 years later, the Division Superintendent of City
Schools, Tagle, issued a promotional appointment
to Leonarda D. de la Paz as Supply Officer.
13
 At the time of her appointment, she was then
holding the position of Clerk II, Division of City
Schools.
 The Civil Service Regional Office IV approved her
appointment as permanent.
 Aquino filed a protest with the DECS Secretary
questioning the qualification and competence of
de la Paz for the position of Supply Officer I.
 DECS Secretary revoked the appointment of de
la Paz.
 CSC also revoked the appointment.
I: Was De la Paz validly removed by the CSC? NO
SC held that CSC has no authority to revoke an appointment
simply because it believed that another person is better
qualified than the appointee for it would constitute an
encroachment on the discretion solely vested on the
appointing authority.
 It is well-settled that once an appointment is
issued and the moment the appointee assumes
a position in the civil service under a
completed appointment, he acquires a legal,
not merely equitable right (to the position),
which is protected not only by statute, but also
by the Constitution, and cannot be taken away
from him either by revocation of the
appointment, or by removal, except for cause,
and with previous notice and hearing.
There is thus reasonable ground for the rule that the moment the
discretionary power of appointment has been exercised and the
appointee assumed the duties and functions of the position, the
said appointment cannot be revoked by the appointing authority
on the ground merely that the protestant is more qualified than
the first appointee, subject however to the condition that the first
appointee should possess the minimum qualifications required
by law. Otherwise, the security of tenure guaranteed by Article
IX-B, Section 2 par. (3) of the 1987 Constitution would be
rendered meaningless if the appointing authority is allowed to
flip-flop in exercising its discretionary power of appointment.
While a protest is a mode of action that may be availed of by
the aggrieved party to contest the appointment made, the protest
must be “for cause” or predicated on those grounds provided for
under Section 19 par. (6) of the Civil Service Law (P.D. 807).
“For Cause” means for reasons which the law and sound public
policy recognized as sufficient warrant for removal, that is,
legal cause, and not merely causes which the appointing power
in the exercise of discretion may deem sufficient.
15) CSC v. Salas – 274 SCRA 414
D: The primary purpose of the framers of the 1987
Constitution in providing for the declaration of a position
as policy-determining, primarily confidential or highly
technical is to exempt these categories from competitive
examination as a means for determining merit and fitness.
Section 16 of Presidential Decree No. 1869, classifiying all
PAGCOR employees as confidential, cannot be given a
 14
literally stringent application without compromising the except for cause as provided by law.”
constitutionally protected right of an employee to security  Appointees in the 3 positions are not
of tenure. terminable at will by the appointing
power.
 Salas was appointed by the PAGCOR  However, for confidential position: The
Chairman as Internal Security Staff member termination of their official relation can be
and assigned to the casino at the Manila justified on the ground of loss of
Pavilion Hotel. confidence because in that case their
 However, his employment was terminated for cessation from office involves no removal
loss of confidence. but merely the expiration of the term of
 Salas appealed to the Chairman and BOD of office.
PAGCOR, requesting reinvestigation of the Respondent as Director for Security of the BOC
case since he was not given an opportunity to was a confidential employee, and hence may only
be heard, but the same was denied. be removed for just cause.
 He appealed to the Merit Systems Protection  1955: Respondent Atty. Villegas, a
Board (MSPB), which denied the appeal on civil service eligible was appointed
the ground that he was not a confidential Director for Security of the Bureau of
employee. Therefore, he may not be removed Customs (BOC).
based on loss of confidence.  1956: He was sent by the BOC to the
 One of the reasons argues by PAGCOR as to US for further studies and returned to
why Salas was a confidential employee was the Philippines a year after.
the fact that under Sec. 16 of PD 1869 (which  When he returned to Philippines,
created the Philippine Amusement and Gaming James Keefe was holding the position
Corporation) it says that all employees of the of Acting Director for Security.
casinos and related services shall be classified as o Hence Atty. Villegas was
confidential appointees. assigned temporarily as
Arrastre Supervisor.
I: Is Salas a confidential employee?  1958: Secretary of Finance Jaime
Hernandez proposed to the President
R: NO. Executive pronouncements, such as Presidential to make the current positions of Keefe
Decree No. 1869, can be no more than initial and Villegas permanent. The
determinations that are not conclusive in case of conflict. President approved.
It must be so, or else it would then lie within the discretion o The Directorship is a
of the Chief Executive to deny to any officer, by executive confidential position.
fiat, the protection of Section 4, Article XII (now Section o Arrastre Supervisor is a
2[3], Article IX-B) of the Constitution. In other words, classified position
Section 16 of Presidential Decree No. 1869 cannot be given o Villegas was transferred
a literally stringent application without compromising the from a position, which is
constitutionally protected right of an employee to security primarily confidential in
of tenure. The primary purpose of the framers of the 1987 nature, to another, without
Constitution in providing for the declaration of a position cause.
as policy-determining, primarily confidential or highly  Atty. Villegas filed a petition for quo
technical is to exempt these categories from competitive warranto with CFI Manila.
examination as a means for determining merit and fitness.  The defense of DOF and Executive
Secretary is that the Directorship is a
Here, although appointed by the Chairman, ISS members do not confidential position. Hence,
directly report to the Office of the Chairman in the performance terminable at the will of the
of their official duties. Obviously, as the lowest in the chain of appointing power.
command, private respondent does not enjoy that “primarily
close intimacy” which characterizes a confidential employee. ISSUE: WON it is valid to transfer Atty. Villegas
from Director of Security to Arrastre Supervisor?
Security of Tenure
HELD: NO!
16) Hernandez v. Villegas- 14 SCRA 544
D: Constitution does not exempt the holders of 3  That Villegas' removal from the office of
positions (policy-determining, confidential, and Director for Security is without cause and
highly technical) from the operation of the principle is therefore illegal.
emphatically and categorically enumerated in  There are 3 classes of positions:
section 4 of Article XII: “No officer or employee 1. Policy-determining
in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended 2. Primarily confidential

3. Highly Technical
o These are exempt from the rule
requiring appointments in the
Civil Service to be made on the
basis of merit a fitness as
determined from competitive
examinations.
 But the Constitution does not exempt the
holders of 3 positions from the operation
of the principle emphatically and
categorically enumerated in section 4 of
Article XII: “No officer or employee in
the Civil Service shall be removed or
suspended except for cause as provided by
law.”
o Appointees in the 3 positions are
not terminable at will by the
appointing power.
o However, for confidential
position: The termination of their
official relation can be justified
on the ground of loss of
confidence because in that case
their cessation from office
involves no removal but merely
the expiration of the term of
office.
The distinction between competitive and non-competitive
positions is significant only for purposes of appointment.
However, “officials and employees holding primarily
confidential positions continue only for so long as
confidence in them endures. The termination of their official
relation can be justified on the ground of loss of confidence
because in that case their cessation from office involves no
removal but the expiration of the term of office – two
different causes for the termination of the official relations
recognized in the Law of Public Officers.
17) Astraquillo v. Manglapus- 190 SCRA 280
D: Civil Service; Career Service; Non-Career Service;
Ambassadors; Petitioners' appointments to the Foreign
Service were not based on merit and fitness, determined by
competitive examinations, or based on highly technical
qualifications, hence, their tenure is coterminous with that of
the appointing authority or subject to his pleasures.
FACTS:
 Petitioners were appointed ambassadors to different
countries.
 The Secretary of Foreign Affairs, by the authority
of the President, then terminated their services.
 Petitioners complained and contended that they
were employed under the career service and thus
granted security of tenure.
I: W/N appointees to the foreign service who do not belong
to the Career Corps enjoy security of tenure like the Career
Corp.?
H: NO. Those who are non-career “enter on bases other than
those of the usual test of merit and fitness utilized for the
15
career service” and possess “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 purposes employment was made.
 Political appointees in the foreign service possess
“tenure which is coterminous with that of the
appointing authority.”
18) Gloria v. Court of Appeals- August 15, 2000
D: The transfer of a permanent employee to another permanent
position without the consent of the employee violates security
of tenure. While a temporary transfer or assignment is
permissible even without the employee’s prior consent, it
cannot be done when the transfer is a preliminary step toward
his removal, or is a scheme to lure him away from his
permanent position, or designed to indirectly terminate his
service, or force his resignation.
Here from Schools Division Superintendent of QC, Icasiano
was transferred to Superintendent of Marikina Institute of
Science and Technology wo his consent.
 Dr. Bienvenido Icasiano was appointed Schools
Division Superintendent, Division of City Schools,
QC, by the then Pres. Cory Aquino.
 Secretary Gloria recommended to the Pres. Aquino
that the Icasiano be reassigned as Superintendent of
the MIST [Marikina Institute of Science and
Technology], to fill up the vacuum created by the
retirement of its Superintendent, Mr. Bannaoag F.
Lauro.
o The President approved the recommendation
of Sec. Gloria.
o A copy of the recommendation for
petitioner’s reassignment, as approved by
Pres. Aquino, was transmitted by Sec. Gloria
to Director Rosas for implementation.
o Director Rosas, informed the petitioner of his
reassignment.
 Icasiano requested Sec. Gloria to reconsider the
reassignment, but the latter denied the request.
 Icasiano prepared a letter to Pres. Aquino, asking for
a reconsideration of his reassignment, and furnished a
copy of the same to the DECS. However, he
subsequently changed his mind and refrained from
filing the letter with the Office of President.
 Petitioner was a permanent employee transferred to
another permanent position without her consent.
I: W/N such transfer violates security of tenure? How
about temporary transfer? YES
The transfer of a permanent employee to another permanent
position without the consent of the employee violates
security of tenure.
 Reassignment of petitioner to MIST "appears to be
indefinite".
 The same can be inferred from the Memorandum of
Sec. Gloria for Pres. Fidel V. Ramos to the effect that

the reassignment of private respondent will "best fit
his qualifications and experience" being "an expert
in vocational and technical education."
o It can thus be gleaned that subject
reassignment is more than temporary as the
private respondent has been described as fit
for the (reassigned) job, being an expert in
the field.
As to temporary transfer: While a temporary transfer or
assignment of personnel is permissible even without the
employee’s prior consent, it cannot be done when the
transfer is a preliminary step toward his removal, or is a
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.
19) Dimayuga v. Benedicto- January 16, 2002
D: Security of tenure in an office is acquired only by one
who has the qualifications for that office. At the time P
occupied her position as Executive Director 2 of the Toll
Regulatory Board, this position was not yet part of the
Career Executive Service. Hence, she does not enjoy
security of tenure to the position.
 Secretary of Public Works and Highways Jose P.
de Jesus issued a permanent appointment in favor
of Chona M. Dimayuga as Executive Director II of
the Toll Regulatory Board.
 At the time, her position was not deemed part of
the career executive service (CES), that is, until
June 4, 1993, when it was included therein.
 Because of several administrative and criminal
complaints, she was suspended.
 After which, she was detailed at the Office of the
Sec. of the DPWH and was later asked to report to
the Legal Service of the department.
 She considered this as a demotion so she filed for
a leave of absence, during which, she was removed
from office.
 She now claims security of tenure to her CES
position.
Does she have security of tenure? NO.
During her appointment, her position was excluded from
the coverage of the CES, so petitioner was able to occupy
said position although she was not a CES Officer.
 The subsequent inclusion of her position under
the CES, however, did not automatically qualify
her for the said position as she lacked the required
eligibility.
 Security of tenure in an office is acquired only by
one who has the qualifications for that office.
Abolition of Office
16
20) Mayor v. Macaraig- 194 SCRA 672
D: Abolition of an office is obviously not the same as the
declaration that that office is vacant. While it is undoubtedly
a prerogative of the legislature to abolish certain offices, it can
not be conceded the power to simply pronounce those offices
vacant and thereby effectively remove the occupants or
holders thereof from the civil service. Such an act would
constitute, on its face, an infringement of the constitutional
guarantee of security of tenure.
 RA 6715 was passed declaring vacant ALL
positions of the Commissioners, Executive Labor
Arbiters and LAs in the NLRC.
 The old positions were declared vacant because, as
the statute states, of “the need to professionalize the
higher levels of officialdom invested with
adjudicatory powers and functions, and to upgrade
their qualifications, ranks, and salaries or
emoluments.”
 Those that were affected claimed that it
undermined their security of tenure.
I: W/N Sec. 35 of RA 6715 is constitutional?
NO, Unconstitutional. While abolition by law as a result of
reorganization is a recognized cause for termination of a
government employee, it is not the same as a declaration
that the office is vacant.
Abolition of an office is obviously not the same as the
declaration that that office is vacant. While it is undoubtedly a
prerogative of the legislature to abolish certain offices, it cannot
be conceded the power to simply pronounce those offices
vacant and thereby effectively remove the occupants or holders
thereof from the civil service. Such an act would constitute, on
its face, an infringement of the constitutional guarantee of
security of tenure.
 Now, a recognized cause for removal or termination of
employment of a Government officer or employee is
the abolition by law of his office as a result of
reorganization carried out by reason of economy or to
remove redundancy of functions, or clear and explicit
constitutional mandate for such termination of
employment.
Right to Organize
21) SSS Employees v. Court of Appeals- 175 SCRA
686
D: While the right to organize and join unions, associations
or societies cannot be curtailed, government employees may
not engage in strikes.
 Petitioner SSSEA went on a strike when SSS failed
to act on the union’s demands.
 Thus, SSS filed w/ the RTC a complaint for damages
& asked for a writ of preliminary injunction to stop
the strike, contending that the union has no right to
stage a strike
I: W/N employees of the Social Security System have the

right to strike?
NO. Resort to the intent of the framers of the 1987
Constitution points to the understanding that the right to
organize does not include the right to strike.
 While the right to organize and join unions,
associations or societies cannot be curtailed,
government employees may not engage in strikes to
demand changes in the terms and conditions of
employment because the terms and conditions of
employment are provided by law.
Double Compensation
22) Peralta v. Mathay- 38 SCRA 296
D: No officer or employee of the government shall receive
additional or double compensation unless specifically
authorized by law. When a per diem or an allowance is
given as reimbursement for expenses incident to the
discharge of an officer’s duties, it is not an additional
compensation prohibited by the Constitution.
Here, P was unable to show that the cost of living allowance
received by him was in the nature of a reimbursement. It did
amount then to an additional compensation. A GSIS Trustee,
according to law, shall only receive Php25/meeting
attended. Hence, the grant of cost of living allowance,
incentive and xmas bonus are unconstitutional.
FACTS
 Petitioner Peralta, a Trustee of GSIS, was granted an
optional retirement gratuity of P P40,336.07.
o Of that amount, he was not able to collect the
he was not able to collect the sum of
P7,032.26, covering P3,982.26 as cost of
living allowance, P1,275.00 as incentive
bonus, and P1,775.00 as Christmas bonus.
 Respondent Auditor General Mathay stated that such
items are considered as additional compensation, since
a trustee’s remuneration is fixed by law only at a per
diem of P25 for every board meeting attended.
I: Is the Retirement gratuity which includes cost of living
allowances, incentive, and Christmas bonuses constitute
additional or double compensation?
H: YES. As per the Constitution, “no officer or employee of
the government shall receive additional or double
compensation unless specifically authorized by law.”
This is to manifest a commitment to the fundamental principle
that a public office is a public trust. It is expected of a
government official or employee that he keeps uppermost in
mind the demands of public welfare. He is there to render
public service. He is of course entitled to be rewarded for the
performance of the functions entrusted to him, but that should
not be the overriding consideration.
Note: When a per diem or an allowance is given as
reimbursement for expenses incident to the discharge of an
officer’s duties, it is not an additional compensation
17
prohibited by the Constitution. But here, P was unable to show
that the cost of living allowance received by him was in the
nature of a reimbursement. It did amount then to an additional
compensation.
23) Santos v. Court of Appeals- 345 SCRA 553
D: For the purpose of computing or determining petitioner’s
separation pay under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7924,
his years of service in the Judiciary should be excluded and
his separation pay should be solely confined to his services
in the Metropolitan Manila Authority, and not the judiciary.
Otherwise it will lead to double gratuity which is prohibited
by the Consti.
In this petition for review on certiorari petitioner assails the
decision of 19 August 1999 of the Court of Appeals which held
that petitioner’s separation pay under Section 11 of R.A. No.
7924 should be limited to the number of years of his service in
the Metropolitan Manila Authority (MMA) only, excluding his
years of service as judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC) of Quezon City for which he has already been given
retirement gratuity and pension.
 P was previously a judge in the MeTC, and received a
monthly pension from it.
 He was later on appointed as a Director of the MMA.
 When the MMA was reorganized into the MMDA. He
was granted a separation pay of ¼ month pay for every
year of service.
 P contends that the R should count his total years in
govt service (including his time in the judiciary) to
compute separation pay.
I: Is P correct? NO.
The case at bench is not, strictly speaking, about ‘double
pension.’ It is, however, about the interpretation of a gratuity
law, viz., Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7924 which awards
separation pay to those government employees who were
displaced by the reorganization of the MMA into the MMDA,
which should be construed to preclude a government employee
from receiving double gratuity for the same years of service.
24) Singson vs. Commission on Audit - G.R. No.
159355, August 9, 2010
D: Unlike salary which is paid for services rendered, the
Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA) is a
form of allowance intended to defray expenses deemed
unavoidable in the discharge of office; It is paid only to
certain officials who, by the nature of their offices, incur
representation and transportation expenses.
 The Philippine International Convention Center,
Inc. (PICCI) is a government corporation whose
stockholder is the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
(BSP).
 Petitioners are members of the PICCI and officials
of the BSP.
 PICCI By-Laws authorized petitioners to receive
P1,000 per diem each for every meeting attended.
 18
 Pursuant to a Monetary Board (MB) Resolution, the
BSP granted additional monthly Representation and
Transportation Allowance (RATA), in the amount
of P1,500 to each of the petitioners., as members of
PICCI
 The PICCI Corporate Auditor issued a Notice of
Disallowance, disallowing in audit the payment of
RATA as there was double payment of RATA in
violation of Sec. 8, Art. IX-B.

Issue: Whether or not the RATA constitutes double

compensation?

Ruling: No. The RATA is distinct from salary (as a form of

compensation).
 Unlike salary which is paid for services rendered,
the RATA is a form of allowance intended to defray
expenses deemed unavoidable in the discharge of
office.
 Hence, the RATA is paid only to certain officials
who, by the nature of their offices, incur
representation and transportation expenses.
 Section 8, Article IX-B of the Constitution provides
that no elective or appointive public officer or
employee shall receive additional, double or
indirect compensation, unless specifically
authorized by law, nor accept without the consent
of the Congress, any present emolument, office or
title of any kind from any foreign government.
Pensions and gratuities shall not be considered as
additional, double or indirect compensation.
 Also, what is prohibited is the dual/ multiple
collection of RATA from the budgets of 2 or more
national agencies.
o Certainly, if PICCI is not part of the
National Government, but a mere
subsidiary of a government-owned and/or
controlled corporation (BSP).
o When national official is on detail with
another national agency, he should get his
RATA only from his parent national
agency and not from the other national
agency he is detailed to.
o RATA granted by the BSP and the
additional RATA also granted by the BSP
did not constitute double compensation.