CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

CASTILLO, E.G.

GR NO. 191890, DEC 4 2012

PETITIONER: EVALYN I. FETALINO

AMADO M. CALDERON
PETITIONER-INTERVENOR: MANUEL A. BARCELONA, JR
RESPONDENT: COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

BRION, J.:

I. FACTS
 FEB 10 1998 – Pres. Ramos extended an interim appointment to the petitioners as Comelec Commissioners,
each for a 7 year term.
 FEB 21 1998 – Pres. Ramos renewed the petitioners’ ad interim appointments for the same position. Congress
however, adjourned before the Commission on Appointments can act on their appointments. Constitutional
ban presidential appointments later took effect and the petitioners were not reappointed, thus, petitioners
only served as Commissioners for more than 4 months, from Feb 16 1998 to June 30 1998.
 MAR 15 2005 – petitioners applied for retirement benefits and monthly pension pursuant to RA 1568, which
COMELEC initially approved on Resolution 06-1369 dated DEC 11 2006
 FEB 6 2007 – issued Resolution 07-0202 granting the petitioners a prorated pension
 OCT 5 2007 – petitioners asked for a re-computation of the retirement pay on ground that RA 1568 does not
cover pro-rated computation.
 MAR 30 2010 – Resolution 8808, COMELEC, through its Law Department’s study, completely disapproved the
petitioner’s lump sum benefit claim under RA 1568:
o Of the 4 modes by which a Chairman on Commissioner shall be entitled to a lump sum benefit, only
the first instance (completion of term) is pertinent in this case. It is clear that the non-confirmation
and non-renewal of appointment is not a case of resignation, incapacity, or death.
o Can it be considered as completion of one’s term? No. RA 1568 meant a completion of term and not
expiration of term, which the latter is the case for the petitioners.

 Petitioners and Barcelona sought the nullification of Resolution 8808 via a petition for certiorari, with the
following arguments:
o Non-renewal of their interim appointments by the Commission on Appointments until Congress
adjourned qualifies as retirement under the law and thus entitling them to the full benefit
o Resolution 06-1369 is already final and executory and cannot be modified by the COMELEC
o They now have vested rights due to the finality of Resolution 06-1369
 Petitioners pray for a liberal interpretation of RA 1568. That the involuntary termination of their interim
appointment should be recognized by the Court as retirement as was the case in Ortiz v. COMELEC. That the
involuntary curtailment of Ortiz’s term be deemed as completion of his term so that he be considered retired.
 Petitioners also bewail the lack of notice and hearing in the issuance of Resolution 8808

 JUL 22, 2010 – Respondents filed its comment through the OSG, praying for the dismissal of the petition on
the following grounds:

o Petitioners’ reliance on the finality of Resolution 06-1369 is misplaced as this is not the final decision
contemplated by COMELEC Rules of Procedure Sec 13 Rule 18. Also, that estoppel does not lie against
the COMELEC since erroneous application and enforcement of the law does not stop the Government
from making subsequent correction of its errors.
o COMELEC reiterates that petitioners are not considered retired for they have not completed the term
office. Respondents draw the Court’s attention to the case of Matibag v. Benipayo where the Court
categorically ruled that interim appointments that lapsed due to the inaction of the Commission on
Appointments does not constitute a term of office
o That petitioners have no vested rights since RA 1568 is gratuity in nature and are not similar to
pension plans where employee participation is mandatory so that they acquire vested rights in
pension as aprt of their compensation. Without vested right, respondent concludes that the
petitioners were not deprived of their property without due process of law.
II. ISSUE
 Whether or not can the petitioners apply for the liberal interpretation of RA 1568
III. RULING – DISMISS the petition for certiorari filed by petitioners for lack of merit. DENY Bercelona, Jr’s
petition for intervention for lack of merit
 Barcelona’s petition for intervention is misdirected. COMELEC resolution 8808 only pertains to the lump sum
benefit afforded by RA 1568. Also, Barcelona has not substantiated his claim that the discontinuance of his
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
CASTILLO, E.G.

monthly pension is due to the assailed Resolution.

 Petitioners has no not met the requirements of RA 1568. Petitioners wasn’t removed from office by death,
incapacity, resignation, or retirement. The last one being the argument of the petitioners. RA 1568 grants
retirement benefits to the Chairman or any member of the COMELEC who has retired from the service after
having completed the term of office. Petitioners, under RA 1568 was not able to complete their term of office.
As stated by the OSG, the 4 month they served in their office could only amount to tenure in office. Strict
compliance with the age and service requirements under the law is the rule and the grant of exceptions
remains to be on a case to case basis.
o In Matibag v. Benipayo, the Court already ruled that “ad interim appointments that has lapsed by the
inaction of the Commission on Appointments does not constitute a term of office.”
o The point of ad interim appointment is made to the time it lapses is neither a fixed term nor an
expired term. TO hold otherwise would mean that the President on his own could start and complete
a running term of office without the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Based on this, the
petitioners cannot be considered retired because they haven’t served a “term of office”
 The case of Ortiz, cited by Barcelona, cannot apply on the present case.
o Ortiz was appointed by then President Marcos under the 1973 Constitution which does not need
concurrence of the Commission on Appointments.
o Ortiz then tendered a courtesy resignation to Pres. Corazon Aquino. The act being involuntary by
Ortiz, equity and justice demand that Ortiz should be deemed to have completed his term.
o Ortiz is a regular appointee by President Marcos, while petitioners were interim appointees during
the recess of Congress
 The petitioners’ appeal to liberal construction of Section 1 of RA 1568 is misplaced since the law is clear and
unambiguous.
o Guided by the rules of statutory construction in this consideration, the Court finds that the language
of the retirement law is clear and unequivocal; no room for construction or interpretation exists, only
the application of the letter of law.
o The discretionary power of the Court to exercise liberal application of retirement is not limitless; its
exercise of liberality Is on a case-to-case basis and only after a consideration of factual circumstances
that justify the grant of an exception.
 Comelec did not violate the rule on finality of judgements. Resolution 06-1369 does not fall in any of the
following: ordinary actions, special proceedings, provisional remedies or special reliefs. The previous
mentioned cases are those that attain finality after 30 days from its promulgation.
 There is no denial of due process. The right to be heard does not only refer to presentation of verbal
argument in courts but also through pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard is accorded, there is no denial
of due process.
o Records show that petitioners that the issuance of the assailed resolution was participated by the
application for retirement benefits of the petitioner and when they sought for a re-computation of
their retirement pay.
 NO vested rights since the nature of the benefits are purely gratuitous.