Constitutional Commissions:

1. COMELEC
2. COA
3. CSC

The Civil Service Commission

The Civil Service Commission Art. IX-B, 1987 Constitution

- power to approve appointments
- Revocation/recall of appointments

SECTION 1. Qualifications
(1) The Civil Service shall be administered by the Civil Service Commission composed of a
Chairman and two Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at
the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, with proven capacity for public
administration, 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 seven years without reappointment. Of those
first appointed, the Chairman shall hold office for seven years, a Commissioner for five years,
and another Commissioner for three 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 as 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:
1) establish a career service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity,
responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil service.
2) 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.
3) 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, 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 of any government-owned or controlled
corporations or in any of its subsidiaries.
The candidate who has lost in an election may be engaged as consultant even within the
one year prohibited period.

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.
You can be appointed but you should not receive anything, isa lang dapat ang sweldo.
There will be no violation of any law because he is not receiving extra/double
compensation.
Ex: Estelito Mendoza
Q: What is ex-officio
A:

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.

The authority granted by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to a city government to
“take final action” on all its appointments did not deprive the CSC of its authority and duty to
review appointments. The CSC is empowered to take appropriate action on all appointments and
other personnel actions. Such power includes the authority to recall appointments initially
approved in disregard of applicable provisions of the Civil Service law and regulations (Nazareno
v. City of Dumaguete, G.R. No. 181559, Oct. 2, 2009).

NOTE: The municipal mayor, being the appointing authority, is the real party in interest to
challenge the CSC’s disapproval of the appointment of his/her appointee. The CSC’s
disapproval of an appointment is a challenge to the exercise of the appointing authority’s
discretion. The appointing authority must have the right to contest the disapproval (Dagadag
v. Tongnawa, G.R. Nos. 161166-67, Feb. 3, 2005).

Findings of COA may be the basis of charges

ex: Malversation of public funds

Q: Who are covered by CSC?

A: Section 2 (1), Article IX-B, Constitution

Q: What are the powers of CSC under EO 292 and under the Constitution?

Q: Can CS employee participate in partisan campaign?

A: No. Sec 2 (4)
barangay election is not a partisan election, hence, CS employee may participate therein
without violating the provisions of the Constitution

Q: may CS employee join an organization?

A: Yes

Elective v. Appointive officials

Elective Appointive
Q: How does one get appointed in a public office?
1) the appointing authority must have the authority to appoint;
2) There must be a vacancy of the office
3) The appointee must possess all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications
required by the office to which he is to be appointed;
4) The appointment must be accepted by the appointee by undertaking oath and by
assumption of office;
5) Appointment must be approved by the commission on appointments, if required by law.

Q: What if the public officer failed to sign the appointment? Will it invalidate appointment
but the public officer assumed office and performs his functions as public officer?
A: No, the appointment is still valid, assumption of office and performance of its functions
are considered acceptance, implied acceptance.

A person may be appointed 2 times but double compensation shall not be allowed:
Requisites:
1. There must be no conflict between the 2 positions
2. There shall be no double compensation
3. Appointment to another position will not prejudice the other position.
 Removal Recall

Forcible and permanent separation of It is an electoral mode of removal employed

the incumbent from office before the expiration directly by the people themselves through the
of the public officer's term (Feria, Jr. v. Mison, exercise of their right of suffrage. It is a
G.R. No. 8196, Aug. 8, 1989). political question not subject to judicial review.
It is a political question that has to be decided
by the people in their sovereign capacity
(Evardone v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 94010, Dec.
2, 1991). - recall is an electoral mode of
removing a public officer of post or office by
reason of loss of confidence.

NOTE: Recall only applies to local officials.

Limitations on recall
1. An elective official can be subjected to recall only once
2. No recall shall take place within one (1) year from the assumption of office or one year
immediately preceding a regular local election (Sec. 74 (b) of Republic Act No. 7160).

NOTE: For the time bar to apply, the approaching local election must be one where the
position of the official to be recalled is to be actually contested and filled by the electorate
(Angobung v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 126576, March 5, 1997).

Effect of Recall on the 3-term limit rule (2010 Bar)

The three-term limit for local elected officials is not violated when a local official wins in
a recall election for mayor after serving three full terms as mayor since the recall election is
not considered an immediate re-election, it is not counted for purposes of the 3-term limit.
Term limits should be construed strictly to give the fullest possible effect to the right of the
electorate to choose their leaders (Socrates v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 154512, Nov. 12, 2002).

Recall election; budget

Goh vs. Bayron G.R. No. 212584. November 25, 2014.
Revocation vs. recall of appointment
Revocation Recall of Appointment

Where an appointment requires the After an appointment is completed, the

approval of the CSC, such appointment may be CSC has the power to recall an appointment
revoked or withdrawn by the appointing initially approved on any of the following
authority any time before the approval by the grounds:
CSC. (Before completion of appointment) 1. Non-compliance with procedures/criteria in
merit promotion plan;
2. Failure to pass through the selection board;
3. Violation of existing collective relative
agreement to promotion;
4. Violation of CSC laws, rules and regulations
(Debulgado v. CSC, G.R. No. 111471, Sept.
26, 1994).

Q: may a person be recalled after appointment?

A: Yes

Q: what are the grounds for recall under CS rules

A:

Q:What is the difference between Termination and recall?

A:

De Facto Officer; salary

In the case of Gaminde vs. Commission on Audit [2000], Thelma Gaminde was a Civil
Service Commissioner whose term should have ended on February 2, 1999 but continued holding
such office until February 2, 2000 under the belief that her term will expire on the latter date. The
Court ruled she served as de facto officer in good faith until February 02, 2000, and thus entitled
to receive her salary and other emoluments for actual service rendered. Consequently, the
Commission on Audit erred in disallowing in audit such salary and other emoluments, including
that of her coterminous staff.
Gaminde sought clarification from the Office of the President as to the expiry date of her
term of office. In reply to her request, the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel, in a letter
dated April 07, 2 1998 opined that petitioner’s term of office would expire on February
02, 2000, not on February 02, 1999. Relying on said advisory opinion, petitioner remained
in office after February 02, 1999.

Q: What is preventive Suspension?

A: A court-ordered preventive suspension is a preventive measure that is different and distinct
from the suspension ordered by the HoR for disorderly behavior which is a penalty. Such
House-imposed sanction is intended to enforce discipline among its members (Paredes, Jr. v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 118354, Aug. 8, 1995).
Preventive suspension is not a penalty by itself; it is merely a measure of precaution so that the
employee who is charged may be separated from the scene of his alleged misfeasance while
the same is being investigated, to prevent him from using his position or office to influence
prospective witnesses or tamper with the records, which may be vital in the prosecution of the
case against him (Beja v. CA, G.R. No. 91749, March 31, 1992).

It can be ordered even without a hearing because this is only preliminary step in an
administrative investigation (Alonzo v. Capulong, et al., G.R. No. 110590, May 10, 1995).

NOTE: When a public officer is charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act or R. A No. 3019, a pre-suspension hearing is required solely to determine the applicability
of such law and for the accused be given a fair and adequate opportunity to challenge the
validity of the criminal proceedings against him. This may be done through various pleadings
(Torres v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 153666, Dec. 27, 2002).
 Appointment of Public Officers
a) General qualifications of civil servants – Sec. 20, Art. III, PD 807

Article III, PD 807 - PROVIDING FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION,
PRESCRIBING ITS POWERS AND FUNCTIONS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Section 3. As used in this Decree, the following shall be construed thus:
(a) Agency means any bureau, office, commission, administration, board, committee, institute,
corporation, whether performing governmental or proprietary function, or any other unit of
the National Government, as well as provincial, city or municipal government, except as
hereinafter otherwise provided.
(b) Appointing officer is the person or body authorized by law to make appointments in the
Philippine Civil Service.
(c) Class includes all positions in the government service that are sufficiently similar as to duties
and responsibilities and require similar qualifications that can be given the same title and
salary and for all administrative and compensation purposes, be treated alike.
(d) Commission refers to the Civil Service Commission.
(e) Chairman refers to the Chairman of the Commission.
(f) Commissioner refers either of the two other members of the Commission.
(g) Department includes any of the executive departments or entities having the category of a
department including the judiciary, Commission on Elections and Commission on Audit.
(h) Eligible refers to a person who obtains a passing grade in a civil service examination or is
granted a civil service eligibility and whose name is entered in the register of eligibles.
(i) Examination refers to a civil service examination conducted by the Commission and its
regional offices or by other departments or agencies with the assistance of the Commission,
or in coordination or jointly with it, and those that it may delegate to departments and
agencies pursuant to this Decree, or those that may have been delegated by law.
(j) Form refers to those prescribed by the Civil Service Commission.

Section 20. Qualification Standards.

(a) A qualification standard expresses the minimum requirements for a class of positions in terms
of education, training and experience, civil service eligibility, physical fitness, and other
qualities required for successful performance. The degree of qualifications of an officer or
employee shall be determined by the appointing authority on the basis of the qualifications
standard for the particular position.
Qualification standards shall be used as basis for civil service examinations for positions
in the career service, as guides in appointment and other personnel actions, in the adjudication
of protested appointments, in determining training needs, and as aid in the inspection and audit
of the agencies personnel work programs.
It shall be administered in such manner as to continually provide incentives to officers and
employees towards professional growth and foster the career system in the government service.
(b) The establishment, administration and maintenance of qualification standards shall be the
responsibility of the department or agency, with the assistance and approval of the Civil Service
Commission and in consultation with the Wage and Position Classification Office.

-----
b) Power of Congress to prescribe qualifications - Anong LEGAL BASIS

(1) In general. — Congress is generally empowered to prescribe the qualifications for holding
public office, provided it does not exceed thereby its constitutional powers or impose
conditions of eligibility inconsistent with constitutional provisions. Qualifications for office
must have a rational basis. There must be a rational nexus between any requirements and
duties of the position in question.

The qualifications prescribed must not be too detailed as to practically amount to making an
appointment which is an executive function and not legislative.

(2) Where office created by Congress. — Where an office is the creature of Congress, that
body can deal with the subject of qualification and disqualification, provided that in so doing
it does not impinge upon any express provision of the Constitution. For example, where an
office is created by a legislative enactment, Congress has the power to specify that certain
classes of individuals are disqualified from holding the office.

(3) Where office created by the Constitution. — The general rule is that where the
Constitution establishes specific eligibility requirements for a particular constitutional office,
the constitutional criteria are exclusive. Thus, Congress may have no power to require
different qualifications for constitutional offices other than those qualifications specifically
set out in the Constitution. This is especially true in regard to offices created by the
Constitution itself, unless the Constitution expressly or impliedly gives the power to set
qualifications.

(4) Where qualifications prescribed by the Constitution. — Many mandatory constitutional

provisions as to qualifications for office are not self-executing, as for example, the
requirement that the fitness of persons to be appointed to public office shall be ascertained
as far as practicable by competitive civil service examinations. Such provisions are merely
announcements of a general principle clearly requiring legislation for their enforcement. The
right of Congress to prescribe qualifications is not inconsistent with the executive power of
appointment to office.

Where the Constitution has prescribed certain qualifications, Congress may prescribe additional
qualifications unless it appears that this action is prohibited.

Power of Congress to prescribe disqualifications.

In the absence of constitutional inhibition, Congress has the same right to provide
disqualifications that it has to provide qualifications for office.
 However, Congress may not add disqualifications where the Constitution has provided
them in such a way as to indicate an intention that the disqualifications provided shall
embrace all that are to be permitted. Moreover, when the Constitution has attached a
disqualification to the holding of any office, Congress cannot remove it under the
power to prescribe qualifications as to such offices as it may create.

c) When must eligibility exist to qualify for public office?

Time of possession of qualifications.

When must the qualifications to a public office exist — at the time of election or appointment,
at the commencement of the term, or at the time of assuming office? In ascertaining this
matter, the language used in the constitutional or statutory provisions declaring the
qualifications is to be considered.

(1) Where time specified by Constitution or law. — The Constitution or law may,
expressly or by necessary implication, specify the time when the required eligibility
must exist. Where such is the case, there can be no question but that the candidate must
possess the necessary qualifications at that time. If it is specified that they must exist
at the time of the election, a candidate who does not possess them at the time is not
eligible although the disqualifications cease to exist before the beginning of the term.

(2) Where Constitution or law is silent. — If the Constitution or law does not specify the
time when the conditions of eligibility must exist, it is necessary for the courts to have
recourse to some other means of determining the matter. The terms employed in
declaring the qualifications are to be taken into consideration.

(a) Some courts have taken the view that the word "eligible," as used in constitutions
and statutes, has reference to the capacity not of being elected or appointed to office,
but of holding office, and that, therefore, if qualified at the time of commencement
of the term or induction into office, disqualification of the candidate or appointee at
the time of election or appointment is immaterial.

(b) Other courts take the position that the conditions of eligibility must exist at the time
of the election or appointment, and that their existence only at the time of the
commencement of the term of office or induction of the candidate or appointee into
office and assumption by him of his duties is not sufficient to qualify him for the
office.

(c) Where the provision refers to holding of office, rather than to eligibility to office,
in defining the qualifications, the courts are inclined to hold that the qualifications
are to be determined at the time of the commencement of the term or the induction
into office, rather than at the time of the election or appointment.
 (3) When qualifications must always exist. — In any case, the fact that the candidate or
appointee may have been qualified at the time of his election or appointment is not
sufficient to entitle him to hold the office, if at the time of the commencement of the
term or tenure or during the continuance of the incumbency, he ceases to be qualified.

(a) Eligibility to public office is of a continuing nature and must exist at the
commencement of the term and during the occupancy of the office.

(b) The qualifications prescribed for elective office cannot be erased by the electorate
alone. The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of
ineligibility especially if they mistakenly believed that the candidate was qualified.
This rule requires strict application when the deficiency is lack of citizenship
notwithstanding evidence of the candidate's naturalization after his proclamation.

d) Appointment distinguished from designation

Appointment Designation
It is the selection by the proper authority of an It merely connotes the imposition of additional
individual who is to exercise the functions of a duties, usually by law, upon a person who is
given office already in public service by virtue of an earlier
appointment or election

It connotes permanence It implies temporariness and therefore does

not confer upon the designee security of tenure

Under Commonwealth Act No. 588, the President is authorized to fill temporarily the
position of "an officer, in the Executive Department of the Government" by designating "another
officer already in the service or any other competent person" but such temporary designation "shall
in no case continue beyond the date of the adjournment of the regular session of the National
Assembly (now Congress) following such designation." It has been held, however, that such
temporary authority to make designations under Commonwealth Act No. 588 cannot be invoked
by the President in designating the Solicitor General to act temporarily as a Member of the
Commission on Elections on the ground that the "independence and impartiality" of the
Commission may thereby be "shaken and destroyed.

e) President’s appointing power; Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments

Power of appointment of the President. Sec 16, Article VII, 1987 Constitution
SECTION 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval
captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He
shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not
 otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint.
The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the
President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or
boards.

The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the
Congress, whether voluntary or involuntary, but such appointments shall be effective only
until after disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment

Under the above provision, there are four groups of officials whom the President is authorized to
appoint, namely:

(1) The heads of executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, officers of
the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are
vested in him in the Constitution. The "other officers" referred to therein are the regular members of
the Judicial and Bar Council, the Chairman and Commissioners of the Civil Service Commission,™
the Chairman and Commissioners of the Commission on Elections, the Chairman and Commissioners
of the Commission on Audit, and the Members of the regional consultative commission;

(2) All other officers whose appointments are not otherwise provided by law and they refer to officers
to be appointed to lower offices created by Congress where the latter omits to provide for appointment
to said office, or provides in an unconstitutional way for such appointments;

(3) Those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint such as the heads of government-
owned or -controlled corporations, undersecretaries, heads of bureaus and offices, and other officials;
and

(4) Other officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress by law vests in the President alone.

of the Congress.
Confirmation of appointments by Commission on Appointments.

(1) Only the officers in the first group above are appointed with the consent or confirmation
of the Commission on Appointments. Congress cannot, by law, require confirmation of
appointments of other officers. Heads of bureaus and certain offices under the different
departments which are not called bureaus like the Securities and Exchange Commission,
Insurance Commission, etc., are no longer included among those whose appointments are to
be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. They are civil service officers whose
appointments are supposed to be made only according to merit and fitness.

(2) The President, under the Constitution, appoints the members of the Supreme Court,
judges of lower courts, including the Sandiganbayan, and the Tanodbayan and his Deputies
from a list prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council. Such appointments need no
confirmation. The same is true when the Vice-President is appointed as a member of the
Cabinet.
 (3) The Constitution does not state the appointing authority with respect to the Chairman and
Members of the Commission on Human Rights. There is no doubt, however, that the power
to appoint them is lodged in the President under Section 16 above. The Administrative Code
of 1987 states that they shall be appointed by the President. Their appointments are also not
subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments because they are among the
officers of government "whom [the President] may be authorized by law to appoint" pursuant
to the second sentence of Article VII, Section 16 of the Constitution.

Appointments by other officials.

Under Article VII, Section 16, above, of the Constitution, Congress may, by law, vest in
courts, heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards the power to appoint officers
lower in rank (e.g., Chiefs of divisions or sections) in their respective offices. The phrase
"lower in rank" refers to officers subordinate to those enumerated officers in whom
respectively the power of appointment may be vested—the heads of executive departments,
agencies, commissions, and boards. Appointments of minor employees may also be vested
in them. The Supreme Court appoints all officials and employees of the judiciary.

The phrase does not include heads of bureaus and offices not specifically mentioned in the
Constitution as among those to be appointed by the President who are subordinates of
Cabinet members. By law, their appointments are vested in the President.

f) Limitation on the President’s appointing power

g) Kinds of appointments:
Kinds of Presidential appointments.

Under the Constitution, appointments may be classified as follows:

(1) regular or those made while Congress is in session. They are actually mere nominations
subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments;

(2) ad interim or those made while Congress is not in session or during its recess;

(3) permanent or those which last until they are lawfully terminated; and

(4) temporary or acting or those which last until a permanent appointment is issued.

Appointments which are required to be submitted to the Commission on Appointments are

either regular or ad interim. Both are permanent in nature. The first paragraph of Section 16
of Article VII of the Constitution (supra.) refers to the regular appointing power of the
President. Appointments that are for the President solely to make without the participation
of the Commission on Appointments, cannot be ad interim appointments. The President's
voluntary act of submitting such appointments to the Commission and the latter's act of
confirming or rejecting the same would be without or in excess of jurisdiction.
 Section 15 of Article VII gives the President the power to make temporary appointments. It
reads: "Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of
his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointment, except temporary
appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice service
or endanger public safety."
Note: An unqualified person cannot be appointed even in an acting capacity.

Ad interim appointments.

Section 16, paragraph 2, Article VII, 1987 Constitution

The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the
Congress, whether voluntary or involuntary, but such appointments shall be effective only until
after disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the
Congress.

Note: An ad interim appointment is nevertheless permanent in nature and not a mere

temporary or acting appointment notwithstanding that it is subject to confirmation by
the Commission on Appointments. However, it may be recalled or revoked by the
President before confirmation.

h) Term and tenure distinguished

Term Tenure
 The "term" means the time during The tenure represents the period during
which the officer may claim to hold the office which the incumbent actually holds the office.
as of right, and fixes the interval after which the
several incumbents shall succeed one another. It may be shorter than the term for
reasons within or beyond the power of the
It is a fixed and definite period of time incumbent.
to hold office, perform its functions, and enjoy
its privileges and emoluments until the
expiration of said period. It is not affected by
holding-over (infra.) of the incumbent after
expiration of the term for which he was
appointed or elected.

The term of office is not affected by the hold-

over. The tenure may be shorter than the term
for reasons within or beyond the power of the
incumbent.” (Gaminde v. Commission on Audit
[2000])

Hold-over
In case of failure of elections involving barangay officials, the incumbent officials shall
remain in office in a hold-over capacity pursuant to R.A. 9164 (Adap v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
161984, Feb. 21, 2007).

In the absence of an express or implied constitutional or statutory provision to the contrary,

an officer is entitled to hold office until his successor is elected or appointed and has qualified
(Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 130872, March 25, 1999).

i) Nepotism
Sec. 59. Nepotism . — (1) All appointments in the national, provincial, city and municipal
governments or in any branch or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations, made in favor of a relative of the appointing or recommending authority,
or of the chief of the bureau or office, or of the persons exercising immediate supervision over
him, are hereby prohibited.
As used in this Section, the word “relative” and members of the family referred to are those related
within the third degree either or consanguinity or of affinity.
(2) The following are exempted from the operation of the rules on nepotism: (a) persons employed
in a confidential capacity, (b) teachers, (c) physicians, and (d) members of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines: Provided, however, That in each particular instance full report of such appointment
shall be made to the Commission.
The restriction mentioned in subsection (1) shall not be applicable to the case of a member of any
family who, after his or her appointment to any position in an office or bureau, contracts marriage
with someone in the same office or bureau, in which event the employment or retention therein of
both husband and wife may be allowed.
(3) In order to give immediate effect to these provisions, cases of previous appointments which
are in contravention hereof shall be corrected by transfer, and pending such transfer, no promotion
or salary increase shall be allowed in favor of the relative or relatives who are appointed in
violation of these provisions.
Note:
Situations covered. — The Civil Service Decree prohibits all appointments (i.e., without
making any distinction between different kinds or types of appointments) in the
national and local governments or any branch or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations, made in favor of a relative of the:
(a) appointing authority;
(b) recommending authority;
(c) chief of the bureau or office; or
(d) person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee.
The above restriction is not applicable to the case of member of any family who,
after his or her appointment to any position in an office or bureau, contracts marriage with
someone in the same office or bureau in which event the employment or retention therein of
both husband and wife may be allowed.
As used in the law, the word "relative" and members of the family referred to are
those related within the third degree either of consanguinity or of affinity. Thus, one is guilty
of nepotism if an appointment is issued in favor of a relative within the third civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity of any of the four mentioned. Clearly, there are four situations
covered. In the last two mentioned situations, it is immaterial who the appointing or
recommending authority is. To constitute a violation of the law, it suffices that an
appointment is extended or issued in favor of a relative within the third civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity of the chief of the bureau or office, or the person exercising
immediate supervision over the appointee.
Designation included in prohibition. — The prohibition includes designation because what
cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. It covers all kinds of appointments be
they original, promotional, transfer or reemployment regardless of status. To limit the thrust
of the prohibition to appointments issued at the time of the initial entry into the government
service, and to insulate from the prohibition appointments subsequently issued when
personnel actions are thereafter taken in respect of the employee, would render the
prohibition "meaningless and toothless."

Q: what is Nepotism?
A:Nepotism means favoritism in the appointment in the national, provincial, city and municipal
governments or in any branch or instrumentality thereof, including GOCC, made in favor of a
relative within the 3rd degree either of consanguinity or affinity by the appointing or
 recommending authority, or of the chief of the bureau or office, or of the persons exercising
immediate supervision over him

j) Void appointment
An appointment may be void from the beginning due to fraud on the part of the appointee
or because it was issued in violation of law. A void appointment cannot give rise to security of
tenure on the part of the holder of the appointment. The Commission is empowered to take
appropriate action on all appointments and other personal actions {e.g., promotion) and its power
includes the authority to recall or revoke an appointment initially approved in disregard of
applicable provisions of law and regulations.

k) Appointment of one who has retired

Whom to appoint among those who possess the required qualifications is, as noted earlier,
a "political" or administrative question involving considerations of wisdom and the interests of the
service which only the appointing authority can decide. The Commission is not authorized to
curtail or diminish the exercise of discretion of the appointing power on the nature or kinds of
appointment to be extended. But the discretion given the appointing authority is subject to stricter
review where the person appointed is being returned to the government after voluntarily retiring
and collecting all the benefits appurtenant to such retirement.

l) Primarily confidential position

A position is primarily confidential where its occupant enjoys more than the ordinary
confidence in his aptitude of the appointing power but bears primarily such close intimacy which
insures freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgiving of betrayal of
personal trust on confidential matters of State, like that of a private secretary or a confidential
agent. For someone holding a primarily confidential position, more than ordinary confidence is
required.

(a) The other instance when a position may be considered primarily confidential is when the
President, upon recommendation of the Civil Service Commissioner, has declared it to be.
However, the President cannot nullify the constitutional provision by placing a position in
an exempt class when the duties thereof are not policy-determining, primarily confidential,
or highly technical in nature, or where it is practicable to determine by competitive
examination merit and fitness therefor. The duties must havesome relationship to the
exemption and the classification must be reasonable.

Upon the enactment of the Civil Service Act of 1959, now the Civil Service Decree, it is
the nature of the position which finally determines whether a position is primarily
confidential. Thus, the positions of senior security guard and security guard were held as
primarily confidential because of the duties and functions attached to said positions.

(b) The assumption that an officer holding a position which is primarily confidential in nature
is subject to removal at the pleasure of the appointing power is inaccurate. Even officials and
employees of the Civil Service occupying primarily confidential positions are subject to the
 constitutional safeguard against removal or suspension except for cause. However, such
officials and employees 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 merely the expiration of
the term of office.

The tenure of officials holding primarily confidential positions ends upon loss of
confidence, because their term of office lasts only as long as confidence in them endures; and thus
their cessation involves no removal. When such confidence is lost and the officer holding such
position is separated from the service, such cessation entails no removal but an expiration of his
term. There being no removal or dismissal it could not, therefore, be said that there was a violation
of the constitutional provision that no officer or employee in the civil service shall be suspended
or dismissed except for cause as provided by law.

m) Appointment of next–in-rank;
the appointing authority is not required to appoint the one next-in-rank to fill a vacancy.
He is allowed to fill it also by the transfer of an employee who possesses civil service eligibility.
(Barrozo vs. Civil Service Commission 198 SCRA 487)

The Civil Service Commission cannot dictate to the appointing power whom to appoint.
Its function is limited to determining whether or not the appointee meets the minimum
qualification requirements prescribed for the position. Otherwise, it would be encroaching upon
the discretion of the appointing power. (Meddla vs. Sto. Tomas, 208 SCRA 351)

Protest to appointment
Any person who feels aggrieved by the appointment may file an administrative protest
against such appointment. Protests are decided in the first instance by the Department Head,
subject to appeal to the CSC.

The protest must be for a cause (i.e. appointee is not qualified; appointee was not the next-
in-rank; unsatisfactory reasons given by the appointing authority in making the questioned
appointment). The mere fact that the protestant has the more impressive resume is not a cause
for opposing an appointment (Aquino v. CSC, G.R. No. 92403, April 22, 1992). -> sabi sa
GN

n) Government owned or controlled corporations

o) Liability for illegal appointments

Art. 244. Unlawful appointments. — Any public officer who shall knowingly nominate
or appoint to any public office any person lacking the legal qualifications therefor, shall suffer the
penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding Two hundred thousand pesos (₱200,000).(as
amended by RA No. 10951)

Positions in the Civil Service shall be classified into career service and non-career service.
I. Career Service
The Career Service shall be characterized by (1) entrance based on merit and fitness to be
determined as far as practicable by competitive examinations, or based on highly technical
qualifications; (2) opportunity for advancement to higher career positions; and (3) security of
tenure.

The career service shall include:

1. Open Career positions for appointment to which prior qualification in an appropriate
examination is required;
2. Closed Career positions which are scientific or highly technical in nature; these include the
faculty and academic staff of state colleges and universities, and scientific and technical
positions in scientific or research institutions which shall establish and maintain their own merit
systems;
3. Positions in the Career Executive Service (CES); namely, Undersecretary, Assistant
Secretary, Bureau Director, Assistant Bureau Director, Regional Director, Assistant Regional
Director, Chief of Department Service and other officers of equivalent rank as may be identified
by the Career Executive Service Board, all of whom are appointed by the President;

NOTE: For a position to be considered as CES, the position must be among those
enumerated under Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Section 7(3) of the
Administrative Code of 1987 or a position of equal rank as those enumerated and
identified by the CESB to be such position of equal rank; and the holder of the position
must be a presidential appointee (Seneres v. Sabido, G.R. No. 172902, Oct. 21, 2015).

4. Career officers, other than those in the Career Executive Service, who are appointed by the
President, such as the Foreign Service Officers in the Department of Foreign Affairs;
5. Comissioned officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces which shall maintain a separate
merit system;
6. Personnel of government-owned or controlled corporations, whether performing governmental
or proprietary functions, who do not fall under the non-career service; and
7. Permanent laborers, whether skilled, semiskilled, or unskilled.

Classes of Positions in the Career Service

(a) Classes of positions in the career service appointment to which requires examinations shall be
grouped into three major levels as follows:

1. The first level shall include clerical, trades, crafts, and custodial service positions which
involve non-professional or subprofessional work in a non-supervisory or supervisory
capacity requiring less than four years of collegiate studies;
2. The second level shall include professional, technical, and scientific positions which involve
professional, technical, or scientific work in a non-supervisory or supervisory capacity
requiring at least four years of college work up to Division Chief level; and
3. The third level shall cover positions in the (p)Career Executive Service.

Requisites for a CES employee to acquire security of tenure:

 a. CES eligibility; and
b. Appointment to the appropriate CES rank (Seneres v. Sabido, G.R. No. 172902, Oct.
21, 2015).

Security of tenure in the CES is thus acquired with respect to rank and not to
position. The guarantee of security of tenure to members of the CES does not extend to
the particular positions to which they may be appointed - a concept which is applicable
only to first and second-level employees in the civil service - but to the rank to which they
are appointed by the President. Within the CES, personnel can be shifted from one office
or position to another without violation of their right to security of tenure because their
status and salaries are based on their ranks and not on their jobs. (Seneres v. Sabido, G.R.
No. 172902, Oct. 21, 2015).

(b) Except as herein otherwise provided, entrance to the first two levels shall be through
competitive examinations, which shall be open to those inside and outside the service who meet
the minimum qualification requirements. Entrance to a higher level does not require previous
qualification in the lower level. Entrance to the third level shall be prescribed by the Career
Executive Service Board.

(c) Within the same level, no civil service examination shall be required for promotion to a higher
position in one or more related occupational groups. A candidate for promotion should, however,
have previously passed the examination for that level (Art. IV, P.D. 807).

III. Non-Career Service

The Non-Career Service shall be characterized by (1) entrance on bases other than those of
the usual tests 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:

1. Elective officials and their personal or confidential staff;
2. Department Heads and other officials of Cabinet rank who hold positions at the pleasure of the
President and their personal or confidential staff(s);
3. Chairman and members of commissions and boards with fixed terms of office and their personal
or confidential staff;
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; and
5. Emergency and seasonal personnel.

Principal groups of position in the Civil Service, on the basis of appointment

1. Competitive positions – according to merit and fitness to be determined by competitive
examinations, as far as practicable.
2. Non-competitive positions – do not have to take into account merit and fitness. No need for
competitive examinations.

a. Policy-determining – tasked to formulate a method of action for the government or any of its
subdivisions.
b. Primarily confidential – duties are not merely clerical but devolve upon the head of an office,
which, by reason of his numerous duties, delegates his duties to others, the performance of
which requires skill, judgment, trust and confidence
Proximity Rule
The test used to determine confidentiality of a position. The occupant of a particular
position could be considered a confidential employee if the predominant reason why he
was chosen by the appointing authority was the latter’s belief that he can share a close
intimate relationship with the occupant which ensures freedom of discussion without fear
of embarrassment or misgivings of possible betrayals of personal trust and confidential
matters of State (De los Santos v. Mallare, G.R. No. L-3881, Aug. 31, 1950).

c. Highly technical – requires technical skill or training in the highest degree

NOTE: The test to determine whether the position is non-competitive is the nature of the
responsibilities, not the description given to it. The Constitution does not exempt the above-given
positions from the operation of the principle that “no officer or employee of the civil service shall
be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law.”

q) Quo Warranto
Refers to an election contest relating to the qualifications of an elective official on the
ground of (1) ineligibility or (2) disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines. The issue is whether
respondent possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications prescribed by law
(A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, May 15, 2007).

NOTE: Quo warranto proceedings against a Congressman-elect, Senator-elect,

President-elect and VP-elect are brought before the appropriate electoral tribunals
created by the Constitution.

Quo warranto proceedings against any regional, provincial or city officials are brought
before the COMELEC.

Quo warranto proceedings against municipal officials and barangay officials are
brought before the RTCs and MTCs respectively.

Basis Election Protest Quo Warranto

 Who may file By a losing candidate for the same By any voter who is a registered voter
office for which the winner filed his in the constituency where the winning
COC candidate sought to be disqualified ran
for office

Issue/s Who received the majority or plurality Whether the candidate who was
of the votes which were legally cast? proclaimed and elected should be
disqualified because of ineligibility or
Whether there were irregularities in disloyalty to the Philippines.
the conduct of the election which
affected its results.

Impeachable officers
1. President
2. Vice-President
3. Members of the Supreme Court
4. Members of the Constitutional Commissions
5. Ombudsman

NOTE: The enumeration is exclusive (Sec. 2, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution).

Grounds for impeachment (1999, 2012, 2013 Bar)

1. Culpable violation of the Constitution
2. Treason
3. Bribery
4. Graft and Corruption
5. Other high crimes
6. Betrayal of public trust (Sec. 2, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution)

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 292

Lopez v. Roxas, 17 SCRA 756 (1966) - PET

Facts:
Petitioner Fernando Lopez and respondent Gerardo Roxas were the main contenders for
the Office of Vice-President of the Philippines in the general elections held on November 9, 1965.

Lopez garnered the highest number of votes. He got 3,531,550 votes while Roxas got
3,504,826 votes or a difference of just 26.7k votes.

Roxas contested the election of Lopez before the PET on the ground that the latter did not
obtain the largest number of votes for the said office.
 Lopez instituted in the SC the present original action, for prohibition with preliminary
injunction against Roxas, to prevent the PET from hearing and deciding the aforementioned
election contest based on the following grounds:
1) Republic Act No. 1793, creating said Tribunal, is "unconstitutional," and that, "all proceedings
taken by it are a nullity."
2) that the recount of votes by the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, as an incident of an election
contest, is inconsistent with the exclusive power of Congress to canvass the election returns for
the President and the Vice-President;
3) that the tenure of the President and the VicePresident is fixed by the Constitution and cannot
be abridged by an Act of Congress, like Republic Act No. 1793; that said Act has the effect of
amending the Constitution, in that it permits the Presidential Electoral Tribunal to review the
congressional proclamation of the president-elect and the vice-president-elect;

RA No. 1793 provides that, There shall be an independent Presidential Electoral Tribunal
... which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications
of the president-elect and the vice-president-elect of the Philippines.

Issue: WON RA No. 1793 is unconstitutional

Ruling:
No. Republic Act No. 1793 has not created a new or separate court. It has merely conferred
upon the Supreme Court the functions of a Presidential Electoral Tribunal. t merely connotes the
imposition of additional duties upon the Members of the Supreme Court. Moreover, the power to
be the "judge ... of ... contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications" of any public
officer is essentially judicial.

Discussion:
Congress v. PET - Functions
Congress merely acts as a national board of canvassers, charged with the ministerial and
executive duty 27 to make said declaration, on the basis of the election returns duly certified by
provincial and city boards of canvassers.

Upon the other hand, the Presidential Electoral Tribunal has the judicial power to determine
whether or not said duly certified election returns have been irregularly made or tampered with, or
reflect the true result of the elections in the areas covered by each, and, if not, to recount the ballots
cast, and, incidentally thereto, pass upon the validity of each ballot or determine whether the same
shall be counted, and, in the affirmative, in whose favor, which Congress has power to do.

Constitutional Tenure
It is, likewise, patent that the aforementioned authority of the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal to determine whether or not the protestant has a better right than the President and/or the
VicePresident declared elected by Congress would not abridge the constitutional tenure. If the
evidence introduced in the election protest shows that the person really elected president or vice-
president is the protestant, not the person declared elected by Congress, then the latter had legally
no constitutional tenure whatsoever, and, hence, he can claim no abridgement thereof.
New duties of the Supreme Court; not new office
It is similarly obvious that, in imposing upon the Supreme Court the additional duty of
performing the functions of a Presidential Electoral Tribunal, Congress has not, through Republic
Act No. 1793, encroached upon the appointing power of the Executive. The imposition of new
duties constitutes, neither the creation of an office, nor the appointment of an officer.

See also: Sec 4, Par. 4, Article, VII, 1987 Constitution

The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to
the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice- President, and may
promulgate its rules for the purpose.

Medinilla v. CSC, 194 SCRA 278 (1991) - Next-in-rank

Facts:
Medenilla was a contractual employee of the Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH) occupying the position of Public Relations Officer II.

In 1987, Medenilla was detailed as Technical Assistant in the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Administration and Manpower Management.

Pursuant to Executive Order No. 124 dated January 30, 1987, a reorganization ensued
within the DPWH and all the positions therein were abolished. A revised staffing pattern together
with the guidelines on the selection and placement of personnel was issued.

Included in the revised staffing pattern is the contested position of Supervising Human
Resource Development Officer.

On January 2, 1989, the Medenilla was appointed to the disputed position.

Respondents Dellosa, et. Al, all of whom are employees in the Human Resource Training
and Material Development Division, Administrative and Manpower Management Service of the
DPWH, jointly lodged a protest before the DPWH task force on reorganization contesting the
appointment of the Medenilla to the position.

The protestants alleged that since they are next-in-rank employees, one of them should
have been appointed to the said position.

>Task Force on Reorganization Appeals finds the instant protest of Matilde Angeles, et al.
without merit and hereby recommends to the Honorable Secretary that the appointment of Ardeliza
Medenilla to the contested position of Supervising Human Resource Development Officer be
upheld

>CSC reversed and held that in the event of there occurring a vacancy, the officer next-in-rank
must be appointed relying on Section 4 of RA 6656 which provides that:
 Officers and employees holding permanent appointments shall be given preference for
appointment to new positions in the approved staffing pattern comparable to their
former positions or if there are not enough comparable positions, to position next lower
in rank.

Issue: WON the appointment of Medenilla is invalid

Ruling:
No, for as long as she is eligible for the position. It is not disputed that the Medenilla
possesses the appropriate civil service eligibility and requisite educational background.

A careful review of the records of the case, will reveal that the petitioner possesses the
requisite experience for the contested position.

The petitioner, not only was a cum laude graduate from the University of the Philippines,
she has also acquired plenty of experience in the field of Human Resource Development

Under Sec 4 of RA 6656, old employees should be considered first. But it does not
necessarily follow that they should then automatically be appointed.

The Court already ruled on several occasions that when the appointee is qualified, the Civil
Service Commission has no choice but to attest to the appointment. It is not within its prerogative
to revoke an appointee on the ground that substituting its judgment for that of the appointing
power, another person has better qualifications for the job.

The only purpose of attestation is to determine whether the appointee possesses the
requisite civil service eligibility, no more than that is left for the Civil Service Commission to do

Mantala v. Salvador, 206 SCRA 264 (1992) - Jurisdiction of CSC

Facts:
Dr. Mariquita J. Mantala, a private medical practitioner, was given by the Secretary of
Health a temporary appointment to the then vacant position of Division Chief, Medical Division
III, Monitoring and Evaluation Division of the TB Control Service, Office of Public Health, of the
Department of Health.

That temporary appointment was shortly made subject of a formal protest filed by Dr. Julia
P. Regino with the Committee on Evaluation and Protest of the Department of Health. Dr. Regino
claimed that it was she to whom the appointment should have been extended since the post of
Medical Officer III then held by her was next-in-rank to the office in question, and moreover she
had been in the service for thirty-five years.

Committee on Evaluation and Protest upheld the Health Secretary's appointment of Dr. Mantala
as Division Chief.
Merit Systems Board of the Civil Service Commission ruled adversely to Mantala. This decision
was appealed to the CSC
CSC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Merit Systems Board in Dr. Regino's
favor.
MR - CSC reversed its decision and upheld Dr. Mantala's appointment.

Dr. Regino filed a motion for reconsideration stressing her status as "a qualified next-in-
rank" officer which was denied.

No appeal was taken from said Resolution No. 90-1012. It consequently became final and
executory.

In the meantime, or more precisely on March 12, 1990, Dr. Regino instituted an action of
quo warranto and mandamus in the Regional Trial Court at Quezon City against Dr. Mantala,
Secretary Bengzon and other officials of the Department of Health, claiming that having an
established right to the position of Division Chief in question, she should be installed therein

RTC annulled and set aside Dr. Mantala's appointment as Chief of Medical Division III in the
Tuberculosis Control Service, Office for Public Health Services, Department of Health;

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari in which it is prayed that RTC's decision be reversed.

Issue:

Ruling:
The petition has merit and will be granted. The decision of August 30, 1991 is fatally
flawed. It was rendered without jurisdiction, and it runs afoul of established doctrine.

Disciplinary cases, and cases involving "personnel actions" affecting employees in the civil
service -- including "appointment through certification, promotion, transfer, reinstatement,
reemployment, detail, reassignment, demotion and separation," and, of course, employment status
and qualification standards -- are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Service
Commission.

The Constitution declares the Commission to be “the central personnel agency of the
Government," having power and authority to administer the civil service; to promulgate its own
rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any of its offices; and to render decision
in "any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for
decision or resolution," which decision, or order or ruling "may be brought to the Supreme Court
on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof."

It was thus error, because beyond its competence, for the respondent Trial Court to take
cognizance of the quo warranto and mandamus action instituted by Dr. Regino which was in
essence a protest against the appointment of Dr. Mantala.
 Resolution of November 14, 1990, in Dr. Mantala's favor, became final and executory by
reason of Dr. Regino's failure to take an appeal therefrom -- and evidently to remedy this fatal
procedural lapse -- that the latter thought of filing her quo warranto and mandamus action in the
Regional Trial Court. Such a stratagem cannot be allowed to succeed.