LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – APPOINTMENTS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE

betrayals of personal trust or confidential matters of state. Nor is the position of city
EDUARDO DELOS SANTOS VS. GIL MALLARE, LUIS TORRES (City Mayor), engineer policy-determining. A city engineer does not formulate a method of action
PANTALEON PIMENTEL (City Treasurer), & RAFAEL USON (City Auditor) for the government or any of its subdivisions. His job is to execute policy, not to make
GR No. L-3881; August 31, 1950 it. With specific reference to the City Engineer of Baguio, his powers and duties are
carefully laid down for him be section 2557 of the Revised Administrative Code and
are essentially ministerial in character. Finally, the position of city engineer is
FACTS: Eduardo de los Santos, the petitioner, was appointed City Engineer of Baguio technical but not highly so. A city engineer is not required nor is he supposed to
on July 16, 1946, by the President, appointment which was confirmed by the possess a technical skill or training in the supreme or superior degree, which is the
Commission on Appointments on August 6, and on the 23rd of that month, he sense in which "highly technical" is employed in the Constitution. There are hundreds
qualified for and began to exercise the duties and functions of the position. On June 1, of technical men in the classified civil service whose technical competence is not
1950, Gil R. Mallare was extended an ad interimappointment by the President to the lower than that of a city engineer. As a matter of fact, the duties of a city engineer are
same position, after which, on June 3, the Undersecretary of the Department of Public eminently administrative in character and could very well be discharged by non-
Works and Communications directed Santos to report to the Bureau of Public Works technical men possessing executive ability.
for another assignment. Santos refused to vacate the office, and when the City Mayor
and the other officials named as Mallare's co-defendants ignored him and paid
Mallare the salary corresponding to the position, he commenced these proceedings.
FELIMON LUEGO VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND FELICULA
ISSUE: Whether or not the removal of the petitioner from his present position for TUOZO
assignment to another position violates Section 4, Article XII of the 1935 Constitution GR No. L-69137, August 5, 1986
which provides that "No officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or
suspended except for cause as provided by law."
FACTS: Petitioner was appointed Admin Officer II, Office of the City Mayor, Cebu City,
HELD: Yes. Section 1, Article XII of the Constitution ordains: "A Civil Service by Mayor Solon. The appointment was described as “permanent” but the CSC
embracing all branches and subdivisions of the Government shall be provided by law. approved it as “temporary,” subject to the final action taken in the protest filed by the
Appointments in the Civil Service, except as those which are policy-determining, private respondent and another employee.
primarily confidential or highly technical in nature, shall be made only according to
merit and fitness, to be determined as far as practicable by competitive examination." Subsequently, the CSC found the private respondent better qualified than the
Section 670 of the Revised Administrative Code provided that "Persons in the petitioner for the contested position and, accordingly directed that the latter be
Philippine civil service pertain either to the classified service," and went on to say that appointed to said position in place of the petitioner whose appointment is revoked.
"The classified service embraces all not expressly declared to be in the unclassified Hence, the private respondent was so appointed to the position by Mayor Duterte, the
service." Then section 671 described persons in the unclassified service as "officers, new mayor.
other than the provincial treasurers and assistant directors of bureaus or offices,
appointed by the President of the Philippines, with the consent of the Commission on
The petitioner, invoking his earlier permanent appointment, questions the order and
Appointments of the National Assembly, and all other officers of the government
the validity of the respondent’s appointment.
whose appointments are by law vested in the President of the Philippines alone."
Three specified classes of positions — policy-determining, primarily confidential
and highly technical — are excluded from the merit system and dismissal at pleasure ISSUE: WON the CSC is authorized to disapprove a permanent appointment on the
of officers and employees appointed therein is allowed by the Constitution. None of ground that another person is better qualified than the appointee and, on the basis of
these exceptions obtain in the present case. this finding, order his replacement.

The office of city engineer is neither primarily confidential, policy-determining, nor HELD: No. The appointment of the petitioner was not temporary but permanent and
highly technical. A confidential position denotes not only confidence in the aptitude was therefore protected by Constitution. The appointing authority indicated that it
of the appointee for the duties of the office but primarily close intimacy which insures was permanent, as he had the right to do so, and it was not for the respondent CSC to
freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings of reverse him and call it temporary.

1| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – APPOINTMENTS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE
Section 9(h), Art V of the Civil Service Decree provides that the Commission shall have immediately and to "remain in force until revoked," Administrator Lanuza designated
inter alia the power to “…approve all appointments, whether original or promotional, Agda as "Acting Regional Administrator for FIDA Regions I and II."
to positions in the civil service… ….and disapprove those where the appointees do not
possess appropriate eligibility or required qualifications.” In Special Order No. 219 dated 13 November 1987, series of 1987, Administrator
Lanuza "temporarily re-assigned" Agda, "in the interest of the service," at the main
The CSC is not empowered to determine the kind or nature of the appointment office of the Administrator to perform special functions which may be assigned to
extended by the appointing officer, its authority being limited to approving or him, and one Mr. Epitacio Lanuza, Jr., Assistant Fiber Regional Administrator, was
reviewing the appointment in the light of the requirements of the CSC Law. When the designated Officer in Charge of FIDA Region I.
appointee is qualified and all the other legal requirements are satisfied, the
Commission has no choice but to attest to the appointment in accordance with the On 9 December 1987 Agda prepared for filing with the Civil Service Commission, the
CSC Laws. Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, and the Commission on Audit an Urgent
Petition To Stop Implementation and Nullify Special Order No. 219, s. '87, alleging
CSC is without authority to revoke an appointment because of its belief that another therein that the Special Order is:
person was better qualified, which is an encroachment on the discretion vested solely
(a) devoid of legal basis as it does not preserve and maintain a status quo before
in the city mayor.
the controversy,
(b) against the interest of public service considering that Epitacio Lanuza has been
JOAQUIN M. TEOTICO VS, DEMOCRITO O. AGDA SR. & HON. JUDGE cited for two cases both involving dishonesty, abuse of privileges and
IGNACIO M. CAPULONG character unbecoming a government official,
GR No. 87437, May 29, 1991 (c) improper, inappropriate and devoid of moral justification, and
(d) a violation of Civil Service rules and regulation considering that it violates the
rule on nepotism since Epitacio Lanuza and Administrator Lanuza are cousins.
DOCTRINE: The Civil Service Decree, P.D. No. 807, allows transfer, detail and re-
assignment. If the employee concerned believes that there is no justification On 4 April 1988 Teotico placed Agda under preventive suspension pursuant to his
therefore, he "may appeal his case to" the Civil Service Commission. Unless otherwise Special Order No. 74. It likewise appears that on 13 April 1988 Agda sent a letter to
ordered by the Commission, the decision to detail an employee shall be executory. the Commission on Elections inquiring if Special Order No. 219, series of 1987, of
Agda invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the Commission when he filed his Urgent Administrator Lanuza was referred and submitted to it for approval three days before
Petition To Stay Implementation and Nullify the Special Order in question with the its implementation.
Civil Service Commission. In a letter dated 14 April 1988, Atty. Horacio SJ Apostol, Manager of the Law
It does not, however, appear to Us that he exerted genuine and sincere efforts to Department of the Commission, informed private respondent that "as of this date,
obtain an expeditious resolution thereof What appears to be clear is that he used its records of the Department do not show that aforesaid Special Order was submitted
pendency as an excuse for his refusal to comply with the memorandum of Teotico of or referred to this Commission for approval."
7 January 1988 and the routing slip request of 11 March 1988 for the key to the safety On 18 April 1988 Agda filed with the court below in Civil Case No. 88-577 his
vault. Amended Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Injunction with preliminary
FACTS: On 2 January 1984, Honorable Cesar Lanuza, then Administrator of the Fiber injunction and restraining order against Teotico and the three (3) members of the
Development Authority (FIDA for short), an agency attached to the Department of FIDA-AC alleging, in substance, that Special Order No. 219 of 13 November 1987
Agriculture, appointed Agda as CHIEF FIBER DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. issued by then Fida Administrator Lanuza is null and void for having been issued in
violation of Section 48 of P.D. No. 807 (Civil Service Decree) which prohibits the detail
This appointment does not indicate any specific station or place of assignment. Under or re-assignment of civil service personnel within three months before an election
Special Order No. 29, series of 1984, dated 2 January 1984, which was to take effect and Section 261(h) of Batas Pambansa Blg 881 (The Omnibus Election Code)

2| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – APPOINTMENTS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE
ISSUE: Respondent Judge clearly acted with grave abuse of discretion in taking case and a reversal of the rule on the burden of proof since it would assume the
cognizance of Civil Case No. 88-577, in deliberately failing to act on the motion to proposition which the petitioner is inceptively bound to prove.
dismiss, in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction, and in ordering the
"reinstatement" of Agda, "as Fiber Regional Administrator, FIDA Region I, with full
back wages and allowances mandated by law."

HELD: Agda was not appointed as Fiber Regional Administrator, FIDA Region I, but
VICTOR A. AQUINO VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND LEONARDA D.
as CHIEF FIBER DEVELOPMENT OFFICER; he was not appointed to any specific DELA PAZ
station. He was merely designated as Acting Regional Administrator for FIDA Regions GR No. 92403, April 22, 1992
I and II.

Agda made no attempt to avail of this remedy. In his Urgent Petition to Stay FACTS: Petitioner was designated as Officer-in-charge of the Division Supply Office
Implementation and Nullify Special Order No. 219, nothing is mentioned about a by the DECS Regional Director in view of the retirement of the Supply Officer I.
violation of the ban on transfer or detail. The reason seems too obvious. Until he filed
the Amended Petition before the court below he did not consider his re-assignment Two years thereafter, the Division Superintendent of City Schools issued a
per Special Order No. 219 as a violation of the ban on transfer or detail during the promotional appointment to private respondent as Supply Officer I in the DECS
division. The Civil Service Regional Office IV approved her appointment as
three-month period before the election.
permanent.
Even if the 16 December reinstatement order should be construed to be directed
against the preventive suspension order issued by Teotico on 4 April 1988, Petitioner filed a protest with DECS Secretary questioning the qualification and
respondent Judge clearly capriciously breached the limits of his discretion for competence of private respondent for the position of Supply Officer I.
nowhere in his amended petition has Agda attacked its validity or legality on any
other ground than its being issued to implement Special Order No. 219, which he Finding the petitioner better qualified than the respondent, the DECS Secretary in a
decision sustained the protest and revoked the appointment of private respondent,
claims was issued in violation of the pertinent provisions of the Omnibus Election
and petitioner was issued a permanent appointment as Supply Officer by the DECS
Code and the Civil Service Decree prohibiting transfer or reassignment of civil service Regional Director. Said appointment was approved by the Civil Service Regional
officials and employees within three months before the local election of January 18, Office IV.
1988.
In an appeal to the CSC, public respondent CSC found the appeal meritorious, thus
He assailed the suspension order not on the ground that Teotico does not have the
revoking the appointment of petitioner and restoring private respondent to her
authority to file the formal charge and to preventively suspend him, but solely on the
position under her previously approved appointment.
basis of his self-serving claim that both were issued without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion because they were meant to implement In the case at bar, petitioner assailing the revocation of his appointment, invokes the
Special Order No. 219. rulings in previous jurisprudence that the CSC has no authority to revoke an
appointment on the ground that another person is more qualified for a particular
Lastly, we hold that both the preliminary injunction and the reinstatement order
position for that would have constituted an encroachment on the discretion vested
issued by respondent Judge practically granted the main relief prayed for by Agda solely in the appointing authority.
even before the hearing on the case on the merits.

In Obias, et al., vs. Hon. Borja et al., 136 SCRA 687, We ruled that respondent judge ISSUE: Whether or not appointment of the respondent can be revoked.
acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction which
HELD: No. It is well settled that once an appointment is issued and the moment the
in effect practically granted the principal relief sought in the Mandamus case. The
appointee assumes position, he acquires a legal, not merely equitable right, which is
reason for this is that such issuance "would, in effect, be a prejudgment of the main
protected not only by statute, but also by the Constitution, and cannot be taken away

3| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – APPOINTMENTS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE
from him either by revocation of the appointment, or by removal, except for cause SIDE OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLEE: CSC alleges that Nita’s reappointment on
and with previous notice and hearing. confidential status was meant to illegally extend her service and circumvent the laws
on compulsory retirement.
Said appointment cannot also be revoked on the ground that the protestant is more
qualified than the first appointee. The protest must be for a cause or predicated on Under RA 8291, the compulsory retirement age is 65 years old, however ‘a person
those grounds provided for under Sect 19 (6) of the Civil Service Law (PD 807), who has reached the age compulsory retirement may still be appointed in a
namely: confidential position. CSC also noted that the position of Corporate Secretary is a
permanent position (career) and not primarily confidential (non-career)
1) that the appointee is not qualified;
2) that the appointee is not the next in rank; and
SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: GSIS and Nita Javier insist that the
3) in case of appointment transfer, reinstatement, or by original appointment,
that the protestant is not satisfied with the written special reasons or reason position of Corporate Secretary is one of primarily confidential nature
given by the appointing authority.
CA RULING:
Note: “for a 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  Sept 29, 2005 – CA ruled that the position of Corporate Secretary is a position of
appointing power in the exercise of discretion may deem sufficient. It is implied that primarily confidential nature
officers may not be removed at the mere will of those vested with the power of removal,  Petitioner CSC filed for reconsideration but this was denied, hence present
or without any cause. Moreover, the cause must relate to and affect the administration petition
of office and must be restricted to something of a substantial nature directly affecting
the rights and interests of the public.” ISSUES: WON the position of Corporate Secretary is primarily confidential in nature
– YES

HELD: According to Jurisprudence, there are two recognized instances when a

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION VS. NITA P. JAVIER position may be considered primarily confidential;
GR No. 173264, February 22, 2008
(1) when the President has declared the position to be primarily confidential
(2) in absence of such declaration, when by the nature of the functions of the
NATURE OF ACTION: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution office there exists “close intimacy” between the appointee and the
of the CA. appointing power which insures freedom of intercourse without
embarrassment or freedom from misgivings of betrayals of personal trust or
FACTS: confidential matters of state.
 Respondent Nita Javier was first employed as a Private Secretary at the GSIS on
a confidential status, she was then promoted to Tabulating Equipment Operator The position of Corporate Secretary of GSIS is clearly in close proximity and intimacy
with a permanent status, this status stayed with her throughout her career with the appointing power, it also calls for the highest degree of confidence between
 Years later, she was appointed Corporate Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the appointer and appointee. The Court therefore held that Nita reappointment valid
the corporation and that the CA did not err when it ruled the position to be primarily confidential in
 In 2001, shy of her 64th birthday, Nita opted for early retirement nature.
 Apr. 3, 2002 –GSIS President Winston F. Garcia, with the approval of the BOT
reappointed Nita as the Corporate Secretary classifying her position as
“confidential in nature and tenure of office is at the pleasure of the Board”

4| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – APPOINTMENTS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE
however, highlighted the recreation of six (6) casual positions for clerk II and utility
MAYOR MARCEL S. PAN VS. YOLANDA O. PENA ET. AL. worker I, which positions were previously held by respondents Marivic, Cantor, Asor
GR No. 174244; February 13, 2009 and Enciso.

Mayor Pan inexplicably never disputed this finding nor proffered any proof that the
new positions do not perform the same or substantially the same functions as those
FACTS: Petitioner Mayor Marcel Pan, after winning the mayoralty post, initiated a of the abolished. And nowhere in the records does it appear that these recreated
reorganization of the local government, allegedly due to the large budgetary deficit of positions were first offered to respondents.
the municipality. The Sangguniang Bayan (Sanggunian) passed a resolution giving the
mayor full authority to restructure the local government unit (LGU). The Sanggunian
While the CSC never found the new appointees to be unqualified, and never
thereafter created a Placement Committee to oversee the LGU reorganization in terms
disapproved nor recalled their appointments as they presumably met all the
of selection and placement of personnel, in consonance with the procedures laid
minimum requirements therefor, there is nothing contradictory in the CSC‘s course
down in R.A. 6656, the Act to Protect the Security of Tenure of Civil Service Officers
of action as it is limited only to the non-discretionary authority of determining
and Employees in the Implementation of Government Reorganization of 1988.
whether the personnel appointed meet all the required conditions laid down by law.

Respondents Yolanda Peña et al. were permanent employees assigned at the various
Congruently, the CSC can very well order Mayor Pan to reinstate Peña et al. to their
departments of the LGU but whose positions were abolished. They applied for the
former positions (as these were never actually abolished) or to appoint them to
newly created positions in the LGU‘s new organization and staffing pattern but
comparable positions in the new staffing pattern. In fine, the reorganization of the
placement committee did not approve Peña et al.’s applications. The mayor appointed
government of the Municipality of Goa was not entirely undertaken in the interest of
other employees to fill up the ranks. Peña et al. filed an appeal with the Civil Service
efficiency and austerity but appears to have been marred by other considerations in
Commission (CSC). The CSC affirmed the decision. The Court of Appeals (CA)
order to circumvent the constitutional security of tenure of civil service employees
sustained the CSC‘s decision.
like respondents.

ISSUE: Whether or not Mayor Pan complied with the provisions of R.A. 6656 in
effecting Peña et al.‘s separation from service LOUIS “BAROK” C. BIRAOGO VS. THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSON
OF 2010
HELD: Reorganization ―involves the reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, Consolidated with GR No. 193036; GR No. 192935; December 7, 2010
or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of functions. It alters the
existing structure of government offices or units therein, including the lines of
control, authority and responsibility between them to make the bureaucracy more FACTS: For consideration before the Court are two consolidated cases both of which
responsive to the needs of the public clientele as authorized by law. It could result in essentially assail the validity and constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1, dated July
the loss of one‘s position through removal or abolition of an office. 30, 2010, entitled "Creating the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010."

For reorganization for the purpose of economy or to make the bureaucracy more In, G.R. No. 192935, Biraogo assails Executive Order No. 1 for being violative of the
efficient to be valid, however, it must pass the test of good faith otherwise it is void ab legislative power of Congress under Section 1, Article VI of the Constitution as it
initio. In the case at bar, Mayor Pan claims that there has been a drastic reduction of usurps the constitutional authority of the legislature to create a public office and to
plantilla positions in the new staffing pattern in order to address the LGU‘s gaping appropriate funds therefor.
budgetary deficit.
The second case, G.R. No. 193036, is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition
Thus, he states that in the municipal treasurer‘s office and waterworks operations filed by petitioners Edcel C. Lagman, Rodolfo B. Albano Jr., Simeon A. Datumanong,
unit where respondents were previously assigned, only 11 new positions were and Orlando B. Fua, Sr. (petitioners-legislators) as incumbent members of the House
created out of the previous 35 which had been abolished; and that the new staffing of Representatives.
pattern had 98 positions only, as compared with the old which had 129. The CSC,
5| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – APPOINTMENTS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE

The Philippine Truth Commission (PTC) is a mere ad hoc body formed under the The question, therefore, before the Court is this: Does the creation of the PTC fall
Office of the President with the primary task to investigate reports of graft and within the ambit of the power to reorganize as expressed in Section 31 of the Revised
corruption committed by third-level public officers and employees, their co- Administrative Code? Section 31 contemplates "reorganization" as limited by the
principals, accomplices and accessories during the previous administration, and following functional and structural lines: (1) restructuring the internal organization
thereafter to submit its finding and recommendations to the President, Congress and of the Office of the President Proper by abolishing, consolidating or merging units
the Ombudsman. Though it has been described as an "independent collegial body," it thereof or transferring functions from one unit to another; (2) transferring any
is essentially an entity within the Office of the President Proper and subject to his function under the Office of the President to any other Department/Agency or vice
control. Doubtless, it constitutes a public office, as an ad hoc body is one. versa; or (3) transferring any agency under the Office of the President to any other
Department/Agency or vice versa.
To accomplish its task, the PTC shall have all the powers of an investigative body
under Section 37, Chapter 9, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987. It is not, Clearly, the provision refers to reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or
however, a quasi-judicial body as it cannot adjudicate, arbitrate, resolve, settle, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of functions. These point to
render awards in disputes between contending parties. All it can do is gather, collect situations where a body or an office is already existent but a modification or alteration
and assess evidence of graft and corruption and make recommendations. It may have thereof has to be effected. The creation of an office is nowhere mentioned, much less
subpoena powers but it has no power to cite people in contempt, much less order envisioned in said provision. Accordingly, the answer to the question is in the
their arrest. Although it is a fact-finding body, it cannot determine from such facts if negative.
probable cause exists as to warrant the filing of an information in our courts of law.
Needless to state, it cannot impose criminal, civil or administrative penalties or To say that the PTC is borne out of a restructuring of the Office of the President under
sanctions. Section 31 is a misplaced supposition, even in the plainest meaning attributable to the
term "restructure" an "alteration of an existing structure." Evidently, the PTC was not
ISSUES: Is EO No. 1 unconstitutional? part of the structure of the Office of the President prior to the enactment of Executive
Order No. 1.
HELD: The Court disagrees with the OSG in questioning the legal standing of the
petitioners-legislators to assail Executive Order No. 1. Evidently, their petition In the same vein, the creation of the PTC is not justified by the Presidents power of
primarily invokes usurpation of the power of the Congress as a body to which they control. Control is essentially the power to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what
belong as members. This certainly justifies their resolve to take the cudgels for a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the
Congress as an institution and present the complaints on the usurpation of their judgment of the former with that of the latter. Clearly, the power of control is entirely
power and rights as members of the legislature before the Court. different from the power to create public offices. The former is inherent in the
Executive, while the latter finds basis from either a valid delegation from Congress, or
As held in Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez: his inherent duty to faithfully execute the laws.

To the extent the powers of Congress are impaired, so is the power of each member The question is this, is there a valid delegation of power from Congress, empowering
thereof, since his office confers a right to participate in the exercise of the powers of the President to create a public office? According to the OSG, the power to create a
that institution. truth commission pursuant to the above provision finds statutory basis under P.D.
1416, as amended by P.D. No. 1772.
An act of the Executive which injures the institution of Congress causes a derivative
but nonetheless substantial injury, which can be questioned by a member of Congress. The Court, however, declines to recognize P.D. No. 1416 as a justification for the
In such a case, any member of Congress can have a resort to the courts. President to create a public office. Said decree is already stale, anachronistic and
inoperable. P.D. No. 1416 was a delegation to then President Marcos of the authority
Indeed, legislators have a legal standing to see to it that the prerogative, powers and to reorganize the administrative structure of the national government including the
privileges vested by the Constitution in their office remain inviolate. Thus, they are power to create offices and transfer appropriations pursuant to one of the purposes
allowed to question the validity of any official action which, to their mind, infringes of the decree, embodied in its last "Whereas" clause:
on their prerogatives as legislators.

6| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – APPOINTMENTS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE
WHEREAS, the transition towards the parliamentary form of government will permits classification. Such classification, however, to be valid must pass the test of
necessitate flexibility in the organization of the national government. reasonableness. The test has four requisites: (1) The classification rests on
substantial distinctions; (2) It is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) It is not limited
Clearly, as it was only for the purpose of providing manageability and resiliency to existing conditions only; and (4) It applies equally to all members of the same class.
during the interim, P.D. No. 1416, as amended by P.D. No. 1772, became functus oficio "Superficial differences do not make for a valid classification."
upon the convening of the First Congress, as expressly provided in Section 6, Article
XVIII of the 1987 Constitution. Applying these precepts to this case, Executive Order No. 1 should be struck down as
violative of the equal protection clause. The clear mandate of the envisioned truth
Invoking this authority, the President constituted the PTC to primarily investigate commission is to investigate and find out the truth "concerning the reported cases of
reports of graft and corruption and to recommend the appropriate action. As graft and corruption during the previous administration only. The intent to single out
previously stated, no quasi-judicial powers have been vested in the said body as it the previous administration is plain, patent and manifest. Mention of it has been made
cannot adjudicate rights of persons who come before it. in at least three portions of the questioned executive order.

Contrary to petitioners apprehension, the PTC will not supplant the Ombudsman or In this regard, it must be borne in mind that the Arroyo administration is but just a
the DOJ or erode their respective powers. If at all, the investigative function of the member of a class, that is, a class of past administrations. It is not a class of its own.
commission will complement those of the two offices. As pointed out by the Solicitor Not to include past administrations similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness which
General, the recommendation to prosecute is but a consequence of the overall task of the equal protection clause cannot sanction. Such discriminating differentiation
the commission to conduct a fact-finding investigation. The actual prosecution of clearly reverberates to label the commission as a vehicle for vindictiveness and
suspected offenders, much less adjudication on the merits of the charges against selective retribution.
them, is certainly not a function given to the commission. The phrase, "when in the
course of its investigation," under Section 2(g), highlights this fact and gives credence The Philippine Supreme Court, according to Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987
to a contrary interpretation from that of the petitioners. The function of determining Constitution, is vested with Judicial Power that "includes the duty of the courts of
probable cause for the filing of the appropriate complaints before the courts remains justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
to be with the DOJ and the Ombudsman. and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave of abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
At any rate, the Ombudsmans power to investigate under R.A. No. 6770 is not instrumentality of the government."
exclusive but is shared with other similarly authorized government agencies. The
same holds true with respect to the DOJ. Its authority under Section 3 (2), Chapter 1, Furthermore, in Section 4(2) thereof, it is vested with the power of judicial review
Title III, Book IV in the Revised Administrative Code is by no means exclusive and, which is the power to declare a treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
thus, can be shared with a body likewise tasked to investigate the commission of presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation
crimes. unconstitutional. This power also includes the duty to rule on the constitutionality of
the application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders,
Although the purpose of the Truth Commission falls within the investigative power of instructions, ordinances, and other regulations. These provisions, however, have
the President, the Court finds difficulty in upholding the constitutionality of Executive been fertile grounds of conflict between the Supreme Court, on one hand, and the two
Order No. 1 in view of its apparent transgression of the equal protection clause. co-equal bodies of government, on the other. Many times the Court has been accused
of asserting superiority over the other departments.
The equal protection clause is aimed at all official state actions, not just those of the
legislature. Its inhibitions cover all the departments of the government including the Thus, the Court, in exercising its power of judicial review, is not imposing its own will
political and executive departments, and extend to all actions of a state denying equal upon a co-equal body but rather simply making sure that any act of government
protection of the laws, through whatever agency or whatever guise is taken. isdone in consonance with the authorities and rights allocated to it by the
Constitution. And, if after said review, the Court finds no constitutional violations of
It, however, does not require the universal application of the laws to all persons or any sort, then, it has no more authority of proscribing the actions under review.
things without distinction. What it simply requires is equality among equals as Otherwise, the Court will not be deterred to pronounce said act as void and
determined according to a valid classification. Indeed, the equal protection clause unconstitutional. GRANTED.

7| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – APPOINTMENTS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE
Petitioners failed/refused to apply for any position under the new staffing pattern,
DR. CARLOS COTIANGCO VS. PROVINCE OF BILIRAN claiming that to do so would be inconsistent with their pending suit for prohibition. At any
rate, petitioners argue that under Rule VI, Section 9 of Civil Service Commission (CSC)
GR No. 157139; October 19, 2011
Resolution No. 91-1631,3 as well as Sections 5 and 6 of the Rules on Government
Reorganization, there should be a screening of the qualifications of all existing employees,
and not merely of those who filed their respective applications under the new staffing
CARLOS COTIANGCO, LUCIO SALAS, EDITHA SALONOY, MA. FILIPINA CALDERON, pattern.
ROSALINDA ABILAR, MEDARDA LARIBA, TITO GUTIERREZ, BENJAMIN LUCIANO,
MYRNA FILAMOR AND MONIANA NAJARRO, Petitioners, As a result of the reorganization, the following positions in the Biliran Provincial Health
vs. Service occupied by petitioners were excluded or abolished:
THE PROVINCE OF BILIRAN AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.
Dr. Carlos C. Cotiangco --- Provincial Health Officer I
DECISION Licio J. Salas ---------------- Administrative Officer II
Edeltha O. Salonoy --------- Senior Bookkeeper I
SERENO, J.: Ma. Filipina V. Calderon --- Cashier II
Rosalinda A. Abilar --------- Pharmacist III
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeking a reversal of the Medarda S. Lariba ---------- Cook I
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 16 July 2002,1 and its Resolution dated 24 January Tito G. Gutierrez ------------ Driver II
2003 which affirmed Resolution No. 000894 dated 30 March 2000 of the Civil Service Benjamin J. Luciano -------- Cook I
Commission (CSC). The CSC Resolution held that petitioners’ removal from their Myrna A. Filamor ----------- Nurse II
respective positions in the Biliran Provincial Health Office as a result of the reorganization Monina Najarro -------------- Medical Technologist
of the provincial government was lawful.
On 13 January 1999, petitioners received their notices of termination/non-reappointment
Petitioners held permanent appointments as public health workers in the Province of dated 12 January 1999, which stated that their service was "only up to February 11, 1999."
Biliran.
Petitioners appealed to the governor, but he denied their appeal.
On 23 October 1998, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Biliran passed SP Resolution
No. 102, Series of 1998, approving the revised structure and staffing pattern of the Petitioners thereafter filed an appeal to the CSC, which likewise dismissed it in CSC
provincial government submitted by its then incumbent governor, Danilo Parilla. Resolution No. 000894 dated 30 March 2000.4 The CSC held that petitioners failed to show
that the reorganization was tainted with bad faith. They failed to establish that they were
Pursuant to said Resolution, Governor Parilla issued Executive Order (EO) No. 98-07, replaced by less qualified employees "in terms of status of appointment, performance and
Series of 1998, dated 4 November 1998, declaring all positions in the provincial merit." The Commission noted that the reorganization resulted in a significant decrease in
government of Biliran as abolished except those of the Provincial Treasurer and all elective the number of positions in the staffing pattern of the Biliran Provincial Hospital.5 The CSC
positions. further held that the reorganization did not violate the Magna Carta of Public Health
Workers (Republic Act No. 7305), because the governor implemented a procedure for the
EO No. 98-07 was revoked by EO No. 98-08, Series of 1998, which in turn declared "all reorganization, as follows:
positions under the new staffing pattern vacant" and directed "all permanent employees
to submit their application within fifteen (15) days from the date of posting of the 1. Information dissemination regarding the reorganization to be effected;
approved new staffing pattern on November 4, 1998." 2. The Committee was established to screen and evaluate the qualifications of
existing employees;
Petitioners filed a suit for Prohibition2 to question the validity of EO No. 98-08, Series of 3. Publication and dissemination of the new staffing pattern;
1998. 4. Invitation of employees to apply for the new positions; and
5. Notices to appellants that they were not reappointed in the revised organization
structure and staffing pattern.
Meanwhile, pursuant to said EO, a Personnel Placement Committee (Committee) was
created to screen and evaluate all applicants for the vacant positions.

8| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – APPOINTMENTS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE
Moreover, it was pointed out that petitioners’ positions were duplications of other Hence, the pertinent issue would be whether the reorganization herein was undertaken in
positions. Finally, the CSC ruled that petitioners could no longer be appointed to other bad faith.
positions as the records show that these do not include their former positions, which had
in fact remained unfilled after the reorganization. Petitioners claim that the provincial government’s reorganization implemented by
Governor Parilla was not caused by a desire to streamline the local bureaucracy to save on
Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the CSC Resolution. This motion was denied for resources. They allege that despite the availability of a sufficient number of vehicles for
lack of merit by the CSC in its Resolution No. 0105306 dated 4 September 2000. official use, the provincial government bought five motor vehicles, which were used by
provincial officials belonging to the same political party as that of Governor Parilla.
Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), citing similar cases (CSC Allegedly, there were also excessive numbers of casuals hired and positions/items
Resolution Nos. 002617, 002624, and 002629 dated 6 March 2001)7 wherein the CSC abolished, only to create new ones with substantially the same functions. Petitioners were
found that the Province of Biliran failed to comply with the required procedure with all appointees of former Governor Wayne Jaro, who is the political enemy of Governor
respect to the other employees who were also not reappointed. Petitioners claimed that Parilla.
in these companion cases, employees of the province were reinstated on the ground that
the reorganization had been implemented in violation of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 6656 and On the other hand, the provincial government argued, and the CSC found, that the Biliran
its Implementing Rules, as it was not shown that the subject employees’ qualifications Province had a total of 162 personnel in 1990. However, this number swelled to 381
were assessed or evaluated by the committee. personnel in 1998. Reorganization was therefore called for to lessen the budget allocation
for personnel services; and to increase that for development projects, the purchase of
In its Decision dated 16 July 2002, the CA affirmed the CSC resolution with modification, medicines and supplies, and the maintenance of infrastructure.
in that the Province of Biliran was directed to take up petitioner Salvador Rosel’s possible
reappointment as Sanitation Inspector I of the Municipality of Caibiran. The CA held that It is a basic principle that good faith is presumed and that the party who alleges bad faith
what petitioners referred to as companion cases "involve circumstances different from the has the burden of proving the allegation. Petitioners therefore had the burden of proving
case at bench where petitioners had not presented any concrete evidence to prove their bad faith on the part of the province when it undertook the reorganization. Section 2 of
claim."8 R.A. 6656 (An Act to Protect the Security of Tenure of Civil Service Officers and Employees
in the Implementation of Government Reorganization) cites instances that may be
Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the said Decision but the CA denied their motion. considered as evidence of bad faith in the removal from office of a government officer or
Hence, petitioners filed the present Rule 45 petition, basically posing the following issue employee pursuant to a reorganization, to wit:
for resolution:
SECTION 2. No officer or employee in the career service shall be removed except for a valid
1. Whether or not the reorganization was done in bad faith cause and after due notice and hearing. A valid cause for removal exists when, pursuant to
2. Whether or not petitioners were denied due process when they were not a bona fide reorganization, a position has been abolished or rendered redundant or there
screened and evaluated for possible appointment to new positions is a need to merge, divide, or consolidate positions in order to meet the exigencies of the
service, or other lawful causes allowed by the Civil Service Law. The existence of any or
We rule to deny the petition. some of the following circumstances may be considered as evidence of bad faith in the
removals made as a result of reorganization, giving rise to a claim for reinstatement or
1. Petitioners failed to show that the reorganization was done in bad faith. They have not reappointment by an aggrieved party:
adduced sufficient evidence to establish the existence of bad faith.
(a) Where there is a significant increase in the number of positions in the new staffing
Section 8 of the Magna Carta of Public Health Workers (R.A. 7305) provides that "(i)n case pattern of the department or agency concerned;
of regular employment of public health workers, their services shall not be terminated (b) Where an office is abolished and other performing substantially the same functions
except for cause provided by law and after due process." is created;
(c) Where incumbents are replaced by those less qualified in terms of status of
appointment, performance and merit;
Nevertheless, a government officer or employee’s removal from office as a result of a bona
(d) Where there is a reclassification of offices in the department or agency concerned
fide reorganization is a valid cause for that employee’s removal.9
and the reclassified offices perform substantially the same function as the original
offices;

9| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – APPOINTMENTS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE
(e) Where the removal violates the order of separation provided in Section 3 hereof. positions created in the course of a valid reorganization.11 Apart from the fact that the
(Underscoring supplied.) "next in rank" rule only gives preference to the person occupying the position next in rank
to a vacancy, it does not by any means give him exclusive right to be appointed to the said
Measured against the foregoing guidelines, petitioners failed to adduce evidence to show vacancy. Indeed, the appointing authority is vested with sufficient discretion to appoint a
bad faith on the part of the Province in effecting the reorganization. candidate, as long as the latter possesses the minimum qualifications under the law. 12

First, petitioners have failed to show that there was a "significant increase in the 2. Petitioners were not deprived of due process when they were not screened and evaluated
number of positions in the new staffing pattern" of Biliran Province as a result of the for possible appointment to new positions, as they had not filed their applications
reorganization. On the contrary, it is undisputed that from a high of 120 positions in notwithstanding the invitation for them to do so.
1998, the number of those at the Biliran Provincial Health Office was reduced to only
98 after the reorganization.10 Even assuming the truth of petitioners’ claim that the Petitioners allege that they were deprived of their employment without due process of
CSC and the CA committed a misapprehension of facts in equating the number of law, because respondent province did not show proof that its Personnel Placement
personnel in the Biliran Provincial Hospital with the number of personnel in the entire Committee had screened and evaluated them for possible appointment to new positions.
Provincial Health Office, this conclusion cannot be altered in the absence of glaring
error in such apprehension. On the other hand, respondent province argues that petitioners were not considered for
the new positions, because they had not filed their applications notwithstanding the
Second, petitioners have failed to present evidence that an office performing invitation for them to do so.
substantially the same functions as an abolished office was created as a result of the
reorganization. We note that there were four new positions created within the In response, petitioners argue that under the Implementing Rules of R.A. 6656,
Provincial Health Office (one Medical Technologist II for the Health Services Group; "qualifications of existing employees," and not merely those who filed their respective
and one Storekeeper each for Caibiran Community Hospital, Culaba Community applications under the new staffing pattern, should be screened and evaluated, as follows:
Hospital and Maripipi Community Hospital). None of these positions may be
considered as having been created to perform substantially the same functions as any SECTION 5. Who will be Evaluated. - All officers and employees, including those who
of the abolished offices. None of the petitioners held the position of Storekeeper; and, have pending administrative charges, or any derogatory records/reports, shall be
although petitioner Najarro held the position of Medical Technologist II, he was then evaluated on the basis of standards for retention/termination as provided for herein.
assigned to the Maripipi Community Hospital, and not to the Health (Field) Services (Underscoring and emphasis supplied.)
Group.
Moreover, Section 9 of the same Implementing Rules provides that the Placement
Third, petitioners have not shown that there was a "reclassification of offices in the Committee shall evaluate the qualifications and competence of both "the applicants and
department or agency concerned and the reclassified offices perform substantially the other employees in the agency," to wit:
same function as the original offices."
SECTION 9. Selection and Placement of Personnel. —
Fourth, petitioners have not adduced evidence that they were "replaced by those less
qualified in terms of status of appointment, performance and merit." Alternatively, (1) Within five (5) days from receipt by the agency concerned of its approved staffing
petitioners have not adduced any evidence to show that their qualifications in terms pattern, or the Organizational Staffing and Classification Action Summary
of performance and merit are any better than those possessed by the persons who (OSCAS), the head of office shall cause copies thereof to be posted in the bulletin
were eventually appointed to the reorganized positions. boards and other conspicuous places in its central and regional/field offices.
(2) Officers and employees shall be invited to apply for any of the authorized position.
Neither have petitioners been able to demonstrate that their removal from office as a Said Application shall be considered by the Placement Committee in the
result of the reorganization violated the order of separation as found in Section 3 of R.A. placement and selection of personnel.
6656, particularly, in the provision that "those … who are least qualified in terms of (3) The Committee shall evaluate/assess the qualifications and competence of the
performance and merit shall be laid [off] first, length of service notwithstanding." applicants and other employee in the agency based on the criteria and
preference provided for in these Rules.
Petitioners also erroneously insist on the application of the "next in rank" rule in claiming (4) The Committee shall prepare the Personnel Placement List and submit the same
that they should have been appointed to the available positions after the reorganization. to the appointing authority for his approval.
However, the "next in rank rule" specifically applies only to promotions and not to
10 | E l i x i r C . L a n g a n l a n g a n
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – APPOINTMENTS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE
(5) Within thirty (30) days from submission of the Personnel Placement List by the
Placement Committee, the appointing authority shall approve, modify or revise AIDA EUGENIO VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
the Personnel Placement List which shall then constitute the New Plantilla of
GR No. 115863, March 31, 1995
Personnel. (Underscoring and emphasis supplied.)

Petitioners’ reliance upon the words used in the above portions of the Implementing Rules
is misplaced. FACTS: Eugenio is the Deputy Director of the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute.
She applied for a Career Executive Service (CES) Eligibility and a CESO rank,. She was
R.A. 6656 itself, the law that these Implementing Rules seek to implement, provides only given a CES eligibility and was recommended to the President for a CESO rank by the
that all officers and employees of the agency being reorganized shall be invited to apply Career Executive Service Board.
for any of the positions in the new staffing pattern, and that the "(s)aid application shall
be considered by the (Placement) Committee in the placement and selection of personnel,"
Then respondent Civil Service Commission passed a Resolution which abolished the
as shown by the following provision:
CESB, relying on the provisions of Section 17, Title I, Subtitle A. Book V of the
Administrative Code of 1987 allegedly conferring on the Commission the power and
SECTION 6. In order that the best qualified and most deserving persons shall be appointed
authority to effect changes in its organization as the need arises. Said resolution
in any reorganization, there shall be created a Placement Committee in each department
states:
or agency to assist the appointing authority in the judicious selection and placement of
personnel. The Committee shall consist of two (2) members appointed by the head of the
department or agency, a representative of the appointing authority, and two (2) members “Pursuant thereto, the Career Executive Service Board, shall now be known as the
duly elected by the employees holding positions in the first and second levels of the career Office for Career Executive Service of the Civil Service Commission. Accordingly, the
service: Provided, That if there is a registered employee association with a majority of the existing personnel, budget, properties and equipment of the Career Executive Service
employees as members, that employee association shall also have a representative in the Board shall now form part of the Office for Career Executive Service.”
Committee: Provided, further That immediately upon approval of the staffing pattern of
the department or agency concerned, such staffing pattern shall be made known to all
Finding herself bereft of further administrative relief as the Career Executive Service
officers and employees of the agency who shall be invited to apply for any of the positions
Board which recommended her CESO Rank IV has been abolished, petitioner filed the
authorized therein. Said application shall be considered by the Committee in the
placement and selection of personnel. (Underscoring supplied.)
petition at bench to annul, among others, said resolution.

Clearly, the law mandates that only those who have filed the requisite applications for the ISSUE: WON CSC given the authority to abolish the office of the CESB
subject position may be considered by the placement committee for possible appointment.
The intent of this law is clear enough. After all, it is the submission of the application form HELD: the petition is granted and Resolution of the respondent Commission is hereby
that signals an employee’s interest in a position. The placement committee cannot spend annulled and set aside . NO. The controlling fact is that the CESB was created in PD
its limited time and resources in considering the qualifications of all previous employees No. 1 on September 1, 1974. It cannot be disputed, therefore, that as the CESB was
of the agency being reorganized, even if they have not signified their intention to continue created by law, it can only be abolished by the legislature. This follows an unbroken
working in the said agency. Otherwise, there is a possibility that it would recommend the stream of rulings that the creation and abolition of public offices is primarily a
appointment of a person to a position in which the latter is not interested. Also, without
legislative function
the filing of the requisite application form, there would hardly be a basis for evaluating the
qualifications of the candidates for employment.
In the petition at bench, the legislature has not enacted any law authorizing the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is denied for lack of merit. The 16 July abolition of the CESB. On the contrary, in all the General Appropriations Acts from
2002 Decision and the 24 January 2003 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby 1975 to 1993, the legislature has set aside funds for the operation of CESB.
AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.
Respondent Commission, however, invokes Section 17, Chapter 3, Subtitle A. Title I,
Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 as the source of its power to abolish the
CESB.

11 | E l i x i r C . L a n g a n l a n g a n
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – APPOINTMENTS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE
But as well pointed out by petitioner and the Solicitor General, Section 17 must be (2) The Merit System Protection Board composed of a Chairman and two (2)
read together with Section 16 of the said Code which enumerates the offices under members
the respondent Commission. (3) The Office of Legal Affairs
(4) The Office of Planning and Management
As read together, the inescapable conclusion is that respondent Commission’s power (5) The Central Administrative Office.
to reorganize is limited to offices under its control as enumerated in Section 16.. (6) The Office of Central Personnel Records
(7) The Office of Position Classification and Compensation
(8) The Office of Recruitment, Examination and Placement
From its inception, the CESB was intended to be an autonomous entity, albeit
(9) The Office of Career Systems and Standards
administratively attached to respondent Commission. As conceptualized by the
(10)The Office of Human Resource Development
Reorganization Committee “the CESB shall be autonomous. It is expected to view the
(11)The Office of Personnel Inspection and Audit.
problem of building up executive manpower in the government with a broad and
(12)The Office of Personnel Relations
positive outlook.”
(13)The Office of Corporate Affairs
(14)The Office of Retirement
The essential autonomous character of the CESB is not negated by its attachment to (15)The Regional and Field Offices.
respondent Commission. By said attachment, CESB was not made to fall within the
control of respondent Commission. Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the
purpose of attaching one functionally inter-related government agency to another is
to attain “policy and program coordination.” This is clearly etched out in Section
38(3), Chapter 7, Book IV of the aforecited Code, to wit:

Attachment. — (a) This refers to the lateral relationship between the department or
its equivalent and attached agency or corporation for purposes of policy and program
coordination. The coordination may be accomplished by having the department
represented in the governing board of the attached agency or corporation, either as
chairman or as a member, with or without voting rights, if this is permitted by the
charter; having the attached corporation or agency comply with a system of periodic
reporting which shall reflect the progress of programs and projects; and having the
department or its equivalent provide general policies through its representative in
the board, which shall serve as the framework for the internal policies of the attached
corporation or agency.

NOTES: Section 17, Chapter 3, Subtitle A. Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of
1987 as the source of its power to abolish the CESB. Section 17 provides:

Sec. 17. Organizational Structure. — Each office of the Commission shall be headed by
a Director with at least one Assistant Director, and may have such divisions as are
necessary independent constitutional body, the Commission may effect changes in
the organization as the need arises.

Sec. 16. Offices in the Commission. — The Commission shall have the following offices:

(1) The Office of the Executive

12 | E l i x i r C . L a n g a n l a n g a n
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020