ADMIN

CHAPTER 1
THE CONCEPT OF THE PO
-

Law OF PO deals with PO, it creation,

modification and dissolution, as well as the
eligibility of PO, the manner of their
election or appointment and assumption
of office, their rights, duties, powers,
inhibitions, and liabilities, and the modes
of terminating their official relations
Found primarily in the:
1.
constitutionCivil Service
Decree;
2. Administrative code of 1987
3. Various special laws (Local
Government Code of 1991)
Included in this discipline are certain
common law principles like:
1. Prescription and estoppels
2. Provisions of Rules of Court ( as those
on suits for quo warranto)
3. Pertinent judicial proceedings

Characteristic: distinguishes an office

from an employment or contract is that
the creation and conferring of an office
involves delegation to the individual of
some of the sovereign functions of the
government, to be exercised by him for
the benefit of the public;
-

DEFINITION
-

PUBLIC OFFICEis the right, authority,

and duty, created and conferred by law,
which for a given period, either fixed by
law or enduring at the pleasure of the
creating power, an individual is invested
with some portion of the sovereign
functions of the state to be exercised by
him for the benefit of the body politic
PUBLIC OFFICER- the individual so
invested
Public office is different from public
employment
Public employmentdoes not involve
the exercise of some portion of the
sovereign functions of the state
Government clerk or typistis only an
employee not an officer
Differs in material particulars
although an office is an employment, it
does not follow that every employment is
an office. A man may certainly be
employed under a contract, express or
implied, to perform a service without
becoming an officer.
JUDGE COOLEY:
o the officer is distinguished from
the employee in the greater
importance, dignity and
independence of his position; in
being required to take an official
oath, and perhaps to give an
official bond; in the liability to be
called to account as public offender
for misfeasance or nonfeasance in

office, and usually, though not

necessarily, in the tenure of his
position.
OFFICER as distinguished from clerk or
employee, refers to a person whose
duties, not being of a clerical or manual
nature, involves the exercise of discretion
in the performance of the functions of the
governemnt
Officerincludes any government
employee, agent or body having authority
to do the act or exercise that function (Sec
2(14) of EO 292)

That some portion of the sovereignty

of the country, either legislative,
executive or judicial, attaches for the time
being, to be exercised for the public
benefit
Unless the powers conferred are of
this naturethe individual is not a public
officer

** where the individual works under a public

contract:
-

His relation with the govt are usually

determined by the stipulations in the
agreement and not by the law of
public officers
Such individual is not public officer

**UNDER RPC (ARTICLE 203)

-

Any person who, by direct provision of the

law, popular election or aapointment by
competent authority, shall take part in the
performance of public functions in the
Govt of Ph Islands or shall perform in said
Govt or in any of its branchers public
duties as an employee, agent or
subordinate official, of any rank or class,
shall be deemed to be a public officer

**a private individual hired on a contractual

basis as a project manager for a governemnt
undertaking is public officer for the purposes of
the provisions of the anti-graft and corrupt
practices
CASE: PECLARO vs SANDIGANBAYAN
-

Public officerincludes elective and

appointive officials and employees,
permanent or temporary, whether in the

classified or unclassified or exemption

service receiving compensation, even
nominal, from the government
ELEMENTS (case of Barney vs Hawkins)
1. It must be created by law or authority
of law
2. It must possess delegation of a portion
of the sovereign powers of government, to
be exercised for the benefit of the public
3. The powers conferred and the duties to be
discharged must be defined, directly or
impliedly, by the legislature or thru
legislative authority
4. The duties must be performed
independently and without control of a
superior power other than law unless they
be those of an inferior or subordinate
office created or authorized by the
legislature, and by it placed under the
general control of a superior office or body
5. It must have some permanence and
continuity and not be only temporary or
occasional.
Creation

public office may be created by the

Constitution, statute or by authority of law

ex of Constitutional offices are the Office

of the Pres, Legislature, SC and
Constitutional Commissions brought into
existence by direct self-executing
provisions of the Constitution

not created directly by the Consti but by

its specific mandate are the Metro Manila
Development Authority

these are merely statutory offices

established by implementing statutes
mandated by the Consti itself statutory
offices on other hand are created by the
discretion of the legislature

Ex of Statutory offices are: Bureau of

Mines, SEC and local offices such as those
governors and mayors
sometimes offices may also be created by
virtue of a validly delegated legislative
power such as the defunct code
commission w/c was created by the Pres
under the Reorganization Act
Sangguniang Panglungsod is under the
Local Govt Code of 1991, authorized to

create such offices as may be necessary

to carry out the purposes of the city govt

Characteristics

Consti: public office is a public trust

means it must be discharged by the
incumbent not for his own personal
aggrandizement but for the benefit of the
public for whom it s held by him in trust

Democratic govts: public office is not a

hereditable possession

it is personal to the incumbent and is

not to be considered as property w/c
can be passed on to his heirs

not prop and is outside the commerce

of management cant be subj of a
contract

Case: Abeja v. Tanada

2 rivals in a party convention entered into

an agreement that whoever of them lost
the nomination would not run as a rebel
candidate

the loser reneged on this commitment and

the winner sought to enforce it by judicial
action

court dismissed the case, holding that the

contract was unenforceable as it had no
lawful subject

not being prop public office is not

protected by due process clause

there can be no vested right in a public

office, w/c if statutory, may be changed at
will and even be abolished by the
legislature that created it

such abolition, its term, compensation and

powers may be validly reduced even over
the objection of the incumbent

no absolute right to hold it

Case: Mathay Jr vs CA

the right to hold public office is not a

natural right; it exists only by virtue of a

law expressly or impliedly creating and

conferring

Case: Natl Land Titles and Deeds

Registration Administration v. Civil Service
Commission

Except constitutional offices w/c provide

for special immunity as regards salary and
tenure, no one can be said to have any
vested right in an office or its salary

Due process is available to a public officer,

however in the sense that he cannot be
deprived of his office w/o a clear
expression of the legislative will

Salary already earned by pub officer =

private prop entitled to the protection of
due process

hence, law retroactively reducing such

salary would be invalid as violative of a
vested right

law can be given only prospective

operation to affect salaries still to be
collected by the public officer and not yet
accrued as a prop right

Classification

pub officer may be: constitutional or

statutory; natl or local; legislative,
executive or judicial; lucrative or honorary;
discretionary or ministerial; appointive or
elective; civil or military and de jure or
defacto

Notary public is a pub officer

atty at law not although he comes very

close to it because he is an officer of the
court accdg to CJ Gray

any ambiguity in this regard should be

resolved in favor of the office holder

Segovia v Noel

a law providing that all justices of the

peace should retire upon attaining the age
of 65 was sought to be applied to the
petitioner who was appointed justice of
the peace before the enactment of that
law

SC: he was entitled to remain in his office,

there being no clear provision that the law
was intended to cover even judges
incumbent as the time of its approval

the law was given only a prospective

effect since the intention to the contrary
was neither expressed nor implied from its
provisions.

CHAPTER 2

Tadlip vs Borres

SC described a lawyer working as

provincial adjudicator as a public officer
tasked w/ the duty of deciding conflicting
claims of the parties

he is part of the quasi judicial system of

our govt

SC: by analogy the present dispute may

be likened to administrative cases of
judges whose manner of deciding cases
was similarly subject of respective
adminsitrative cases

Elective officials occupy office by

virtue of mandate of electorate; elected
to an office for a definite term and may be
removed only upon stringent condition
appointive officials- hold office by
virtue of dewsignation thereto by an
appointing authority; either in permanent
capacity and entitled to security of
ternure; while others serve at the pleasure
of the appointing authority

REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLIC OFFICE

SELECTION FOR PUBLIC OFFICE
-

CASE:
-

Public officeris chosen either by:

4. Appointment
5. Election
FARINAS VS EXEC SECRETARY
SC:
substantial distinction: between

In appointmentthe choice of Public

functionaries is made by the particular

officer designated by the constitution or

the law
In electionchoice is made by the
franchised citizenry thru the exercise
of their suffrages

** under the constitution (article 7, section

16)
-

The president is authorized to appoint the

ff officers:
4. Heads of the executive departments
5. Ambassadors, other public ministers
and consuls
6. Officers of the armed forces from the
rank of colonel or naval captain
7. Those other officers whose
appointment are vested in him by the
constitution
8. All other officers of the government
whose appointments are not provided
for by law
9. Those whom he may be authorized by
law to appoint
Among the elective officials are the :
senators and members of the HoR
(article 6, sec 2 and 5)
local legislative body (governors, v-gov,
mayors, v-mayor, brgy chairperson and
councilmen)

APPOINTMENT

CASE: BINAMIRA VS GARRUCHO

-appointment-- selection byt eh authority vested
with power, of an individual who is to exercise the
functions of a given office; when completed with
its confirmation it results in security of tenure
-designation-- merely an imposition by law of an
additional duties on an incumbent official; it may
be loosely defined as an appointment because it
likewise involves the naming of a particular
person to specified public ofice; but only in
temporary capacity and may eb replaced at will
by the appointing authority; it is just temporary
appointment-- does not confer security of tenure
CASE: SEVILLA VS CA
-

CASE: NATIONAL AMNESTY COMMISSION VS

CA
-

Appointment- the act of designation by

the appointing officer, body, or board, to
whom that power has been delegated, of
the individual who is to exercise the
functions of a given office.

CASE: NATIONAL AMNESTY COMMISION VS

COA
-

Appointment is to be distinguished from

designationwhich is simply the mere
imposition of new duties to performed by
him in a special manner

An acting appointmen is essentially

temporary appointment which is revocable
in character

CASE: TAPISPISAN VS CA
-

Only appointments or promotions, and not

designations, can be the subject of a
protest before CSC
Designation being temporary in nature,
does not amount to the issuance of an
appointment, but is mere imposition of
additional duties

** Article 7, section 16
-

CASE: TRISTE VS LEYTE STATE COLLEGE

BOARD OF TRUSTEES
- appointment-connotes permanency
designation-- implies temporariness; thus to
designate an officer implies vesting him with
additional duties while he performs the functions
of his permanent office; or just designated in an
acting capacity

Designation does not entail payment of

additional benefits or grant upon the
person so designated the right to claim
the salary atttahced to the position

CASE: MAROHOMBSAR VS ALONTO

CASE: APPARI vs CA
-

Designation does not entitle the person

designated to security o tenure as he
occupies the position only in an acting
capacity

Power of appointment is by nature

executive and is vested by the constitution
in the president of the Ph, to be exercised
by him over the officers enumerated
therein

*** CASE OF BINARA:

SC- appointment may eb defined as the selection
by the president president not by any other
officer

- it involves the exercise of discretion which

because of its nature cannot be delegated
- the doctrine presumes that the acts of the
Department Head to be the acts of the President
when performed and promulgated in the regular
course of business which was true of the
designation made by Minister Gonzales in favor of
the petitioners- such act shall be considered valid only if not
disapproved by the chief executive, as also
happened in the case at bar

However the power is not exclusively

presidential
By constitutional provisionit may be
exercised by:
the SC (Article 8 sec 5(6))
Constitutional commission over their
respective administrative personnel
( article 9 section 4)
Congress over its personnel under the
general doctrine of separation of
powers (article 6 section 16(1))
When exercised by the presidentthe
appointing powers requires concurrence
by the legislature, in view of the
restoration in the 1987 constitution of the
commission on appointments (abolished
by 1973 consti), which confirmed
presidential appointments under the 1935
consti.

CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 7 SECTION 16

the president shall nominate and with the
consent of the Comm on Appointment, appoint
the heads of the executive departments,
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
or officers of the armed forces frm 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 govt whhose appointments are not
otherwise provided for by the 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 dept,
agencies, commissions or board.
CASE: SARMINETO VS MISON
- confirmation is required only for the officers
mentioned in the first sentence of
Section_____............
CASE: PIMENTAL VS ERMITA

Petitioner questioned the constitutionality

of Presidents appointment of the
respondents as acting secretariats without
the consent of Comm on appointments
Said appointments were effected while
Congress was in seession but before the
COmm on Appointments was constituted
One day after congress adjourned, the
president issued ad interim appointments
to the same persons she had ealier
appointed as secretariat in acting
capacities
SCrejecting the contention of petitioners
*******

SC:
- the power to appoint is essentially executive in
nature and the lagislature may not interfere witj
the exercise of the executive power except in
those instanceds when the constitution allows it
to interfere, llimitations on the executive power to
appoint are construed strictly against the
legislature
- the essence of appointment in acting
capacity in its temporary nature-- stop gap
measure intended to fill an office for a
limited time until the appointment of a
permanent occupant to the ofice
- congress thru law cannot impose on the
president the obligation to appoint
automatically the undersecretary as her
temporary alter ego; congress cannot
impose on the president who her alter ego
should be
- the law expressly allows the president to
make an acting appointment President
may temporarily designate an officer
already in government service or any
competent person
CASE:BAUTISTA VS SALONGA
- position of CHR is not among the positions
mentioned in first sentence of section 16, article
7 1987 consti- appointments to which are to be
made with the confirmation of the Comm on
appointment, it follows that the appointment by
the president of the Chairperson of CHR is to be
made without the review or participation of the
comm on appointments-appointments-- are expressly vested by the
constitution in the Pres with the consent of the
comm on appointment
CASE: QUINTOS DELES VS COMMISSION
ON APPOINTMENTS
-

Appointment as sectoral representative in

the HoR required confirmation by the
Comm on Appointment as this position is

covered by the first sentence of Sec 16

Article 7 of consti
CASE: CALDERON VS CARALE:
-

Chairperson and members of NLRC

are not among the officers mentioned in
the first sentence of Sec 16 article 7
whose appointment requires confirmation
OF Comm on Appointment

CASE: SORIANO III VS LISTA

- with respect to naval captains in the Ph coast
guard-- by EO removed from the ambit of PH
armed forces and placed under the authority of
the DOTC

LIMITATIONS ON THE PRESIDENTS POWER

OF APPOINTMENT:

ARTICLE 7 SEC 13
Spouse and relatives by consanguinity or
affinity within fourth civil degree of the
President shall not during his tenure be
appointed as Members of the CONCOM, or
to the office of Ombudsman, or as
Secretaries, undersecretaries, chairperson
or heads of bureaus or offices, including
GOCCS and their subsidiaries
ARTICLE 7 SEC 15
The presidentmay likewise not make
appointments within two months
immediately before the next presidential
elections and up to the end of his term,
the exception being temporary
appointments to execute position when
continued vacancies therein will prejudice
public service or endanger public safety
ARTICLE 7 SECTION 14
Appointment of acting president shall
remain effective, unless revoked by the
elected president within 90 days from his
assumption or reassumption of office
His appointees must possess required
qualifications, failing which, they can
be ousted in appropriate judicial
proceedings
o Question will be justiciablenot the
appointment of president is the
question bu the failure of his
appointees to comply with legal
requirements

CASE: LUEGO VS CSC

-

Appointmentis an essentially
discretionary powe and must be
performed by the officer in which it is
vested according to his best lights, the

only condition being that the appointee

should possess the qualifications required
by the law
If he does, then the appointment cannot
eb faulted ong round that there are others
better qualified who should have been
preferred
It is a political question involving
consideration of wisdom which only the
appointing authority can decide
Final choice of appointing officer should be
respected and left undisturbed

CASE: CSC VS DE LA CRUZ

-

Appointment is essentially discretionary

and cannot be controlled even by the
courts as long as it is properly and not
arbitrarily exercised by the appointing
authority

CASE: UMOSO VS CSC

-

Appointing power can be vested in the

department head or secretary
Power may be further delegated to the
regional director subject to the approval,
revision, modification and reversal of the
dept sec.

CASE OF LUEGO:
-

CSC is not empowered to determine the

kind and nature of the appointment
extended by the appointing officer, its
authority b eing limited to approving or
approving or reviewing the appointment in
the light of the requirements of the civil
service law
When the appointee is qualified and all
other legal requirements are satisfied, the
commission has no choice but to attest to
the appointment in accordance with civil
service laws
the stamping of the words--approved
as temporary--did not change the
character of the appointment which was
clearly described as permanent-- what was
temporary was the approval of th3e
appointment, not the appointment itself

**** CASE OF GAYATAO VS CSC

-

CSC has no authority to revoke an

appointment on ground that another
person is more qualified, its authority
being limited to approving or renewing an
appointment in the light of the requisites
of the law governing civil service, it is
within the power to order the
reinstatement of govt employees who
have been unlawfully dismissed

CASE: ALINSUGAY VS CA
CASE: LOPEZ VS CSC

-All the CSC will do is determine whether or not

the appointee possesses the qualifications and
requisite or appropriate eligibility
-

IF HE DOES, HIS APPOINTMENT IS

APPROVED; IF NOT, it is disapproved.

neither would attestation by csc of

appointment made by competent
authorities without the concurrence of
provincial boards, as required by law,
validate said appointment, even of the
appointees had already served several
years

CASE: IVY VS LUSK

CASE: ABELLA VS CSC
-

appointing officer and civil service

commission acting together, although not
concurrently but consecutivelymake an
appointment complete

CASE: CSC VS JOSON

-

an appointment issued ina ccordance with

pertinent laws and rules shall take effect
immediately upon its issuance by the
appointing authority
and if the appointee has assumed the
duties of the position, he shall be entitled
to receive his salary at once, without
awaiting the approval of his appointment
by the commission

CASE: ANDAYA VS RTC

-

power of city mayors to appoint chief of

police, stating that this power is limited
under the law
it is the prerogative of regional director
to name the five eligibles for the position
of chief of police frm a pool of eligible
officers screened by the senior officers
promotion and selection board.. without
interference frm local executives.. as
deputy of the national police commission
the authority of the mayor is very limited.
In reality he has no power of appointment
and has only the limited power of
selecting one from among the list of
eligibles to be named by chief of police

CASE: DEBULGADO VS CSC

-where csc disapproves an appointment
based on its non-conformity to applicable
provisions of law and on the qualifications
of the appointee, the appointee need not
be previously heard since the action does
not involve the imposition of an
administrative disciplinary measure
- csc is authorized to recall an
appointment initially approved in
disregard of applicable provisions of the
civil sevice law and regulations

where a prospective vacancy will occur

after the appointing authoritys term, he
cannot fill it in advance during his term, as
this would be an illegal pre-emption of the
powers of his successor

CASE: LACSON VS ROMERO

ARTICLE 2 SECTION 4only recognized
instance when an individual can be compelled to
accept an appointive office is in connection with
defense of the state
- the appointment to a govt post like that of
provincial fiscal involves several steps
1. nomination by the president
2. then make the nomination valid and
permanent, the commission on appointment has
to confirm said nomination
3. acceptance by the appointee by his
assumption of office
CASE: AQUINO VS CSC
- once an appointment is issued and the moment
the appointee assumes a position in the civil
service under a completed appointment, he
acquires a legal, not merely equitable right which
is protected not only by the state but also by
statute, also by constitution, and cannot be taken
away from him wither by revocation of the
appointment or by removal except for cause, and
with previous notice and hearing
ELECTION
-

it is a mode of filling a public office, by

which the enfranchised citizenry is able to
participate directly in the conduct of the
govt, thru the selection by them of the
functionaries who will represent them
it is hallmark of democratic regime
by suffrageindividual in free society is
recognized as a particcle of sovereignty;
with the power to decide public issues thru
the instrumentality of the ballot

VACANCIES

an office may be filled by either of the

above methods only if its is vacnt
MECHEM: a vacancy exists when there is
no person lawfully authorized to assume
and exercise at present the duties of the
office

*** CASE: COSTIN VS QUIMBO

*** CASE: MAQUIRA VS BORRA

1. Disqaulification

lack of disquali is itself a qualification

- the validity of Verra's appointment hinges om

the legality of Lajer's removal.

- it is elementary in the law of public officers that

no person, no matter how qualified and eligible
he is for a certain position, may be appointed to
an office which is not vacant

even if a person may have the prescribed

quali for a PO, he will still be ineligible
therefor if he is laboring under a disquali

convicted in an impeachment proceeding,

convicted of offenses w/c carry w/ them
the penalty of perpetual or temporary
special disquali such as malversation

- there can be no appointment to a non-vacant

position
- the incumbent must first be legally removed;
validly terminated.
6.
7.

8.

9.

Vacancy may beorigincal, constructive,

accidental or absolute
Originalhwen an office is created and
no one has yet been chosen to fill it
Constructivewhen the incumbent has
no legal right to the officesuch as de
facto officer---and may be legally replaced
by another
Accidental--- when the incumbent is
separated by any mode other than
expiration of the term, like resignation,
death, removal or abandonment
Absolute--- when the term of the
incumbent having expired, no successor
has legally qualified to replace him

Monsanto vs. Factoran

Sc in rejecting the plea of the pet for

reinstatement to her former PO, having
been pardoned pending her appeal from
her conviction for an offense w/c carried
w/it the penalty of disquali from office

the absolute disquali or ineligibility from

PO forms part of the punishment
prescribed by the RPC for estafa thru
falsification of public doc

when her guilt and punishment were

expunged by her pardon, this particular
disability was likewise removed hence
pet may apply for
reinstatement/reappointment

in considering her quali and suitability for

public post, the facts constituting her
offense must be and should be evaluated
and taken into account to determine
ultimately whether she can once again be
entrusted w/ public funds

QUALIFICATION AS AN ENDOWMENT
-

Understood in two senses

1. As an endowment
2. As an act
To be eligiblethe person appointed or
elected must possess the prescribed
qualification
Qualificationreferring to the
qualities or endowments required of
the public officer to insure the proper
discharge of the duties of his office
Ex: age, citizenship, suffrage, literacy,
residence, academic and moral
qualification
All constitutional officersrequired to
be natural born citizens
Chairperson and members of csc
must be proven capacity for public
administration
Property qualificationmay however
not be imposed for the exercise of the
right to run for public office

Garcia v. Chairman, COA

if the pardon is based on the innocence of

the individual or if executive clemency is
granted to cover the administrative
charges for the same acts for w/c he was
prosecuted and later acquitted because he
was found not to have committed the
offense imputed to him in criinal
proceedings.he no longer needs to apply
for reinstatement to his former position

he is accdg to this recent case, restored

to his office ipso facto upon the issuance
of the clemency

no senator or member of the House of

Representatives shall be appointed to any
office w/c may have been created or the
emoluments thereof increased during the
term for w/c he was elected

a defeated candidate may not be

appointed or reappointed to any office in
the govt or any govt-owned or controlled
corporation or in any of its subsidiaries
w/in 1 yr from the date of the election

no person may be appointed to the CSC if

he was a candidate in the election
immediately preceding his appointment

Pres, VP, Cabinet may not hold any other

office or employment during their tenure

no elective official shall be eligible for

appointment or designation in any
capacity to any PO or position during his
tenure and 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 govt or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof including Goccs
Sec 49 chap 10 of Book IV on the
Executive Branch of the Adminsitrative
Code of 1987

even if allowed by law or by primary

functions of his position, a member of
the Cabinet, undersec, aast sec or
other appointive official of the exec
dept may in addition to his primary
position hold not more than 2 positions
in the govt and govt corporations and
receive the corresponding
compensation therefor

Civil Liberties Union v. The Executive Sec

declared unconsti Executive Order 284,

w/c in effect allowed Cabinet members,
their undersec and asst sec and other
appointive officials of the exec dept to
hold other positions in the govt albeit
subject to the limitations imposed therein

should be precluded from dissipating his

efforts, attention and energy among too
many positions f responsibility w/c may
result in haphazardness and inefficiency

Romualdez-Marcos vs COMELEC

Consti: members of the SC and of other

courts established by law, shall not be
designated to any agency performing
quasi-jud or administrative functions

Caasi vs CA

acting on a pet to disqualify a green card

holder from running fro elective office on
ground of failure to comply w/ the
residence requirement under the LGC

resp having resided in the municipality

where he ran fro mayor for only 3 months
prior to the date of the election

to be qualified to run for elective office in

the Ph, the law requires that the candidate
who is a green card holder must have
waived his status as permamnent
resident or immigrant of a foreign
country

Macalintal vs comelec

pet in questioning the constitutionality of

the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003
or RA 9189 invoked the Caasi case,
stressing that green card holders cannot
be considered as residents for purposes of
exercising the right of suffrage

SC rejected Caasi case no application in

the present case because the caasi case
did not for obvious reasons consider the
absentee voting rights of Fil who are
immigrants and permanent rsidents in
their host countries

Frivaldo vs comelec

a winning candidate was later disquali by

SC after it was established that he was not
a Fil cit at the time of his election, even if
he had then, under American law already
forfeited his American cit

even lose naturalized American cit, such

forefeiture did not and could not have the
effect of automatically restoring his cit in
the Ph that he had earlier renounced
became a stateless individual

RP vs dela rosa

pet ran for gov also in 1992 won again

but disquali anew by SC by reason of his

not being Fil cit

SC: pet not a cit of the Ph and ordered

him to vacate his office notwithstanding
the fact that his pet for naturalization was
granted a few months before his 2nd
election

said naturalization proceedings as null and

void because of many procedural defects

3rd time disquali by comelec again

relying on earlier ruling of SC

it appears that however on the strength of

his repatriation under the prov of PD 725,
the pet had taken his oath of allegiance a
few hrs before the proclamation of his
opponent in 1995, who was declared the
winner despite pet's actually having won
said election

Sc however revised ruling cit

requirement in the LGC is to be possessed
by an elective official at the latest as of
the time he is proclaimed and at the start
of the term of office to w/c he has been
elected

RA 9225 natural born cit who have been

naturalized as citizens of a foreign country
may re-acquire Ph cit upon taking a
prescribed oath of allegiance to the RP

those who may be naturalized as cit of a

foreign countrty after the promulgation of
the same law shall retain or reacquire
their Ph cit notwithstanding their having
been naturalized as cit of a foreign
country shall enjoy full civil and political
rights and be subject to all attendant
liabilities and responsibilities under
existing laws of the Ph

they may vote, subj to certain

requirements, seek elective PO provided
they possess the quali for said PO and at
the time of the filing of their cert of
candidacy, make personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign cit
before any public officer authorized to
administer an oath

and may be appointed to any PO provided

they subscribe and swear to an oath of
allegiance to the RP and its duly
constituted authorities prior to their
assumption of office and provided further
that they renounce their oath of allegiance
to the country where they took that oath

the right to vote or be elected or

appointed to any public office in the Ph
cannot be exercised by, or extended to
those who

Labo vs Comelec

Sc disquali for lack of cit, a city mayor who

claimed to have won the election by a
resonant and thunderous majority

Ph is not a cheap commodity that can be

easily recovered after its renunciation

it may be entered only after the returning

renegade makes a formal re-dedication to
the country he has abjured and he
solemnly affirms once again his total and
exclusive loyalty to the RP

this may not be accomplished by election

to the PO

are candidates for or are occupying

any PO in the country of w/c they are
naturalized cit

are in active service as commissioned

or non-commissioned officers in the
armed forces of the country w/c they
are naturalized cit

Latasa vs Comelec

Sc dismissed the pet filed by 3 term

municipal mayor who had filed a cert of
candidacy in his quest to become again,
the mayor of said municipality w/c during
his 3rd term had been coverted into a
component city

claiming that it was his 1st time to run as

mayor of the newly-established
component city, he sought the reversal by

the court of the resolution of the comelec

provisding for his disquali on the basis of
the 3 term limit rule under the consti and
the provisions of the LGC

*page 41

unless he is a cit of the Ph and a mem of

the Ph bar

leg may prescribe other quali such as age,

residence and the like

quali must not do so in such a detailed

manner as to strip the appointing power of
the discretion it is entitled to exercise in
the choice of the appointee

2. Who may prescribe qualifications

by the consti or by statute

quali for such offices as those of the pres

and the SC are specified directly by the
consti

leg can only prescribe quali in a general

manner only so as to allow the wildest
possible field of choice

if statute prescribes the quali in minute

detail so as to practically pinpoint the
appointee, the appointment will in effect
be made by the leg in derogation of the
prerogative of the executive

only the mechanical act of appointment

will be left to the executive as the choice
will have already been made by the leg

quali must be relevant to the position

Limitations on the power of the leg to

prescribed in an exclusive manner by the
Constitution

the quali for statutory officers like heads

of bureaus and local elective officials -laid
down by law / statute creating their offices

Qualifications for PO whether prescribed

by the Consti or by statute may not be
changed by private agreement JBL Reyes
in Saura v. Sindico

*page 42

Where the Consti itself creates or provides

for the creation of the office but prescribes
no qualifications, the leg may repair the
omission and supply the qualifications
itself
ex National Economic and Devt Authority
for w/c no qualifications for its officers are
prescribed by the Consti w/c mandated its
creation

the leg may not reduce or increase the

quali prescribed in an exclusive
manner by the Const

the legislature may prescribe only

general qualifications

the qualifications must be relevant to

the office for w/c they are prescribed

3. Scope of Qualifications

expressio unius est exclusio alterius it is

not competent for the leg to add to these
qualifications
ex if in addition to the quali prescribed by
the Constitution or if no quali are
prescribed therein, the leg is not inhibited
from prescribing additional quali
Art XIII Sec 17(2) of Consti: term of office
and other quali and disabilities of the
members of the CHR shall be provided by
law
Art VIII Sec 7(2) Congress shall prescribe
the quali of judges of lower courts, but no
person may be appointed judge thereof

4. Duration of Qualifications

prescribed qualifications should be

possessed at the earliest on the date
indicated by the Consti or the law

Pres and mem of Congress, ConCom and

elective local official should possess on
the day of their election

SC justices and inferior courts judges not

nec on the date of appointment but at the
time of assumption of office

reason quali are prescribed not for

purposes of appointment or election but to

insure the proper discharge of the duties

of the office

the reckoning point in detremining the

quali of an appointee is the date of
issuance of the appointment and not the
date of its approval by the CSC or the date
of resolution of the protest against it

Quali continuinf requirements and must

be possessed not only on the date of
selection or assumption but for the full
duration of the officers' incumbency

eligibility to an office should be construed

as of a continuing nature and must exist at
the commencement of the term and
during occupancy of the office

Tomalis vs CSC

pub school teacher lost her positions as

such when she married a chinese and so
under 1935 consti acquired his cit

SC: voluntary change of cit or a change

thereof by operation of law disqualifies the
public officer from continuing to hold the
civil service position to w/c he had
qualified and had been appointed

Qualification as an act
term quali is interpreted in another sense
to wit as an act by w/c the public
functionary formally commences the
discharge of his official duties

compliance w/ legal requirements for an

appointment to a civil service position is
essential in order to make it fully effective
and until an appointment has become a
completed act, it would be precipitate to
invoke the rule on security of tenure

Mendoza vs Laxina

Justice Ynares-Santiago: issue is the

taking of an oath of office anew by duly
proclaimed but subsequently unseated
local elective official a condition sine qua
non to the validity of his re-assumption in
office where the comelec had previously
ordered the relinquishment of the
contested position by his opponent?

*page 48

De facto officer in State v Carroll

includes those who discharge their duties
under color of a known and valid
appointment but have failed to conform to
some condition, precedent or requirement
as to take an oath, file a bond or the like.

moment any quali is lost during tenure =

forfeited automatically

Yee vs Dir of Public School

accountable therefor and for the

safekeeping thereof in accordance w/ law

Failure to qualify

mere delay in qualifying does not result in

automatic forefeiture of the office

delay only empowers the superior

authorities to prevent entry into the office
at a later time on the ground that the
same has been abandoned

effected by taking an oath or filing of a

bond or both in the case of certain officers

Sec 40 of Book I chap 10 Admin Code

1987 all public officers and employees of
the govt including every member of the
armed forces shall before entering upon
the discharge of his duties take an oath or
affirmation to uphold and defend the
constituted

xpn unavoidable absence

mechem: statutes requiring the taking of

an oath like those w/c require also the
taking of an oath, like those w/c require
also the giving of a bond, usually require
that it shall be done w/in a specified time

Accountable officers whose duties permit

or require the possession or custody of
govt funds or prop and who shall be

these statutes are generally construed to

be directory merely and not mandatory

mere delay in taking the oath, if it be

afterwards taken w/ the approval of the

public authorities while it may be ground

for a forfeiture while the delay continues,
does not amount ipso facto to a rejection
of the office, and when the oath is so
taken the default is waived

diff when law requires quali w/in a

specified time and adds that failure to

qualify during that period will result in

automatic loss of the right to office

Sec 7 Art VII Consti: VP elect shall act

as Pres if Pres elect shall fail to quali.
Both P and VP not quali = Pres of
senate speaker of the house of rep
until pres and Vp shall have been
chosen and qualified