Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
MPA506
The personnel action that actually took place, albeit a reassignment, was
a valid reassignment, viz: In the instant case, Causing is not stripped
of her functions as Municipal Civil Registrar (MCR). She was merely
required to physically report to the Mayors Office and perform her
functions as Municipal Civil Registrar therein. Definitely, she is still the
MCR, albeit doing her work physically outside of her usual work station.
She is also not deprived of her supervisory function over the staff as she
continues to review their work and signs documents they prepared. While
she may encounter difficulty in performing her duties as a supervisor as
she is not physically near her staff that by itself, however, does not mean
that she has lost supervision over them.
2. G.R. No. 191644, February 19, 2013
Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution expressly prohibits the
President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies
or assistants from holding any other office or employment during their
tenure unless otherwise provided in the Constitution. Complementing the
prohibition is Section 7, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution, which bans
any appointive official from holding any other office or employment in the
Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries, unless otherwise allowed by law or the primary functions of
his position.
Notwithstanding the conflict in the versions of the parties, the fact that
Agra has admitted to holding the two offices concurrently in acting
capacities is settled, which is sufficient for purposes of resolving the
constitutional question that petitioner raises herein.
Issue
Did the designation of Agra as the Acting Secretary of Justice, concurrently
with his position of Acting Solicitor General, violate the constitutional
prohibition against dual or multiple offices for the Members of the Cabinet
and their deputies and assistants?
Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
The designation of Agra as Acting Secretary of Justice concurrently with
his position of Acting Solicitor General was unconstitutional and void for
being in violation of the constitutional prohibition under Section 13,
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
In order to be clear, therefore, the Court holds that all official actions of
Agra as a de facto Acting Secretary of Justice, assuming that was his later
designation, were presumed valid, binding and effective as if he was the
officer legally appointed and qualified for the office. This clarification is
necessary in order to protect the sanctity of the dealings by the public with
persons whose ostensible authority emanates from the State. Agras official
actions covered by this clarification extend to but are not limited to the
promulgation of resolutions on petitions for review filed in the Department
of Justice, and the issuance of department orders, memoranda and circulars
relative to the prosecution of criminal cases.
This is to seek the legal opinion of the Civil Service Commission if the
Provincial Government of Batanes is allowed to hire, on Job Order Basis,
the services of candidates who lost in the recent elections. It is embodied
in the Compendium on Local Autonomy and Local Government that the
prohibition on the hiring of losing candidates does not cover casual or
consultancy employment per DILG Opinion No. 69-1993, however, this
query is being forwarded to obtain you opinion/advise in aid of policy
decision-making in view of the fact that the above-cited DILG opinion can
not be considered for audit.
This is to seek the legal opinion of the Civil Service Commission if the
Provincial Government of Batanes is allowed to hire, on Job Order Basis,
the services of candidates who lost in the recent elections. It is embodied
in the Compendium on Local Autonomy and Local Government that the
prohibition on the hiring of losing candidates does not cover casual or
consultancy employment per DILG Opinion No. 69-1993, however, this
query is being forwarded to obtain you opinion/advise in aid of policy
decision-making in view of the fact that the above-cited DILG opinion can
not be considered for audit.
Section 4. A person who lost in an election (except Barangay election)
shall reemployment to any office in the government or any government
owned or controlled corporation within one year following such election.
This same prohibition is clearly spelled out in the 1987 Constitution, as
well as in the Local Government Code of 1991, as follows:
SEC. 6. No candidate who has lost in any election shall, within one year
after such election, be appointed to any office in the Government or any
government-owned or controlled corporation or in any of its subsidiaries.
(Section 6, Article IX-B, 1987 Constitution) Section 94. Appointment of
Elective and Appointive Local Officials; Candidates Who Lost in an
Election.
(b) Except for losing candidates in barangay elections no candidate who
lost in any election shall, within one (1) year after such election, be
appointed to any office in the Government or any government-owned or
controlled corporations or in a any of their subsidiaries. (Section 94. Local
Government Code of 1991)