Aquino v.
COMELEC (Vi) order), directing the reassignment of several PHIC officers and
March 17, 2015| Brion, J. | COMELEC
PETITIONER: Dr. Rey B. Aquino
RESPONDENTS: Commission on Elections
SUMMARY: On January 8, 2010, Dr. Rey B. Aquino, as President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation
(PHIC), issued PhilHealth Special Order No. 16 directing the reassignment
of several PHIC officers and employees. On the same date, he released
the order through the intranet service of PHIC to all the officers and
employees. Avila, et. al. filed a complaint with COMELEC saying that
Aquino violated Resolution No. 8738 in relation to Sec. 261(h) of BP 881
which provides for a prohibition on any public official who makes or causes
the transfer or detail whatsoever of any public officer within the election
period. Aquino claimed that he issued the order on Jan.8 and the ban started
on Jan. 10 which makes it before the ban and also the prohibition says
“transfer or detail” and does not include reassignment. COMELEC, on the
other hand, claimed that “whatever” modified “transfer or detail” which
makes it any movement of personnel during the election period. The Court
agreed with COMELEC on this matter that “whatever” modified “transfer
or detail” which then included reassignment. But the Court ruled that
COMELEC gravely abused its discretion because when Aquino made or
caused the reassignment of officers, it was January 8, 2010 by issuing the
order and releasing it through intranet service on the same day, which makes
it before the ban (Jan. 10) and valid. The Court mentioned that COMELEC
has the power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to
the conduct of an election. The intent of the Constitution and laws is to grant
the COMELEC with powers, necessary and incidental to achieve the
objective of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections.
DOCTRINE:
COMELEC has the power to enforce and administer all laws and
regulations relative to the conduct of an election.
The intent of the Constitution and laws is to grant the COMELEC with
powers, necessary and incidental to achieve the objective of ensuring free,
orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections.
Reassignment is part of the transfer ban during the election period.
FACTS:
1. On January 8, 2010, Dr. Rey B. Aquino, as President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation
(PHIC), issued PhilHealth Special Order No. 16 (reassignment
employees. On the same date, he released the order through the
intranet service of PHIC to all the officers and employees including
to:
a. Dennis Adre – PHIC Regional Vice-President (VP)
b. Masiding Alonto – PHIC Regional VP
c. Khaliquzzaman M. Macabato – PHIC Assistant Regional VP
2. On January 11, 2010, Aquino issued an Advisory implementing the
reassignment order.
3. Dean Rudyard A. Avila III, consultant to the Chairman of the Board
of PHIC and former Secretary of the PHIC Board of Directors, filed
before the COMELEC on January 18, 2010, a complaint against
Aquino and Melinda C. Mercado, PHIC Officer-in-Charge,
Executive VP and Chief Operating Officer, for violation of
COMELEC Resolution No. 8737 in relation to Section 261(h) of BP
881.
4. Adre, Alonto and Macabato, along with Romeo D. Alberto and
Johnny Y. Sychua (PHIC Regional VPs) also filed before the
COMELEC a similar complaint for violation of Resolution No.
8737 in relation to Section 261 (h) of BP 881 against Tito M.
Mendiola, PHIC Senior VP for Operations Sector, and Ruben John
A. Basa, PHIC Group VP for Corporate Affairs. But these were
dismissed because only the signature of Aquino is on the documents
and conspiracy was not proven.
5. Section 261(h) considers an election offense for "any public official
who makes or causes the transfer or detail whatever of any public
officer or employee in the civil service...within the election period
except upon prior approval of the Commission."
6. Resolution No. 8737 merely reiterated Section 261 (h)'s prohibition
and the requirement of prior COMELEC approval in any case of
personnel transfers or details, and provided penalties in case of
violation.
7. COMELEC, in an Oct. 19, 2012 resolution, directed its Law
Department to file the appropriate information against Aquino for
violation of Resolution No. 8737 in relation to Section 261 (h) of
BP 881 but it dismissed, for lack of merit, the complaint against
Mercado, Mendiola, and Basa.
8. In a Feb. 18, 2014 resolution, COMELEC affirmed the Oct. 19
resolution and agreed that “whatever” in Sec. 261(h) expanded
“transfer” to include any movement of personnel including
 reassignments. COMELEC also emphasized that only prima facie
evidence is needed to file a case.
9. COMELEC First Division: Denied Aquino’s petition that
reassignment is not covered by the transfer ban (Aquino argued that
reassignment is not included because Sec. 261(h) only says “transfer
and detail”); Agreed that it is not illegal per se to transfer an
employee during the election period but in this case, it was without
the approval of COMELEC which makes Aquino liable for a
violation of Reso. No. 8737 in relation to Sec. 261(h) of BP 881.
10. Aquino is assailing the Oct. 19, 2012 and Feb. 18, 2014 COMELEC
resolutions.
11. Aquino’s claims:
a. COMELEC exceeded its authority when it included
reassignments in the ban because Sec. 261(h) only
mentions “transfer and detail”.
Regalado case – “whatever” was to modify “transfer and
detail” and not to include other mode of personnel action
- In the case, the transfer was used to harass
subordinates of different political persuasion
(political views)
- Aquino did not do it to harass, none of the PHIC
personnel had a similar situation to Regalado.
b. He issued the order on Jan. 8, 2010 which is before Jan. 10,
2010 which is when the ban starts. He also disseminated it
on the same date through the intranet service.
Reassignments are supposed to be immediately executory.
c. Section 3 of BP 881 fixes the start of the election period at
90 days before the day of the election, not 120 days before,
which the COMELEC set in Resolution No. 8737. So the
start of the ban should have been Feb. 9, 2010 not Jan. 10.
d. He requested COMELEC for exemption from Reso. No.
8737 three times but it did not act on the request.
12. COMELEC through SolGen:
a. “whatever” modifies “transfer and detail” such that it
includes any movement of personnel which necessarily
includes reassignment
b. COMELEC did not act with grave abuse of discretion in
ordering the law dept. to file a complaint because Aquino
issued the order during election period and without prior
approval.
c. Regalado – 2 elements: (1) public officer is transferred
during election period; and (2) transfer was without its
prior approval – COMELEC said the elements were
present.
d. Order was issued Jan. 8 but it was Friday at 4:30 pm so it
became effective on Jan. 11; he also issued other
reassignment orders between January 21 and February 15.
ISSUES:
1. Whether “transfer or detail whatever” in Resolution No. 8737
includes reassignments – YES
2. Whether COMELEC, in issuing the resolutions, acted with grave
abuse of discretion – YES
RATIO:
1st Issue
1. Yes, reassignment is included in “transfer or detail whatever”.
2. Aquino argues that the laws on the civil service should govern in the
interpretation of the phrase. He says that “whatever” should only
modify “detail” or both “transfer and detail”. In such case,
"reassignments," which is a distinct mode of personnel action under
the civil service laws, are automatically excluded.
3. COMELEC says that it should be interpreted in the light of the
general objectives of our election laws. It should be understood in
its general sense, including reassignments.
4. In Regalado v. CA, the Court said that transfer and detail are
modified by the term whatever such that "any movement of
personnel from one station to another, whether or not in the same
office or agency, during the election period is covered by the
prohibition."
5. The election law's prohibition on transfer or detail covers any
movement of personnel from one station to another, whether or
not in the same office or agency when made or caused during
the election or not in the same office or agency when made or
caused during the election period.
6. This interpretation is also consistent with statutory construction that
it must be construed not in isolation.
2nd Issue
1. Yes, COMELEC gravely abused its discretion.
2. Aquino made or caused the reassignment of the concerned PHIC
officers and employees before the election period.
Make – "to cause to exist”; To do, perform, or execute
 Cause – each separate antecedent of an event; Something that
precedes and brings about an effect or result.
3. He sent out, via the PHIC's intranet service, the reassignment order
to all affected PHIC officers and employees before the election
period. (Jan. 8)
4. The reassignment order was complete in its terms, as it enumerated
clearly the affected PHIC officers and employees as well as their
respective places of reassignments, and was made effective
immediately or on the day of its issue, which was before the election
period.
Other Matters
1. Supreme Court said that it has no general powers over COMELEC
except for those the Constitution specifically grants.
2. According to the Constitution, the Commissions have the power to
promulgate its own rules concerning pleading and practice.
COMELEC has the power to enforce and administer all laws and
regulations relative to the conduct of an election.
3. The intent of the Constitution and laws is to grant the COMELEC
with powers, necessary and incidental to achieve the objective of
ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections.
4. COMELEC has the power to fix 120 days before – 30 days after ban
for election period pursuant to its rule-making powers.
5. The subsequent orders that Aquino issued were not reassignment
orders but they were simply either orders of retention. Retention of
duties and temporary discharge of additional duties do not
contemplate or involve any movement of personnel, whether under
any of the various forms of personnel action enumerated under the
laws governing the civil service or otherwise. Hence, these
subsequent orders could not be covered by the legal prohibition on
transfers or detail.