Article IX: Constitutional Commissions

A. Common Provisions

Section 1. Independent Commissions

1. Macalintal v. COMELEC, GR 157013, July 10, 2003
In this case, by vesting itself with the powers to approve, review, amend,
and revise the IRR for RA 9189 otherwise known as the The Overseas Absentee
Voting Act of 2003, Congress went beyond the scope of its constitutional authority
and trampled upon the constitutional mandate of independence of the COMELEC.

2. Ombudsman v. Civil Service Commission, GR No. 159940, February 16, 2005

Although constitutional agencies such as the Office of the Ombudsman has
the authority to appoint its officials in accordance with law, such law does not
necessarily imply that their appointment will not be subject to the Civil Service Law
and Rules. All matters pertaining to appointments are within the realm of expertise
to the Civil Service Commission, all laws, rules and regulations it issues on
appointments must be complied with.

Section 2. Prohibition on Members

Section 3. Salary

Section 4. Power to Appoint

Section 5. Fiscal Autonomy

1. CSC v. DBM, 482 SCRA 233
The Constitutional Commissions such as the CSC shall enjoy fiscal
autonomy. Their approved annual appropriations shall be automatically and
regularly released.” In this case, the “no report, no release” policy by the DBM
violates such constitutional provision and may not be validly enforced against
offices vested with fiscal autonomy. Being “automatic” connotes something
mechanical, spontaneous and perfunctory.

Section 6. Promulgation of Rules

1. Macalintal v. COMELEC, GR No. 157013, July 10, 2003
(REPEATED CASE)
The COMELEC, as a constitutional body, is not under the control of either
the executive or legislative departments of government. Only the COMELEC itself
can promulgate rules and regulations which may be changed or revised only by
the majority of its members, and such rules and regulations may be reviewed by
the Court only in cases of grave abuse of discretion.

2. Sabili v. COMELEC, GR 193261, April 24, 2012

The COMELEC has the power to suspend its own rules of procedure,
invoking Section 6, Article IX-A of the Constitution, which gives it the power to
 promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any
of its offices. In this case, COMELEC Order relative to the holding of the country’s
first Automated National Elections had necessitated the COMELEC to suspend the
rule on notice prior to promulgation, and that it instead direct the delivery of all
resolutions to the Clerk of the Commission for immediate promulgation.

Section 7. Decisions of the Commissions

Review of final orders, resolutions and decisions:

1. Rendered in the exercise of quasi-judicial functions
2. Rendered in the exercise of administrative functions

1. Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v. Ferrer, 135 SCRA 25

In this case, an order of the COMELEC awarding a contract to a private
party, as a result of bid does not come within the purview of a “final order” because
it was not issued pursuant to its quasi-judicial functions but merely as an incident
of its inherent administrative functions over the conduct of elections. Hence, said
resolution may not be deemed as a “final order” reviewable by certiorari by the
Supreme Court. Any question arising from said order may be well taken in an
ordinary civil action before the trial courts.

2. Saligumba v. CA, 117 SCRA 669

This case is about Saligumba’s petition for review to the court after COA
dismissed his administrative complaint against Estrellas, asserting that she was
raped in many occasions. The power of the Court to review the decisions of the
COA only refer to money matters in the exercise of their quasi-judicial functions
and not to administrative cases involving the discipline of its personnel in the
exercise of their administrative functions.

3. PTTC v. COA, 146 SCRA 190 (1986)

The two letters of the COA are not proper subjects of appeal and/or review
by this Court. The COA, in the said letters, did not decide the issue. It did not render
a decision, order or final award. It merely expressed an opinion. Hence, the COA
cannot render a “final order, decision or award” on the question of whether
petitioner should pay 1 ½ % or ½ % of franchise tax. This is not a matter falling
under the jurisdiction this Court.

4. Cua v. COMELEC, 156 SCRA 582 (1987)

The Court held that the 2-1 decision by the First Division was a valid
decision under Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution. Furthermore, the three
members who voted to affirm the First Division constituted a majority of the five
members who deliberated and voted thereon en banc and their decision is also
valid under the constitutional provision.

5. Estrella v. COMELEC, GR No. 160465, May 27, 2004

 The court abandoned the doctrine laid down in the case of Cua vs.
COMELEC and holds that the COMELEC en banc shall decide a case or matter
brought before it by a majority of “all its members” and not majority of the members
who deliberated and voted thereon. The provision of the Constitution is clear that
decisions by the COMELEC en banc should be the majority vote of all its members
and not only those who participated and took part in the deliberations.

6. Mison v. COA, 187 SCRA 445 (1990)

The TSO Manager nor COA Chair had the power to render and promulgate
a decision for the Commission. Commissions are collegial bodies, the decisions
are made by the body and not by individual members of the body. No individual
member may make decision acting for the Commission.

7. Paredes v. COMELEC, 127 SCRA 653 (1984)

For the Court to exercise its power to review the rulings or findings of fact
of the Commission on Elections, such rulings or findings of fact be lacking in
arbitrariness. In this case, the COMELEC rendered its decision after a careful
study of the evidence. The record shows no cause for disqualification based on
turncoatism. There being no taint of arbitrariness in the conclusion arrived at its
finding is entitled to be accorded full respect.

8. Ambil v. COMELEC, 344 SCRA 358 [2000]

A final decision or resolution becomes binding only after it is promulgated
and not before. There is no decision until the draft is signed and promulgated.
Accordingly, one who is no longer a member of the Commission at the time the
final decision or resolution is promulgated cannot validly take part in that resolution
or decision. In this case, Guiani vacated office without the final decision or
resolution having been promulgated. Hence, there was no valid resolution or
decision to speak of.

9. Mateo v. CA, GR No. 113219, August 14, 1995

Prior to 1991, decisions could be only reviewed by the supreme court by
certiorari. Now, however, judgements or final orders of quasi-judicial agencies may
be appealed to the court of appeals within fifteen days from the notice thereof. The
change is pursuant to Section 7 which says “unless otherwise provided by this
Constitution by law”.

10. Reyes v. Regional Trial Court, GR No. 108886, May 5, 1995

Rule 65 of the Rules of Court states that a certiorari may be resorted to
when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy. But reconsideration is
a speedy and adequate remedy. Hence, a case may be brought to the Supreme
Court only after reconsideration. As a consequence, in the case of decisions of the
COMELEC, only decisions en banc may be brought to the Court by certiorari since
Article IX-C (3) of the Constitution states that motions for reconsideration of
decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.
 11. ABS-CBN v. COMELEC, 323 SCRA 611
In this case, The Supreme Court dispensed with the need to file for a motion
for reconsideration before the COMELEC since elections were already very close
and there was no more time for another speedy remedy. This case is about the
exit polls. (COMELEC prohibited the ABS-CBN to conduct exit polls)

12. Salva v. Makalintal, GR 132603, September 18, 2000

13. Garces v. CA, GR. No. 114 795, July 17, 1996
The “case” or “matter” referred to by the Constitution that may be brought
to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Section 7, Article IX-A are those that
relate to the COMELEC’s exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers
involving elective regional, provincial and city officials.

14. Dumayas v. COMELEC, GR Nos. 141952-53, April 29, 2001

15. Aguilar v. COMELEC, GR No. 185140, June 30, 2009
16. Cayetano v. COMELEC, GR 193846, April 12, 2011
17. Dela Llana v. The Chairperson, COA, GR 180989, February 7, 2012
18. Cagas v. COMELEC, 663 SCRA 644 (2012)

Section 8. Other Functions

B. Civil Service Commission

Section 1. Composition; Qualifications; Term

1. Gaminde v. COA –347 SCRA 655 (2000)
2. Mathay Jr. v. CA, GR No. 124374, December 15, 1999

Section 2. Scope of the system

1. Cuevas v. Bacal, GR 139382, December 6 2000

Under Civil Service Law

PARAGRAPH 1
1. MWSS v. Hernandez – 143 SCRA 602 [1986]
2. NSC v. NLRC – 168 SCRA 122
3. UP v. Regino – 221 SCRA 598 [1993]
4. Mateo v. CA – 247 SCRA 284 [1995]
5. DOH v. NLRC – 251 SCRA 700 [1995]
6. Juco v. NLRC – 277 SCRA 528 [1997]
7. Feliciano v. Gison – 629 SCRA 103 [2010]

GOCCs Under the Corporation Code

1. BLISS v. Calejo – 237 SCRA 271 [1994]
2. Postigo v. Philippine Tuberculosis society – 479 SCRA 628
3. LRTA v. Venus – 485 SCRA 301
PARAGRAPH 2
Classifications and Appointments
1. HIGC v. CSC – 220 SCRA 148 [1993]
2. Mauna v. CSC – 232 SCRA 388 [1994]
3. Rimonte v. CSC – 244 SCRA 498 [1995]
4. Gloria v. De Guzman – 249 SCRA 126 [1995]
5. Atty. Ellas Omar A Sana v. Career Executive Service Board, GR 192926, 15
November 2011

Competitive
1. Samson v. CA – 145 SCRA 654[1986]

Non-Competitive
1. Astraquillo v. Mangalupas – 190 SCRA 280 [1990]
2. Office of the President v. Buenaobra – 501 SCRA 302

Policy-Determining

Primarily Confidential
1. Borres v. CA – 153 SCRA 120 [1987]
2. Grino v. CSC – 194 SCRA 458 [1991]
3. Santos v. Macaraig – 208 SCRA 74 [1992]
4. Hilario v. CSC – 243 SCRA 206 [1995]
5. Rosete v. CA – 264 SCRA 147 [1996]
6. CSC v. Salas – 274 SCRA 414 [1997]
7. Acahacoso v. Macaraig – 195 SCRA 235 [1991]
8. Felix v. Buenaseda – 240 SCRA 139 [1995] (par.2)
9. Pamantasan ng Maynila v. CSC – 241 SCRA 503 [1995]
10. Province of the Camarines Sur v. CA – 246 SCRA 231 [1995]
11. PEZA v. Mercado – 614 SCRA 683 [2010]
12. CSC v. CA – 635 SCRA 749 [2010]

Permanent
1. Luego v. CSC – 143 SCRA 327 [1986]
2. Pangilinan v. Maglaya – 225 SCRA 511 [1993] (par.2)

Reorganization
1. Santiago v. CSC – 178 SCRA 733 [1989]
2. Montecillo v. Civil Service Commission, GR NO. 131954. June 28, 2001
3. Gatmaitan v. Gonzales – 492 SCRA 591
4. Nieves v. Blanco – 673 SCRA 638 [2012]

Appointment vs. designation

1. Binamira v. Garucho – 188 SCRA 154 [1990] (par.2) (designation by Dept. Sec.)

Removal for Cause/Security of Tenure

Cause for Removal: PARAGRAPH 3

1. Loss confidence
1. Hernandez v. Villegas – 14 SCRA 544 [1965]

2. Abolition of Office
1. Briones v. Osmena – 104 PHIL. 588 [1958]
2. Eugene v. CSC – 243 SCRA 196 [1995]

3. Reorganization
1. Romualdez-Yap v. CSC – 225 SCRA 285 [1993]
2. Fernandez v. Sto Tomas – 242 SCRA 192 [1995]
3. Chato v. Natividad – 244 SCRA 787 [1995]
4. Divinagracia v. Sto. Tomas – 244 SCRA 595 [1995] (par.3)
5. Vinzon-Chato v. Zenarosa, GR 120539, October 20, 2000
6. De Guzman v. Comelec, GR 129118, July 19, 2000
7. Cuevas v. Bacal, GR 139382, December 6, 2000

4. Qualification for Eligibility

1. Mayor v. Macaraig – 194 SCRA 672 [1991

5. Abandonment; Acceptance of Incompatible/Other Employment

1. Canonizado v. Aguirre, 323 SCRA 312 [2001]
2. Salvador v. CA, GR 127501, May 5, 2000

Due Process in Removal

1. Enrique v. CA – 229 SCRA 180 [1994]
2. CSC v. Magnaye – 619 SCRA 347 [2010]
3. Rubenecia v. CSC – 244 SCRA 640 [1995]
4. Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office Board Of Directors v. Marie Jean C. Lapid,
GR 191940, 12 April 2011

Security of Tenure
1. Chua v. CSC – 206 SCRA 65 [1992]
2. NLTD v. CSC – 221 SCRA 145
3. Cabagnot v. CSC – 223 SCRA 59 (
4. Marohombsar v. CA, GR 126481, February 18, 2000
5. Ong v. OP – 664 SCRA 413 [2012]

Electioneering or Partisan Political Activity

1. Santos v. Yatco – 106 PHIL 21
2. People v. De Venecia – 14 SCRA 864 [1965]

Right to Self-Organization and Right to Strike

1. SSS Employees v. CA – 175 SCRA 686 [1989]
2. Balingasan v. CA – 276 SCRA 557 [1997]
 3. Jacinto v. CA – 281 SCRA 557 [1997]
4. De la Cruz v. CA – 305 SCRA 303
5. GSIS v. Kapisanan – 510 SCRA 622

Temporary Employees
1. Gloria v. CA, GR 119903, August 15, 2000

Section 3. Purpose of a Civil Service System

1. Lazo v. CSC, 236 SCRA 469

Section 4. Oath or Affirmation

Section 5. Standardization of Compensation

Section 6. Prohibition of Appointment of “Lame Ducks”

1. People v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 164185, July 23, 2008

Section 7. Prohibitions; Appointments; Office; Employment

1. Flores v. Drilon – 223 SCRA 568 (1993)
2. In re Eduardo Escala, 653 SCRA 141
3. La Carlota City v. Rojo , GR 181367, 24 April 2012

Sec. 8 Prohibitions; Compensation; Foreign Gift/Office/Title

Sedusasta v. Municipality of Surigao – 72 PHIL. 482 [1941]
100.Peralta v. Mathay – 38 SCRA 296 (1971)
101.Santos v. CA – GR No. 139792, Nov. 22, 2000
102.Cabili v. CSC, GR No. 156503, June 22, 2006
103.Benguet State University v. Colting, GR No. 169637, June 8, 2007
104.Herrera, et al v. NPC, GR No. 166570, December 18, 2009
105.NEA v. CSC – 611 SCRA 14 [2010]

Doctrine of Finality – Refers to a rule that a court will not judicially review an
administrative agency’s action until it is final. RES JUDICATA

106.Yap v. COA – 619 SCRA 154 [2010]

107.Sergio I. Carbonilla, et al v. Board of Airlines, GR 193247
108.Office of the President v. Board of Airlines, GR 194276, 14 September 2011
109.PEZA V. COA – 675 SCRA 513[2012]
110.Dimagiba v. Espartero – 676 SCRA 420 [2012]

C. Commission on Elections

Section 1. Composition; Qualifications; Term

111.Cayetano v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210 (1991)
112.Brillantes v. Yorac, 192 SCRA 358 (1990)
**It is expressly stipulated in S1(2) that no member can be appointed or designated in a
temporary or acting capacity.
113.Matibag v. Benipayo, 380 SCRA 49
Ad interim appointments are permanent.
114.Hayudini v. Comelec, GR No. 207900, 723 SCRA 223, April 22, 2014
115.Naval v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207851, July 8, 2014
**A provincial board member cannot be elected and serve for more than three
consecutive terms.
116.Timbol v. Comelec, G.R. No. 206004, February 24, 2015
**To minimize the logistical confusion caused by nuisance candidates, their certificates
of candidacy may be denied due course or cancelled by respondent. —To minimize the
logistical confusion caused by nuisance candidates, their certificates of candidacy may
be denied due course or cancelled by respondent. This denial or cancellation may be
“motu proprio or upon a verified petition of an interested party,” “subject to an opportunity
to be heard.”
117.Jalover v. Osmena, G.R. No. 209286, September 23, 2014
**To successfully challenge a winning candidate’s qualifications, the petitioner must
clearly demonstrate that the ineligibility is so patently antagonistic to constitutional and
legal principles that overriding such ineligibility and thereby giving effect to the apparent
will of the people would ultimately create greater prejudice to the very democratic
institutions and juristic traditions that our Constitution and laws so zealously protect and
promote.

Does not talk about qualification of COMELEC’s Chairman and Commissioner

Section 2. Powers and Functions

Administrative Power
118.Alfiado v. Comelec, GR 141787, September 18, 2000
119.Columbres v. Comelec, GR 142038,September 18, 2000
120.Sahali v. Comelec, GR 134169, February 2, 2000
121.Claudio v. Comelec, GR 140560, May 4, 2000
122.De Guzman v. Comelec, GR 129118, July 19, 2000
123.Social Weather Station, Inc v. COMELEC, GR NO. 147571, May 5, 2001
124.Information Technology Foundation v. Comelec, GR 159139, Jan 13, 2004
125.Buac v. Comelec, 421 SCRA 92
126.Capalla v. COMELEC – 673 SCRA 1 [2012]

Election Contests
127.Flores v. COMELEC – 184 SCRA 484 [1990]
128.Galido v. COMELEC – 193 SCRA 78 [1991]
129.Mercado v. BES – 243 SCRA 422 [1995]
130.Relampagos v. Cumba – 243 SCRA 690 [1995]
131.People v. Delgado – 189 SCRA 715 [1990]
132.Garces v. CA – 259 SCRA 99 [1996]
133.Zarate v. Comelec and Lallave – GR 129096, November 19, 1999
 134.Regalado v. CA, GR 115962, February 15, 2000
135.Faelnar v. People,GR 140850-51, May 4, 2000
136.Tan v. Comelec, GR 148575, Dec. 10, 2003
137.Alauya v. Comelec, GR 158830, August 10, 2004

Powers Not Given

Deputizing Law Enforcement Agencies
138.People v. Basilla – 179 SCRA 87[1989]

Registration of Parties and Organization

139.LDP v. Comelec, GR 161265, February 24, 2004
140.Atienza v. COMELEC – 612 SCRA 761 [2010]
141.Lokin v. COMELEC – 674 SCRA 538[2012]

Prosecution of Election Offenses

142.People v. Inting – 187 SCRA 788 [1990]
143.Corpus v. Tanodbayan – 149 SCRA 281[1987]
144.COMELEC v. Silva – 286 SCRA 177[1998]
145.Comelec v. Hon. Espanol, GR 149164, Dec. 10, 2003
146.Arroyo v. DOJ – 681 SCRA 181[2012]

Recommendatory Powers

Section 3. Decisions
147.Pangilinan v. COMELEC – 228 SCRA 36[1993]
148.Sarmiento v. Comelec – 212 SCRA 307[1992]
149.Carnicosa v. COMELEC – 282 SCRA 512[1997]
150.Ramas v. COMELEC – 286 SCRA 189[1998]
151.Garvida v. Sales – 271 SCRA 767[1997]
152.Velayo v. Comelec, GR 135613, March 9, 2000
153.Sebastian v. Comelec, GR 139573, Mach 7, 2000
154.Soller v. Comelec, GR 139853, September 5, 2000
155.Barroso v. Ampig et al, GR138218, March 17, 2000
156.Maruhon v. Comelec, GR 139357, May 5,2000
157.Balindong v. Comelec, GR 153991, Oct. 16, 2003
158.Jaramilla v. Comelec, GR 155717, Oct. 23, 2003
159.Bautista v. Comelec, GR 154796-97, Oct. 23, 2003
160.De Llana v. Comelec, GR 152080, Nov. 28, 2003
161.Repol v. Comelec, GR 151418, Apr. 28, 2004
162.Pedragoza v. COMELEC – 496 SCRA 513
163.Cayetano v. COMELEC – 479 SCRA 514
164.Munoz v. COMELEC – 495 SCRA 407
165.Tan v. COMELEC – 507 SCRA 352
166.Enriquel v. COMELEC – 613 SCRA 809
167.Mendoza v. COMELEC – 616 SCRA 443
 168.Maria Laarni L Cayetano v. Comelec, GR 193846, 12 April 2011 (also in Sec.
7, Art IX-A)

Section 4. Supervision/Regulation of Public Utilities, Media Grants, Privileges

1. 169.Unido v. COMELEC, 104 SCRA 17
2. 170.Sanidad v. COMELEC, 181 SCRA 529 (1990)
3. 171.Osmena v. COMELEC – 199 SCRA 750 [1991]
4. 172.Philippine Press Institute v. COMELEC, GR No. 119654, May 22, 1995
5. 173.Telecom v. COMELEC – 289 SCRA 337 [1998]
6. 174.ABS-CBN v. COMELEC, GR No. 133486, Jan. 28, 2000
7. 175.SWS v. COMELEC, GR No. 147571, May 5, 2001

Section 5. Favorable Recommendation for Pardon, Amnesty, Parole or Suspension

of Sentence

Section 6. Free and Open Party System

1. 176.Liberal Party v. COMELEC, GR No. 191771, May 6, 2010

Section 7. No Block-Voting

Section 8. Prohibition on Political Parties

Section 9. Election Period

Section 10. No Harassment and Discrimination

Section 11. Funds

D. Commission of Audit

Section 1. Qualifications; Term

1. 177.Mison v. COA, 187 SCRA 445

Section 2. General Function; Powers

Examine and Audit: Government revenues and Government expenditures

1. 178.Blue Bar Coconut Phil. Tantuico – 163 SCRA 716 [1988]
2. 179.DBP v. COA – 231 SCRA 202 [1994]
3. 180.Eslao v. COA – 236 SCRA 161 [1994]
4. 181.J.F.F. Manacop v. CA – 266 SCRA 235 [1997]
5. 182.Polloso v. Gangan, GR 140563, July 14, 2000
6. 183.Uy v. COA, GR 130685, March 21, 2000
7. 184.Aguinaldo v. Sandiganbayan – 265 SCRA 121 [1996]
8. 185.DBP v. COA, 422 SCRA 459 [2004]
9. 186.Home Development Mutual Fund v. COA, GR 142297, June 15, 2004
10. 187.DBP v. COA – 498 SCRA 537 [2006]
 11. 188.Nava v. Palattao – 499 SCRA 745 [2006]
12. 189.Gualberto De Llana v. COA, GR 180989, 7 Feb. 2012
13. 190.Candelario L. Versoza Jr. v. Guillermo N Carague, GR 157838, 7
February 2012
14. 191.Philippine Coconut v. Republic – 663 SCRA 514 [2012]

Audit Jurisdiction
1. 192.Caltex v. COA – 208 SCRA 726 [1992]
2. 193.Mamaril v. Domingo – 227 SCRA 206[1993]
3. 194.Philippine Airlines v. COA – 245 SCRA 39 [1995]
4. 195.CIR v. COA – 218 SCRA 203 [1993]
5. 196.CSC v. Pobre, GR 160568, Sept. 15, 2004
6. 197.Luciano Velos, et al. v. Commission On Audit, GR 193677,6 Sept.
20011
7. 198.Boy Scout of the Philippines v. COA, GR 177131, 7 June 2011
8. 199.Dela Llana v. COA – 665 SCRA 176 [2012]

Settle Government Account

1. 200.Philippine Operations, Inc. v. Auditor General, 94 Phil 868 [1953-
1954]
2. 201.ICNA v. Republic, 21 SCRA 40 [1967]
3. 202.Dingcong v. Guingona, 162 SCRA 782 [1988]
4. 203.NHC v. COA – 226 SCRA 55 [1993]
5. 204.Euro-Med v. Province of Batangas, 495 SCRA 30 [2006]

Define Scope and Techniques of Auditing Procedures

1. 205.Danville Maritime v. COA,175 SCRA 701 [1989]

Promulgate Accounting and Auditing Rules

1. 206.Leycano v. COA, 482 SCRA 215

Decide Administrative Cases Involving Expenditures of Public Funds

1. 207.NCMH v. COA, 265 SCRA 390 [1996]
2. 208.Ramos v. Aquino, 39 SCRA 256 [1971]
3. 209.Salva v. Carague, 511 SCRA 258
4. 210.City of Basilan v. Hechanova, 58 SCRA 711 [1974]

Section 3. COA Jurisdiction

1. 211.Luciano Veloso v. Commisssion on Audit, GR 193677, 6 September
2011

Section 4. Annual Report to the President and to Congress