ARTICLE IX - CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

A. Common Provisions

Constitutional Body​, generally considered, is an office or agency where the creation or existence of which is explicitly
established, mandated and recognized by the Constitution.

Classifications of Constitutional Bodies.

1. Main constitutional bodies​- they refer to the three grand departments or branches entrusted with the exercise of
traditional powers of Government. Executive, Legislative and Judiciary.
2. Independent constitutional bodies-​ refer to the additional bodies created and organized specifically and directly
in the Constitution. These are the Constitutional Commissions (CSC, COMELEC & COA), as well as the
Commission on Human Rights and Office of the Ombudsman. The Electoral Tribunals and Commission on
Appointments in Congress are likewise created in the Constitution.
3. Constitutionally mandated bodies-​ are those which the Constitution expressly directs the Congress to create.
Example, Article XII, Sec.9 mandates Congress to create an independent economic and planning agency, hence,
the creation of National Economic and Development Authority.
4. Constitutionally recognized bodies​- bodies mentioned in certain constitutional provisions but are not created by
the Constitution itself nor is their creation required of Congress. These are the Cabinet, Sandiganbayan, and the
provinces, cities, municipalities & barangays.

SECTION 1. Constitutional Commissions which shall be INDEPENDENT, are:

a. Civil Service Commission (CSC)
b. Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
c. Commission on Audit (COA)

Why Independent?
They perform vital functions of government and their integrity is protected by the following facts:
1. They are ​constitutionally created​; may not be abolished by a statute; ​(Art. 9, Sec. 1)
2. Each is conferred certain ​powers and functions​ which cannot be reduced by statute ​(Art. 9, Sec. 8)​;
3. Commissions may ​appoint their own officials and employees in accordance with Civil Service Law ​(Art. 9, Sec.
4)​
4. Commissions enjoy ​fiscal autonomy​ ​(Art. 9, Sec. 5)
Fiscal Autonomy​- ​ is a guarantee of full flexibility to allocate and utilize resources with the wisdom and dispatch
that their needs require. It simply means “freedom from outside control.” ​(Bengzon v. Drilon).

CHR Employees Association vs. CHR,​ G.R. No. 155336, November 24, 2004,
The Commission on Human Rights, unlike the three Constitutional Commissions, does not enjoy fiscal autonomy.
Being a member of the Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group (CFAG) does not vest the agency with the authority to
reclassify, upgrade, and create positions without approval of the DBM. While the members of the Group are
authorized to formulate and implement the organizational structures of their respective offices and determine the
compensation of their personnel, such authority is not absolute and must be exercised within the parameters of the
Compensation Standardization Law.

5. Each commission may promulgate its ​own procedural rules​;

6. Commissioners have ​fixed terms;
7. Officials are removable through ​impeachment only.

SECTION 2. Prohibitions and Inhibitions

No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, ​during​ his tenure:
1. Hold any other office or employment;
2. Engage in the practice of any profession
3. Engage in the active management and control of any business which in any way may be affected by the functions
of his office; and
4. Be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in other contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by
the government, any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, including GOCCs or their subsidiaries.

1
SECTION 3. Salaries
● Salaries are fixed by law and shall not be decreased during their tenure
● Decrease in the salaries only affect those members appointed after increase
● Incumbent officers do not lose any salary.
● Increases take effect immediately.

SECTION 6. Rules of Procedure

● Each Commission ​en banc may ​promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before
any of its offices.
Limitation:​ Such rules however shall not ​diminish​, ​increase​, or ​modify substantive rights​.

Aruelo v. CA G.R. No. 107852

Issue:​ Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it
allowed respondent to file his pleading beyond the period prescribed by COMELEC.

Held​. Denied. Petitioner filed the election protest with the Regional Trial Court, whose proceedings are governed by the
Revised Rules of Court. The filing of motions to dismiss and bill of particulars, shall apply only to proceedings brought
before the COMELEC. It must be noted that nowhere in Part VI of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure is it provided that
motions to dismiss and bill of particulars are not allowed in election protests or quo warranto cases pending before the
regular courts. Constitutionally speaking, the COMELEC cannot adopt a rule prohibiting the filing of certain pleadings in
the regular courts. The power to promulgate rules concerning pleadings, practice and procedure in all courts is vested
on the Supreme Court.

Mateo v. Court of Appeals 247 SCRA 284

Issue:​ WON the RTC of Rizal has jurisdiction over the case involving dismissal of an employee of quasi-public
corporation.
Held.​ It has no jurisdiction. MOWAD is a quasi-public corporation created pursuant to PD No. 198, known as the
provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973, as amended. Employees of government-owned or controlled corporations with
original charter fall under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The established rule is that the hiring
and firing of employees of government-owned and controlled corporations are governed by the provisions of the Civil
Service Law and Rules and Regulations.

SECTION 7. Rendition/ Execution of Decision and Judicial Review

a. Vote required and Period for Decision
● Each Commission shall decide by a ​majority vote of all its Members any case or matter brought before
it within ​60 days​ from the date of its submission for decision or resolution.
o As a collegial bodies, each commission must act as one, and no one member can decide a case
for the entire commission.
b. Judgments generally final and unappealable.
● The findings of face made by a Commission are conclusive upon the Supreme Court (SC) ​provided ​that
such findings are supported by ​substantial evidence. ​Their judgments are final an unappealable, subject
only to ​certiorari​ jurisdiction of the SC.
c. Appeal
● Shall be brought ​by the aggrieved party ​within the prescribed time, from receipt of a copy thereof
regarding any decision, order or ruling of each Commission to the Supreme court.
● The petition is in nature, petition for ​certiorari, ​limited to grave abuse of discretion amounting to:
o lack or excess of jurisdiction
o patent and substantial denial of due process ​(Aratuc v COMELEC)

● Decisions, orders or rulings of the COMELEC or COA may be brought on certiorari to the ​Supreme Court
within​ 30 days
● Decisions, orders or rulings of the CSC should be Appealed to the​ Court of Appeals ​within 1
​ 5 days
d. Execution of Judgement
● Each Commission is invested by the constitution and relevant laws not only with executive or
administrative functions but also with quasi-judicial powers.

2
 ● The grant and authority to hear and adjudge cases should normally and logically include the grant to
enforce or execute judgements it thus render, unless the law otherwise provides

ROMEO M. ESTRELLA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al. 429 SCRA 789

The Status Quo Ante Order issued by the COMELEC En Banc is nullified. Commissioner Lantion‘s voluntary piecemeal
inhibition cannot be countenanced. Nowhere in the COMELEC Rules does it allow a Commissioner to voluntarily inhibit
with reservation. To allow him to participate in the En Banc proceedings when he previously inhibited himself in the
Division is, absent any satisfactory justification, not only judicially unethical but legally improper and absurd. Since
Commissioner Lantion could not participate and vote in the issuance of the questioned order, thus leaving three (3)
members concurring therewith, the necessary votes of four (4) or the majority of the members of the COMELEC was
not attained. The order thus failed to comply with the number of votes necessary for the pronouncement of a decision or
order.

ACENA V. CSC G.R. No. 90780

The court held that respondent Estolas filed a petition for review beyond the prescriptive period of ​15 days ​where the
decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) can be made appealable with the CSC. Beyond this
reglementary period, the decision of the MSPB renders to be final and executory. The petition was also filed at the
wrong forum (to the office of the Pres.) The court finds the CSC to have an excess of jurisdiction of entertaining the
petition and made a reversible error of setting aside the MSPB order which has long become final and executory. The
court granted the petition of the petitioner while setting aside the decision of the CSC.

CUA V. COMELEC G.R. No. 80519-21

The 2-1 decision rendered by the First Division was a valid decision under Article IX-A, Section 7 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 aforecited constitutional provision.
Hence, the proclamation of Cua on the basis of the two aforecited decisions was a valid act that entitles him to assume
his seat in the House of Representatives.

FILIPINAS ENGINEERING AND MACHINE SHOP vs. FERRER G.R. No. L-80519-21
The Comelec shall have exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of
elections and shall exercise all other functions which may be conferred upon it by law. It shall decide, save those
involving the right to vote, all administrative questions affecting elections, including the determination of the number of
location of Polling places, and the appointment of election inspectors and of other election officials. The decisions,
orders and rulings of the Commission shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court.

SECTION 8. Each Commission shall perform such other functions as may be provided by law.
a. The three (3) Constitutional Commissions are administrative agencies vested by the Constitution with
executive, quasi-legislative and quasi- judicial powers
● A ​quasi-legislative ​capacity is that in which a public administrative agency or body acts when it makes
rules and regulations. When an administrative agency exercises its rule-making authority, it is said to act
in a quasi-legislative manner.
● A ​quasi-judicial power refers to the power vested in the commissions established by law, administrative
officers, or bodies to determine the rights of those who appear before it. A quasi-judicial power has been
described as the power or duty to investigate and to draw conclusions from such investigations.
b. In addition to these constitutional functions, by legislation, ​the Commissions can be given the necessary
measure of flexibility in discharge of their constitutional tasks. While Congress, through a special law, can grant
additional powers and function, it ​cannot diminish or abrogate those granted by the Constitution to the
commissions.

3
 B. The Civil Service Commission

SECTION 1. Qualifications and Composition

Qualifications and Compositions

The Chairman and two Commissioners shall be:
● natural-born citizens​ of the Philippines
● at least ​thirty-five years of age
● with ​proven capacity for public administration
● must not have been ​candidates for any elective position in the elections immediately preceding their
appointment.
○
Appointment
● Chairman and the Commissioners shall be ​appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments for a term of ​seven years​ without reappointment
● The Chairman shall hold office for seven years, a Commissioner for five years, and another Commissioner for
three years, without reappointment
● Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the ​unexpired term
● no member be appointed or designated in a ​temporary or acting capacity.

SECTION 2: Jurisdiction, Appointments and Restrictions

Jurisdiction

● SECTION 2. (1)“The civil service ​embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of
the Government,​ including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.”

TUPAS VS. NHC

Under the present (1987) Constitution, the civil service now covers only government owned or controlled corporations
with original or legislative charters, that is those created by an act of Congress or by special law, and not those
incorporated under and pursuant to a general legislation. Since the NHC is a GOCC without an original charter, it is not
covered by the Civil Service Law but by the Labor Code. Anyway, whether the NHC is covered by Labor Code or the
Civil Service Law is beside the point. The right to unionize or to form organizations is now explicitly recognized and
granted to employees in both the governmental and the private sectors. The Bill of Rights provides that the right of the
people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations or societies for
purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. This guarantee is reiterated in the second paragraph of Section 3,
Article XIII, on Social Justice and Human Rights, which mandates that the State "shall guarantee the rights of all
workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right
to strike in accordance with law. Specifically with respect to government employees, the right to unionize is recognized
in Paragraph (5), Section 2, Article IX-B which provides that the right to self-organization shall not be denied to
government employees. The rationale for this is that the government for all its sovereign functions also performs
mundane tasks such that it is also an employer in the true sense of the term. In fact, it is the biggest employer in the
nation.

Appointments
● SECTION 2. (2) “Appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness, to be
determined, as far as practicable, and, except to positions which are policy-determining, primarily confidential, or
highly technical, by competitive examination.”

Luego v. CSC
The appointment of the petitioner was not temporary but permanent and was therefore protected by Constitution. The
appointing authority indicated that it was permanent, as he had the right to do so, and it was not for the respondent Civil
Service Commission to reverse him and call it temporary. The Civil Service Commission is not empowered to determine
the kind or nature of the appointment extended by the appointing officer, its authority being limited to approving or
reviewing the appointment in the light of the requirements of the Civil Service Law. When the appointee is qualified and

4
 authorizing the other legal requirements are satisfied, the Commission has no choice but to attest to the appointment in
accordance with the Civil Service Laws​.

● SECTION 2. (3) No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause
provided by law.

Salazar vs. Mathay, G.R. No. L-44061, September 20, 1976

This should not be misunderstood as denying that the incumbent of a primarily confidential position holds office at the
pleasure of the appointing power. It should be noted, however, that when such pleasure turns into displeasure, the
incumbent is not ´removed or ́dismissed from office his term merely ´expires the same way as officer, whose right
thereto ceases upon expiration of the fixed term for which he had been appointed or elected, is not and cannot be
deemed ́removed or ́dismissed therefrom, upon the expiration of said term. The main difference between the former
primarily confidential officer and the latter is that the latter's term is fixed of definite, whereas that of the former is not
pre-fixed, but indefinite, at the time of his appointment or election, and becomes fixed and determined when the
appointing power expresses its decision to put an end to the services of the incumbent. When this even takes place, the
latter is not ´removed or ́dismissed from office his term has merely ́expired.

Corpus vs. Cuaderno, Sr. 13 SCRA 591 | March 30, 1962

The Constitution distinguishes the primarily confidential from the highly technical employees, and to the latter the loss of
confidence as a ground for removal is not applicable. No public officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be
removed or suspended except for cause provided by law. Pertaining to the petitioner’s claim for damages, the
agreement between a client and his lawyer as to attorney’s fees cannot bind the other party who was a stranger to the
fee contract. While the Civil Code allows a party to recover reasonable counsel fees by way of damages, such fees
must lie primarily in the discretion of the trial court. Decision appealed affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Delos Santos v. Mallare

A Civil Service embracing all branches and subdivisions of the Government shall be provided by law. Appointments in
the Civil Service, except as those which are policy-determining, 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.

Restrictions
● SECTION 2. (4) No officer or employee in the civil service ​shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any
electioneering or partisan political campaign.
● SECTION 2. (5) The ​right to self-organization shall not be denied​ to government employees.
● SECTION 2. (6) Temporary employees of the Government ​shall be given such protection ​as may be provided
by law.

SECTION 3. Functions
● SECTION 3.”The Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of the Government, shall ​establish
a career service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness,
progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil service. It shall ​strengthen the merit and rewards system,
integrate all human resources development programs ​for all levels and ranks, and ​institutionalize a
management climate ​conducive to public accountability. It shall submit to the President and the Congress an
annual report on its personnel programs.​”

SSS Employee Asso. v CA 175 SCRA 686 (July 28, 1989)

Constitutional provisions enshrined on Human Rights and Social Justice provides guarantee among workers with the
right to organize and conduct peaceful concerted activities such as strikes. On one hand, Section 14 of E.O No. 180
provides that “the Civil Service law and rules governing concerted activities and strikes in the government service shall
be observed,

5
 Subject to any legislation that may be enacted by Congress” referring to Memorandum Circular No. 6, s. 1987 of the
Civil Service Commission which states that “prior to the enactment by Congress of applicable laws concerning strike by
government employees enjoins under pain of administrative sanctions, all government officers and employees from
staging strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves, walk-outs and other forms of mass action which will result in temporary
stoppage or disruption of public service.” Therefore in the absence of any legislation allowing govt. employees to strike
they are prohibited from doing so.

SECTION 4. Oath
● All public officers and employees shall take an​ oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution.

SECTION 5. Compensation
● The Congress shall provide for the ​standardization of compensation of government officials and employees,
including those in government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, taking into account the
nature of the responsibilities pertaining to, and the qualifications required for, their positions.

SECTION 6. Appointment Restrictions

● 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 corporations or in any of their subsidiaries.

SECTION 7. No Holding of Other Office

● No elective official shall be eligible for ​appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or
position during his tenure.

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 Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
Government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

Flores vs Drilon G.R. No. 104732 June 22, 1993

Expresses the policy against the concentration of several public positions in one person, so that a public officer or
employee may serve full-time with dedication and thus be efficient in the delivery of public services. It is an affirmation
that a public office is a full-time job. Hence, he should be allowed to attend to his duties and responsibilities without any
distraction of other governmental duties or employment.

Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary

The 1987 Constitution seeks to prohibit the President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, their deputies or
assistants from holding during their tenure multiple offices or employment in the government, except in those cases
specified in the Constitution itself and as above clarified with respect to posts held without additional compensation in
an ex-officio capacity as provided by law and as required by the primary functions of their office, the citation of Cabinet
members (then called Ministers) as examples during the debate and deliberation on the general rule laid down for all
appointive officials should be considered as mere personal opinions which cannot override the constitution's manifest
intent and the people's understanding.

SECTION 8. Accepting of Gifts

● No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall r​eceive additional, double, or indirect compensation,
unless specifically authorized by law, nor accept without the consent of the Congress, any present,
emolument, office, or title of any kind from any foreign government.

Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as additional, double, or indirect compensation.

6
 C. The Commission on Elections

SECTION 1. Composition and Qualification

Composition
● The COMELEC consists of​ one Chairman and 6 commissioners.
● They shall be ​appointed by the President ​with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of
seven years without reappointment. Three Members shall hold office for seven years, two Members for five years,
and the last Members for three years​ without reappointment.
● Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the ​unexpired term​ of the predecessor.
● In no case shall any Member be ​appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.

Brillantes v. Yorac, 192 SCRA 358

SC held that the appointment of Associate Commissioner Haydee Yorac as Acting Chairman of the COMELEC (in
place of Chairman Hilario Davide who had been named chairman of the fact finding commision to investigate the
December 1989 coup d'etat attempt) is unconstitutional based on Sec 1 (2) Art IX-C which provides that “In no case
shall any Member [COMELEC] be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.”

Qualifications
● Chairman and six Commissioners shall be:
1. Natural-born citizens​ of the Philippines
2. At the time of their appointment, at least ​thirty-five years of age
3. Holders of a​ college degree
4. Must ​not have been candidates for any elective position​ in the immediately preceding elections
5. However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be Members of the Philippine Bar who have
been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

Cayetano v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210

The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court. It embraces the preparation of pleadings
and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on
behalf of clients, and other works where the work done involves the determination of trained legal mind of the legal
effect of facts and conditions. The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a
lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a
lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor — verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement — that he has
been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

SECTION 2. Powers and Functions

● Enforcement of Election Laws
● Decisions of Election Contests
● Decisions of Administrative Questions
● Deputization of Law Enforcement Agencies
● Registration of Political Parties
● Improvement of Election

Enforcement of Election Laws

● SECTION 2,(1): “​Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election,
plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.”

Gallardo v. Judge Tabamo, 218 SCRA 253

The 1987 Constitution has granted the Commission on Elections broader powers than its predecessors. It implicitly
grants the Commission the power to promulgate rules and regulations in the enforcement of laws relative to elections.
Accordingly, where the subject of the action is the enforcement of provisions of the Omnibus Election Code, the case is
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Comelec, not of the regular court.

7
 ● SECTION 2,(6): “​File​, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, ​petitions in court for inclusion or
exclusion of voters​; investigate ​and, where appropriate, ​prosecute cases of violations of election laws,
including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.”

People v. Judge Inting, 187 SCRA 788

The 1987 Constitution empowers the COMELEC to conduct preliminary investigations in cases involving election
offenses for the purpose of helping the Judge determine probable cause and for filing an information in court. This
power is exclusive with COMELEC. The evident constitutional intention in bestowing this power to the COMELEC is to
insure the free, orderly and honest conduct of elections, failure of which would result in the frustration of the true will of
the people and make a mere idle ceremony of the sacred right and duty of every qualified citizen to vote. To divest the
COMELEC of the authority to investigate and prosecute offenses committed by public officials in relation to their office
would thus seriously impair its effectiveness in achieving this clear constitutional mandate. Thus, the trial court was in
error when it dismissed an information filed by the Election Supervisor of Dumaguete City because the latter failed to
comply with the order of the court to secure the concurrence/approval of the Prosecutor in the filing of the information.
Indeed, such concurrence is not necessary nor required.

Comelec v. Silva, 286 SCRA 177

Prosecutors designated by the COMELEC to prosecute the cases act as its deputies. They derive their authority from it
and not from their offices. It is beyond his power to oppose the appeal made by the Comelec and leave to the trial
courts the determination of probable cause for the filing of the cases and, if it found none, to dismiss it. Those cases
were filed by the COMELEC after appropriate preliminary investigation. If the Chief State Prosecutor thought there was
no probable cause for proceeding against private respondents, he should have discussed the matter with the
COMELEC and awaited its instruction. If he disagreed with the COMELEC's findings, he should have sought
permission to withdraw from the cases but he could not leave the determination of probable cause to the courts and
agree in advance to the dismissal of the cases should the courts find no probable cause for proceeding with the trial of
the accused.

Decisions of Election Contests

● SECTION 2, (2): “​Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns,
and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and ​appellate jurisdiction over all
contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective
barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.

Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests involving elective municipal and
barangay offices​ shall be final, executory, and not appealable.”

Edding v. Comelec, 246 SCRA 502

The Comelec cannot deprive the Regional Trial Court of its competence to order execution of judgment pending appeal,
because the mere filing of an appeal does not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over a case and the authority to
resolve pending incidents. Since the court had jurisdiction to act on the motion (for execution pending appeal) at the
time it was filed, that jurisdiction continued until the matter was resolved, and was not lost by the subsequent action of
the opposing party.

Galido v. Comelec, 193 SCRA 78

Power of Supreme Court to review appellate decisions of the Comelec. The fact that decisions, final orders or rulings of
the Comelec in contests involving elective municipal and barangay officials are final, executory and not appealable,
does not preclude recourse to the Supreme Court by way of a special civil action for certiorari.

Relampagos v. Cumba, 243 SCRA 690

The COMLEC, in the exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction, has the power to issue writs of prohibition,
mandamus and certiorari, but only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction over election protest cases involving elective

8
 municipal officials decided by courts of general jurisdiction, as provided for in Article IX(C), Section 2 of the 1987
Constitution. It has concurrent jurisdiction with that of the Supreme Court.

People vs. Delgado​, G.R. Nos. 93419-32, September 18, 1990

When the COMELEC, through its duly authorized law officer, conducts the preliminary investigation of an election
offense and upon a ​prima facie​ finding of probable cause, files the information in the proper court, said court thereby
acquires jurisdiction over the case. Consequently, all the subsequent disposition of said case must be subject to the
approval of the court. The COMELEC cannot conduct a re-investigation of the case without the authority of the court or
unless so ordered by the court.

Decisions of Administrative Questions

● SECTION 2, (3): “Decide, except those involving the right to vote, ​all questions affecting elections, including
determination of the number and location of polling places, appointment of election officials and inspectors, and
registration of voters.”

Deputization of Law Enforcement Agencies

● SECTION 2, (4): “​Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, ​law enforcement agencies and
instrumentalities of the Government, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for the exclusive ​purpose
of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.”

Arroyo v. DOJ, 681 SCRA 181

Complaints for violations of election laws may be filed either with the COMELEC or with the Department of Justice and
that it may initiate, motu proprio, complaints for election offenses.The creation of a Joint Committee is not repugnant to
the concept of “concurrent jurisdiction” authorized by the amendatory law. The ​doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction
means equal jurisdiction to deal with the same subject matter. There is no prohibition on simultaneous exercise of
power between two coordinate bodies. What is prohibited is the situation where one files a complaint against a
respondent initially with one office (such as the COMELEC) for preliminary investigation which was immediately acted
upon by said office and the re-filing of the same complaint with another office (such as the DOJ). The subsequent
assumption of jurisdiction by the second office over cases filed will not be allowed. Indeed, it is a settled rule that the
body or agency that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others.
Hence, DOJ can exercise concurrent jurisdiction with COMELEC and not only to conduct preliminary investigation when
deputized by said office.

People v. Judge Basilia, 179 SCRA 87

The Comelec may validly delegate the power to power to the Prosecutor, as it did when it issued Resolution No. 1862,
dated March 2, 1987. The prosecution officers designated by the COMELEC become deputies or agents of the
COMELEC and pro tanto subject to the authority, control and supervision of the COMELEC in respect of the particular
functions covered by such deputation. The acts of such deputies within the lawful scope of their delegated authority are,
in legal contemplation, the acts of the COMELEC itself. The only limitation the Constitution itself places upon the
COMELEC’s authority over its deputies relates to the enforcement of such authority through administrative sanctions.

● SECTION 2, (8): “Recommend to the President the ​removal of any officer or employee it has deputized​, or the
imposition of any other disciplinary action, for violation or disregard of, or disobedience to its directive, order,
or decision.”

Registration of Political Parties

● SECTION 2, (5): “​Register, after sufficient publication, ​political parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in
addition to other requirements, must present their platform or program of government; and accredit citizens’ arms
of the Commission on Elections. ​Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered. ​Those which
seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to this
Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign government shall likewise be refused registration.

9
 Financial contributions from foreign governments ​and their agencies to political parties, organizations,
coalitions, or candidates related to elections constitute interference in national affairs, and, when accepted, ​shall
be an additional ground for the cancellation of their registration with the Commission, in addition to other
penalties that may be prescribed by law.”

● R.A. 7941: The Party List System Act

1) A ​political party refers to an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or platform, principles and
policies for the general conduct of government and which, as the most immediate means of securing their
adoption, regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members as candidates for public office.
a) It is a ​national party when its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a majority
of the regions. It is a regional party when its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at
least a majority of the cities and provinces comprising the region.
b) A ​sectoral party refers to an organized group of citizens belonging to any of the following sectors: labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth,
veterans, overseas workers and professionals, whose principal advocacy pertains to the special interests
and concerns of their sector.
2) A ​sectoral organization ​refers to a group of citizens or a coalition of groups of citizens who share similar physical
attributes or characteristics, employment, interests or concerns.
3) A ​coalition refers to an aggrupation of duly registered national, regional, sectoral parties or organizations for
political and/or election purposes

Improvement of Elections
● SECTION 2, (7): “​Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize election spending, ​including
limitation of places where propaganda materials shall be posted, and ​to prevent and penalize all forms of
election frauds, offenses, malpractices, and nuisance candidacies.”

● SECTION 2, (9): Submit to the President and the Congress a ​comprehensive report on the conduct of each
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or recall.

SECTION 3: En Banc or Divisions

● The Commission on Elections may sit ​en banc or in two divisions, and shall ​promulgate its rules of
procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. ​All
such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of
decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.

Sarmiento vs. Comelec G. R. No. 105628

All election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, must first be heard and decided by a Division. The
COMELEC En Banc does not have the authority to hear and decide these cases at the first instance.

Reyes vs. RTC of Oriental Mindoro​ G.R. No. 108886 May 5, 1995
All election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, must be decided by the COMELEC division. An aggrieved
party must first file a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc before the case may be brought to the
Supreme Court.

SECTION 4. Regulation of Franchises or Permits

● The Commission may, during the election period, ​supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all
franchises or permits for the operation of transportation and other public utilities, media of communication or
information, all grants, special privileges, or concessions granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency,
or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation or its subsidiary. Such
supervision or regulation shall ​aim to ensure equal opportunity, time, and space, and the right to reply,
including reasonable, equal rates therefore, for public information campaigns and forums among candidates in
connection with the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.

10
Regulations of Public Utilities and Media
● The above authority given to the Commission is to be exercised for the purpose of ensuring “​free, orderly,
honest, peaceful and credible elections” ​and only during the election period
● Government-owned or controlled corporations ​are among those that may be supervised or regulated by the
Commission.
● The provision seeks to ​place all candidates on more or less equal footing in making known their
qualifications ​and platforms and their ​stand on various public issues and ​equalize their opportunities of
winning at the polls.

NATIONAL PRESS CLUB vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS G.R. No. 102653

The COMELEC has thus been expressly authorized by the Constitution to supervise or regulate the enjoyment or
utilization of the franchises or permits for the operation of media of communication and information. The 25 fundamental
purpose of such "supervision or regulation" has been spelled out in the Constitution as the ensuring of "equal
opportunity, time, and space, and the right to reply," as well as uniform and reasonable rates of charges for the use of
such media facilities, in connection with "public information campaigns and forums among candidates.

In our own society, equality of opportunity to proffer oneself for public office, without regard to the level of financial
resources that one may have at one's disposal, is clearly an important value. One of the basic state policies given
constitutional rank by Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution is the egalitarian demand that "the State shall guarantee
equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law."

SECTION 5. Presidential Powers

● No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of sentence for violation of election laws, rules, and
regulations shall be granted ​by the President without the favorable recommendation of the Commission.
● The purpose of this provision is to ​avoid any possibility ​of the President granting pardon, amnesty, parole,
suspension of sentence to violators of law or rules and regulations concerning elections, ​who may belong to his
party or for political reasons.
Parole
● Parole is a method by which a prisoner who has served a portion of his sentence is conditionally released but
remains in legal custody, the condition being that in the case of misbehavior he shall be imprisoned.

Suspension of Sentence
● A suspension of sentence is the ​postponement of the execution of a sentence for a definite time.

SECTION 6. Party System

● A ​free and open party system shall be ​allowed to evolve according to the free choice of the people, subject to
the provisions of this Article

Free and Open Party System

● Growth of political parties encourage-​The Constitution encourages the development of more than two (2)
political parties. It provides that “free and open party system should be allowed to evolve according to the free
choice of the people.
● The ​party-list method (Sec. 7) of electing representatives to represent sectoral interests in Congress is also
expected to pave the way for the full operation of a multi-party system in our country (Art. VI, Sec. 5 (1,2)
● On the other hand, the ​development of more parties makes the political climate more democratic. This means
that political contest will be open to all groups regardless of ideologies.
● The ​greater the number of candidates​, the wider the latitude of choice of the electorate and the less hotly
contested the election than in two-party system.

SECTION 7. Party List System

● No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or coalition ​shall be valid, ​except for those
registered under the party-list system as provided in this Constitution.

11
Concept:
● The ​party-list system is a mechanism of proportional representation in the election of representatives in the
House of Representatives from marginalized or under represented national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations or coalitions thereof registered in the Commission on Election. It is part of electoral process
underrepresented sectors to obtain possible representation in the House of Representative which traditionally is
dominated with big political machinery
● Under the party-list system, people will not vote for the name of the nominee but the party itself. Political parties
which obtain a sufficient percentage of votes cast will be allowed to name their representatives to the House of
Representatives​. (ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. v. COMELEC, GR No. 203766 (April 2, 2013)
● The scheme will give more chances to different parties to be represented in Congress in line with the
Constitutional policy to multi-party system.

SECTION 8. Representation of Political Parties

● Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list system, shall not be represented in
the voters' registration boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other similar bodies.
However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law.

Membership No Longer Allowed

● Under Section 8, it is no longer allowed for political parties, or organizations, including coalitions registered under
the party-list representative, to be represented in the ​registration boards​, ​boards of election inspectors ​(which
are in charge of the conduct of elections and the preparation of election returns), ​board of canvassers (which
proclaim the winning candidate on the basis of such returns, or ​other ​similar bodies​. Such membership is not
allowed to protect the political interest.

Appointment of Poll Watchers

● The representation of numerous parties in said bodies would lead to unruly proceedings. In view of the
constitutional prohibition, such right cannot be granted by law. They are, however, entitled to appoint poll
watchers in accordance with law to protect their political interests. All political parties thus equal protection.

● The law shall define the​ prerogatives of the watchers.

SECTION 9: Election Period

● Unless otherwise fixed by the Commission in special cases, the election period shall commence ​ninety days
before the day of the election​ and shall end​ thirty days after.

SECTION 10: Harrassment and Discrimination

● Bona fide candidates for any public office shall be ​free from any form of harassment and discrimination.

SECTION 11: Funds

● Funds certified by the Commission as necessary to defray the expenses for holding regular and special elections,
plebiscites, initiatives, referenda, and recalls, shall be provided in the regular or special appropriations and,
once approved, shall be ​released automatically upon certification by the Chairman​ of the Commission.

12
 D. Commission on Audit

SECTION 1. Composition and Qualification

Composition
● The Commission on Audit (COA) is composed of ​one (1) Chairman and two (2) Commissioners.
● They shall be ​appointed by the President with the ​consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of
seven years without reappointment​.
● In ​no case​ shall any Member be appointed or designated in a ​temporary or acting capacity​.

Qualifications
● Chairman and two Commissioners shall be:
1. Natural-born citizens​ of the Philippines,
2. At the time of their appointment, ​at least thirty-five years of age​,
3. Certified Public Accountants with ​not less than ten years of auditing experience​, or ​members of
the Philippine Bar​ who have been ​engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years​, and
4. Must ​not have been candidates for any elective position in the elections immediately preceding
appointment.
At ​no time​ shall ​all Members​ of the Commission belong to the ​same profession​.

SECTION 2. Powers and Duties

1. Examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the ​revenue and receipts ​of, and ​expenditures or uses
of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, ​any of its subdivisions,
agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters,

a. On a post- audit basis: constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal
autonomy under this Constitution; autonomous state colleges and universities; other government-owned
or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or
equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the Government.

OSMEÑA vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, 238 SCRA 463

In the exercise of its broad powers, particularly its auditing functions, the COA is guided by certain principles and state
policies to assure that "government funds shall be managed, expended, utilized in accordance with law and regulations,
and safeguarded against loss or wastage xxx with a view to ensuring efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the
operations of government.”

The participation by the City in negotiations for an amicable settlement of a pending litigation and its eventual execution
of a compromise relative thereto, are indubitably within its authority and capacity as a public corporation; and a
compromise of a civil suit in which it is involved as a party, is a perfectly legitimate transaction, not only recognized but
even encouraged by law. -Thus, COA committed grave abuse of discretion when it disallowed the City’s appropriation
of P30,000 made conformably with the compromise agreement.

b. Temporary or special pre-audit: ​Where the internal control system of the audited agency is inadequate.

c. Keep the general accounts of Governmen​t, and ​preserve vouchers and supporting papers for such
period as provided by law.

2. Authority to ​define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required
therefore. Promulgate ​accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and
disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, expensive, extravagant or unconscionable expenditures or uses of
government funds or properties.

13
 THE LAW FIRM OF LAGUESMA MAGSALIN CONSULTA AND GASTARDO vs THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT,
G.R. No. 185544
As a general rule, government-owned and controlled corporations must refer all their legal matters to the Office of the
Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) and are not allowed to engage the legal services of private counsels. It is
only in “extraordinary or exceptional circumstances” or “exceptional cases” that it is allowed to engage the services of
private counsels. Commission on Audit Circular No. 86-255 dated April 2, 1986 and Office of the President
Memorandum Circular No. 9 also require that “before the hiring or employment” of private counsel, the “written
conformity and acquiescence of the [Government Corporate Counsel] and the written concurrence of the Commission
on Audit shall first be secured. . . .”

Accordingly, the payment out of public funds of retainer fees to private law practitioners who are so hired or employed
without the prior written conformity and acquiescence of the Solicitor General or the Government Corporate Counsel, as
well as the written concurrence of the Commission on Audit shall be disallowed in audit and ​the same shall be a
personal liability of the officials concerned.

MARITIME INDUSTRY AUTHORITY vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, G.R. No. 185812

The limitation of the Court’s power of review over COA rulings merely complements its nature as an independent
constitutional body that is tasked to safeguard the proper use of the government and, ultimately, the people’s property
by vesting it with power to (i) determine whether the government entities comply with the law and the rules in disbursing
public funds; and (ii) disallow legal disbursements of these funds. Findings of administrative agencies are accorded not
only respect but also finality when the decision and order are not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that would
amount to grave abuse of discretion.

This court already settled that: [the Commission on Audit] is not required to limit its review only to the grounds relied
upon by a government agency's auditor with respect to disallowing certain disbursements of public funds. In
consonance with its general audit power, respondent Commission on Audit is not merely legally permitted, but is also
duty-bound to make its own assessment of the merits of the disallowed disbursement and not simply restrict itself to
reviewing the validity of the ground relied upon by the auditor of the government agency concerned. To hold otherwise
would render COA's vital constitutional power unduly limited and thereby useless and ineffective.

SAMBELI vs. PROVINCE OF ISABELA, G.R. No. 92279

The Commission on Audit adheres to the policy the government funds and property should be fully protected and
conserved and that irregular, unnecessary, excessive or extravagant expenditures or uses of such funds and property
should be prevented. In the exercise of its jurisdiction, it determines whether or not the fiscal responsibility that rests
directly with the head of the government agency has been properly and effectively discharged [Section 25 (1), P.D. No.
1445 (Auditing Act of the Philippines)], and whether or not there has been loss or wastage of government resources. It
is also empowered to review and evaluate contracts.[(Section 18 (4), ibid.].

OROCIO vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, G.R. No. 75959

In determining whether an expenditure of a Government agency or instrumentality such as the National Power
Corporation (NPC) is irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable, the COA should not be bound
by the opinion of the legal counsel of said agency or instrumentality which may have been the basis for the questioned
disbursement; otherwise, it would indeed become a toothless tiger and its auditing function would be a meaningless
and futile exercise. Its beacon lights then should be nothing more than the pertinent laws and its rules and regulations.

The COA, both under the 1973 and 1987 Constitution, is a collegial body. It must resolve cases presented to it as such.
Its General Counsel cannot act for the Commission for he is not even a Commissioner thereof. He can only offer legal
advice or render an opinion in order to aid the COA in the resolution of a case or a legal question.

BUSTAMANTE vs. COMMISSIONER ON AUDIT, G.R. No. 103309

If We will not sustain the Commission's power and duty to examine, audit and settle accounts pertaining to this
particular expenditures or use of funds and property, owned or held in trust by this government-owned and controlled

14
 corporation, the NPC, We will be rendering inutile this Constitutional Body which has been tasked to be vigilant and
conscientious in safeguarding the proper use of the government's, and ultimately, the people's property.

SECTION 3. Jurisdiction of the Commission

● No law shall be passed exempting any entity of the Government ​or its subsidiaries in any guise whatever, or
any investment of public funds,​ from the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit.

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, G.R. No. 91890

Philippine Airlines (PAL), having ceased to be a government-owned or controlled corporation, is no longer under the
audit jurisdiction of the COA.

'Government agency' or 'agency of the government,' or 'agency' refers to any department, bureau or office of the
National Government, or any of its branches and instrumentalities, or any political subdivision, as well as any
government-owned or controlled corporation, including its subsidiaries or other self-governing board or commission of
the Government." [Section 2(8), Chapter I, Subtitle B, of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987]

BAGATSING vs. COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION, G.R. No. 112399

The Court held that there were three offerors. While two offerors were disqualified, PETRONAS for submitting a bid
below the floor price and WESTMONT for technical reasons, not all the offerors were disqualified. To constitute a failed
bidding under the COA Circular, all the offerors must be disqualified. Petitioners urge that in effect there was only one
bidder and that it cannot be said that there was a competition on "an equal footing". But the COA Circular does not
speak of accepted bids but of offerors, without distinction as to whether they were disqualified.

The COA itself, the agency that adopted the rules on bidding procedure to be followed by government offices and
corporations, had upheld the validity and legality of the questioned bidding. ​The interpretation of an agency of its
own rules should be given more weight than the interpretation by that agency of the law it is merely tasked to
administer.

Prepared By:
Concepcion, Eduardo Jr., B.
Dela Cruz, Jeremy Kimberly M.
Layag, Espher K.
Lerma, Alpha T.
Perez, Paulyne Kae V.

15