Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Topic Author Case Title GR No

    Uploaded by

    Loreen Danao
    48 views3 pages
    1) The case involved a challenge to an executive order appointing the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) as an ex-officio member of the boards of several government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs). 2) The Supreme Court ruled that this appointment violated the constitutional provision prohibiting members of constitutional commissions from holding any other office or employment. As the GOCCs were under the control of the President, the Chairman's membership on their boards impaired the independence of the CSC. 3) The Court also found that the Chairman's duties as a board member of the GOCCs, which extended beyond personnel matters to other corporate powers and functions, violated the prohibition on dual office holding

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    6_FUNA_V_DUQUE

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) The case involved a challenge to an executive order appointing the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) as an ex-officio member of the boards of several government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs). 2) The Supreme Court ruled that this appointment violated the constitutional provision prohibiting members of constitutional commissions from holding any other office or employment. As the GOCCs were under the control of the President, the Chairman's membership on their boards impaired the independence of the CSC. 3) The Court also found that the Chairman's duties as a board member of the GOCCs, which extended beyond personnel matters to other corporate powers and functions, violated the prohibition on dual office holding

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    48 views3 pages

    Topic Author Case Title GR No

    Uploaded by

    Loreen Danao
    1) The case involved a challenge to an executive order appointing the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) as an ex-officio member of the boards of several government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs). 2) The Supreme Court ruled that this appointment violated the constitutional provision prohibiting members of constitutional commissions from holding any other office or employment. As the GOCCs were under the control of the President, the Chairman's membership on their boards impaired the independence of the CSC. 3) The Court also found that the Chairman's duties as a board member of the GOCCs, which extended beyond personnel matters to other corporate powers and functions, violated the prohibition on dual office holding

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

    TOPIC CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS: CSC - DISQUALIFICATIONS AUTHOR 6_Loda

    CASE FUNA V. DUQUE 191672


    GR NO
    TITLE

    TICKLER EO 864: CSC Chairman board member of GOCCs DATE November 25, 2014

    DOCTRINE No Member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other office or employment.
    Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in the active management or control of any business
    which in any way may be affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he be financially interested, directly or
    indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the Government, any of its subdivisions,
    agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

    FACTS Summarized Facts:


     Jan. 11, 2010: Pres. Arroyo appointed Duque as chairman of CSC, confirmed by the Commission on
    Appointments o
     Feb. 22, 2010: Arroyo issued EO 864, providing for the inclusion of the chairman of the civil service
    commission in the board of trustees/directors of the GSIS, PhilHealth, Employees’ Compensation
    Commission (ECC) And The Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF)
     Pursuant to EO, Duque was designated as member of the Board of Directors or Trustees of the said
    GOCCs
     Funa filed petition assailing constitutionality of the EO, as well as of Sec 14, Chap. 3, Title I-A, Book V of
    the 1987 Admin Code, also contending that designation of Duque n said positions in the GOCCs
    (Petitioner’s Points)
    a) The CSC is not a part of the Executive Branch of Government while the concerned GOCCs are considered
    instrumentalities of the Executive Branch of the Government. In this situation, the President may
    exercise his power of control over the CSC considering that the GOCCs in which Duque sits as Board
    member are attached to the Executive Department
    b) Mentioned Provision of Admin Code unduly and unconstitutionally expands the role of the CSC, which
    is primarily centered on personnel-related concerns involving government workers, to include
    insurance, housing and health matters of employees in the government service
    c) Charters of the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF do not mention that the CSC Chairman sits as a
    member of their governing Boards in an ex-officio capacity. Such being the case, the President may not
    amend the charters, which are enacted by Congress, by the mere issuance of an executive order
    d) Provision of Admin Code violate the prohibition imposed upon members of constitutional commissions
    from holding any other office or employment. A conflict of interest may arise
    (Respondent’s Points)
    a) Admin Code preserve the independence of the CSC considering that GOCCs with original charters such
    as the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF are excluded from the supervision and control that secretaries
    and heads exercise over the departments to which these GOCCs are attached. Ultimately, these GOCCs
    are exempted from the executive control of the President.
    b) Admin Code indicates that the CSC Chairman’s membership in the governing bodies mentioned therein
    merely imposes additional duties and functions as an incident and necessary consequence of his
    appointment as CSC Chairman.
    c) Charters of the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF, are consistent with each other. While the charters of
    these GOCCs do not provide that CSC Chairman shall be a member of their respective governing Boards,
    there is likewise no prohibition mentioned under said charters.
    d) To the matter of conflict of interest, respondents point out that Duque is just one member of the CSC,
    or of the Boards of the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF, such that matters resolved by these bodies
    may be resolved with or without Duque’s participation. Respondents submit that the prohibition against
    holding any other office or employment under Section 2, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution does not
    cover positions held without additional compensation in ex officio capacities.
    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

    ISSUE/S  Substantive
    1. WON the designation of Duque as member of the Board of Directors or Trustees of the GSIS,
    PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF, in an ex officio capacity, impair the independence of the CSC
    2. WON said designation of Duque, although in an ex-officio capacity violated the constitutional prohibition
    against the holding of dual or multiple offices for the Members of the Constitutional Commissions
    RULING/S  Substantive
    1. YES. The Court partially granted the petition.

    Section 2, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution, provides:

    Section 2. No Member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other office or
    employment. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in the active management
    or control of any business which in any way may be affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he
    be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise or privilege
    granted by the Government, any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including
    government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

    This is intended to safeguard the independence of Constitutional Commissions, provided for in Section
    1, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution. Although their respective functions are essentially executive in
    nature, they are not under the control of the President in the discharge of such functions. Each of the
    Constitutional Commissions conducts its own proceedings under the applicable laws and its own rules
    and in the exercise of its own discretion. Its decisions, orders and rulings are subject only to review on
    certiorari by the Court as provided by Section 7, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution.

    The issue herein involves the first disqualification abovementioned, which is the disqualification from
    holding any other office or employment during Duque’s tenure as Chairman of the CSC. The Court finds
    it imperative to interpret this disqualification in relation to Section 7, paragraph (2), Article IX-B of the
    Constitution. Section 7, paragraph (2),Article IX-B reads:
    Section 7. x x x
    Unless otherwise allowed by law or 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.

    Moreover, GSIS, PhilHealth, Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC) And The Home Development
    Mutual Fund (HDMF) have a status of a government corporation and are deemed attached to the
    Department of Health and the Department of Labor, respectively. On the other hand, the GSIS and HDMF
    fall under the Office of the President. The corporate powers of the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF are
    exercised through their governing Boards, members of which are all appointed by the President of the
    Philippines. Undoubtedly, the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF and the members of their respective
    governing Boards are under the control of the President. As such, the CSC Chairman cannot be a member
    of a government entity that is under the control of the President without impairing the independence
    vested in the CSC by the 1987 Constitution.

    2. YES.

    Given that Funa was designated as an ex-officio member, the Court reviewed the duties of the CSC
    Chairman in relation to the functions of the members of the Board of Trustees for each GOCC mentioned.
    The Court found that the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF are vested by their respective charters with
    various powers and functions to carry out the purposes for which they were created. While powers and
    functions associated with appointments, compensation and benefits affect the career development,
    employment status, rights, privileges, and welfare of government officials and employees, the GSIS,
    PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF are also tasked to perform other corporate powers and functions that are
    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

    not personnel-related. All of these powers and functions, whether personnel-related or not, are carried
    out and exercised by the respective Boards of the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF. Hence, when the
    CSC Chairman sits as a member of the governing Boards of the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF, he
    may exercise these powers and functions, which are not anymore derived from his position as CSC
    Chairman, such as imposing interest on unpaid or unremitted contributions, issuing guidelines for the
    accreditation of health care providers, or approving restructuring proposals in the payment of unpaid
    loan amortizations.

    Furthermore, the Court also notes that Duque’s designation as member of the governing Boards of the
    GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF entitles him to receive per diem, a form of additional compensation
    that is disallowed by the concept of an ex officio position by virtue of its clear contravention of the
    proscription set by Section 2, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution. This situation goes against the
    principle behind an ex officio position, and must, therefore, be held unconstitutional.

    NOTES

    You might also like