Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Funa v. Duque

    Uploaded by

    CJ Millena
    48 views2 pages
    This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of an executive order appointing the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to the boards of several government-owned and controlled corporations. The Supreme Court ruled the executive order violated the independence of the CSC and the prohibition on dual office holding. However, the Court clarified that all official actions taken by the Chairman in his role on the boards would still be considered valid and binding.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    8. Funa v. Duque .docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of an executive order appointing the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to the boards of several government-owned and controlled corporations. The Supreme Court ruled the executive order violated the independence of the CSC and the prohibition on dual office holding. However, the Court clarified that all official actions taken by the Chairman in his role on the boards would still be considered valid and binding.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    48 views2 pages

    Funa v. Duque

    Uploaded by

    CJ Millena
    This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of an executive order appointing the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to the boards of several government-owned and controlled corporations. The Supreme Court ruled the executive order violated the independence of the CSC and the prohibition on dual office holding. However, the Court clarified that all official actions taken by the Chairman in his role on the boards would still be considered valid and binding.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Funa v.

    Duque
    G.R. No. 191672
    November 25, 2014
    J. Bersamin

    Facts:
    • On January 11, 2010, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appointed Duque as Chairman of
    the CSC. The Commission on Appointments confirmed Duque’s appointment on February 3,
    2010.
    • On February 22, 2010,President Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 864 (EO 864), appointing
    the chairman of the CSC to the Board of Trustees/Directors of GSIS, Philhealth, ECC and the
    HDMF. EO 292 was also mentioned in EO 864, to wit
    “Section 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987
    (Executive Order No. 292) expressly states that the Chairman of the CSC shall be a
    member of the Board of Directors or of other governing bodies of government
    entities whose functions affect the career development, employment, status, rights,
    privileges, and welfare of government officials and employees, such as the
    Government Service Insurance System, Foreign Service Board, Foreign Trade
    Service Board, National Board for Teachers, and such other similar boards as may
    be created by law”

    Arguments of the Petitioner


    • Petitioner went to Court to question the Constitutionality of EO 864. According to the petitioner,
    EO 864 and Section 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V of EO 292 violate the independence of the
    CSC, which was constitutionally created to be protected from outside influences and political
    pressures due to the significance of its government functions.
    • He further asserts that such independence is violated by the fact that 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
    • Petitioner also argues that Section 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V of EO 292 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.
    • Petitioner notes that the 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.

    Arguments of the Respondent:


    • EO 864 and Section 14, Chapter 3, Title IA, Book V of EO 292 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.
    • 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. Relying on the pronouncement in Civil Liberties Union v.
    Executive Secretary, they assert that since the 1987 Constitution, which provides a stricter
    prohibition against the holding of multiple offices by executive officials, allows them to hold
    positions in ex officio capacities, the same rule is applicable to members of the Constitutional
    Commissions. Moreover, the mandatory tenor of Section 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V of EO
    292 clearly 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.
    • Respondents insist that EO 864 and Section 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V of EO 292, as well
    as the 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.

    Issue:

    • Does the designation of Duque as member of the BOD/BOT of the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC
    and HDMF, in an ex officio capacity, impair the independence of the CSC and violate the
    constitutional prohibition against the holding of dual or multiple offices for the Members of the
    Constitutional Commissions?

    Held:

    • Yes, the designation of Duque as member of the BOD/BOT of GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and
    HDMF is unconstitutional.
    • 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.
    • 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 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.
    • 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.
    • As provided in their respective charters, PHILHEALTH and ECC have the 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.
    • However, the Court holds that Duque is a de facto officer hence all official actions of Duque as a
    Director or Trustee of the GSIS, PHILHEAL TH, ECC and HDMF, were presumed valid, binding
    and effective as if he was the officer legally appointed and qualified for the office. This
    clarification is necessary in order to protect the sanctity and integrity of the dealings by the public
    with persons whose ostensible authority emanates from the State. Duque's official actions
    covered by this clarification extend but are not limited to the issuance of Board resolutions and
    memoranda approving appointments to positions in the concerned GOCCs, promulgation of
    policies and guidelines on compensation and employee benefits, and adoption of programs to
    carry out the corporate powers of the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF.

    You might also like