Political Law Part IX: Article IX – Constitutional Commissions

POLITICAL LAW PART IX

ARTICLE IX – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

1.  A & B – Sections 1-8

Section 7. Each Commission shall decide  by a majority vote of all its members any case brought before it…Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order or ruling of each commission may be brought to the SC on Certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt thereof.

NOTE: Section 1, Rule 43 allows the Court of Appeals to have appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the CSC in accordance with RA 7902)

Section 2, Article IX-B. The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the government, including government owned and controlled corporations WITH ORIGINAL CHARTERS.

[2] Appointments in the CS shall be made only according to merit and fitness to be determined as far as practicable, and except as to positions which are policy determining, primarily confidential or highly technical, by competitive examination.

[5] The right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employees.

Policy determining is one charged with laying down of principal or fundamental guidelines or rules, such as that head of a department.

Primarily confidential position is one denoting not only confidence in the aptitude of the appointee for the duties of the office but primarily close intimacy which ensures freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings or betrayals of the personal trust on confidential matters of the state (Example: Chief Legal Counsel of the PNB, Besa vs. PNB, 33 SCRA 330).

Highly technical position requires the appointee thereto to possess technical skill or training in the supreme or superior degree.

Section 6. 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 any of their subsidiaries.

a.   Government and controlled corporations

Read:

These cases were decided under the 1973 constitution where it was held that employees of government owned and controlled corporations, with or without charters are within the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. Under the 1987 Constitution, there is now a distinction and only those with original charters shall be under the CSC while those created under the Corporation Code are not.

1)   NHC VS. JUCO, 134 SCRA 172

          2)   MWSS VS. HERNANDEZ, 143 SCRA 602

          3)   QUIMPO VS. TANODBAYAN, December 2, 1986,      146 SCRA

          4)   PAL VS. CFI, January 8, 1987

   b.   Checking function of the CSC

Read:

1)   DE LOS SANTOS VS. MALLARE, 87 Phil. 289

          2)   MEDALLA VS. SAYO, 103 SCRA 587

          3)   MATURAN VS. MAGLARA, 113 SCRA 268

          4)   DE GUZMAN VS. SUBIDO, 120 SCRA 443

          5)   ANZALDO VS. CLAVE, 119 SCRA 353

          6)   CENTRAL BANK VS. CSC, April 10, 1989

     b-1. Security of Tenure

1. Alim vs. CSC, December 2, 1991

                   2. Marohombsar vs. Alonto, February 25, 1991

       b-2. Power of the CSC to change appointee selected by Head of Office

1. Panis vs. CSC, Feb. 2, 1994

                   1-b. Home Insurance vs. CSC, March 19, 1993

                   1-c. Medenilla vs. CSC, February 19, 1991

                   2. Simpao vs. CSC, November 15, 1990

                   3. Barrozo vs. CSC and Valentino Julian, June 25, 1991

                   4. Lapinid vs. CSC, May 14, 1991

                   5. Santiago vs. CSC, 178 SCRA 733

                   6. Orbos vs. CSC, Sept. 12, 1990

                   7. Teologo vs. CSC, Nov. 8, 1990

                   8. Gaspar vs. CSC, Oct. 18, 1990

                   9. Luego vs. CSC, 143 SCRA 327

    c. Primarily confidential

Read:

1) CADIENTE VS. SANTOS, 142 SCRA 280 (Provincial Legal Officer is a primarily confidential office, but not his assistant)

          2) SAMSON VS. CA, 145 SCRA( The City Legal officer is a primarily confidential officer)

  d. Highly technical/policy determining

1) DE LOS SANTOS VS. MALLARE, 87 Phil. 289

          2) MEDALLA VS. SAYO, 103 SCRA 587

          3) MATURAN VS. MAGLARA, 113 SCRA 268

          4) DE GUZMAN VS. SUBIDO, 120 SCRA 443

          5) ANZALDO VS. CLAVE, 119 SCRA 353

e.   Dismissal for cause

Read:

1)   ANG-ANGCO VS. CASTILLO, 9 SCRA 619

          2)   VILLALUZ VS. ZALDIVAR, 15 SCRA 710

          3)   HERNANDEZ VS. VILLEGAS, 14 SCRA 544

          4)   BRIONES VS. OSMENA, 104 Phil. 588

          5)   CORPUZ VS. CUADERNO, 13 SCRA 175

          6)   CRISTOBAL VS. MELCHOR, 78 SCRA 175

          7)   INGLES VS. MUTUC, 26 SCRA 171

          8)   ALCOLALO VS. TANTUICO, 83 SCRA 789

          9)   ABROT VS. CA, 116 SCRA 468

         10)   GINSON VS. MUN. OF MURCIA, 158 SCRA 1

         11)   MARCELINO VS. TANTUICO, July 7, 1986

             12)   CADIENTE VS. SANTOS, June 11, 1986

     f.   May gov’t. employees form unions for purposes of collective bargaining and to strike against the government?

Read:

1)   ALLIANCE OF GOVT. WORKERS VS. MOLE, 124 SCRA 1

          2)   Executive Order No. 180 , June 1, 1987              authorizing govt. employees to form unions.

          3)   SANTOS VS. YATCO, 106 Phil. 745

          4)   PEOPLE VS. DE VENECIA, 14 SCRA 864

5. SSSEA vs. Court of Appeals, 175 SCRA 686

          6. NSC vs. NLRC, 168 SCRA 123

     g. May government employees be removed without       cause as a result of a government reorganization?

Read:

RA 6656, June 10, 1988 , An act to protect the security of tenure of civil service officers and employees in the implementation of government reorganization.

Read also 1) DARIO VS. MISON, August 8, 1989

                    2) FLOREZA VS. ONGPIN, February 26, 1990

                  3) MENDOZA VS. QUISUMBING, June 4, 1990

                  4. DOTC vs. CSC, October 3, 1991

                 5. Romualdez vs. CSC, August 12, 1993

                 6. Torio vs. CSC, 209 SCRA 677

**********************************************

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

2.  C, Section 1…..any appointment for any vacancy shall only be for the unexpired term…In no case shall any member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.

Section 2. Powers….enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall….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 courts of general jurisdiction and elective barangay officials  decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.

a.            Deputize law enforcement agencies, including the ASFP..

b.            Register political parties, except religious groups

c.            File complaints for violation of election laws

d.           Regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all franchises for the operation of transportation and other public utilities, media of communication..

a.   Term of COMELEC Commissioners

Read:

1. Brillantes vs. Yorac, Dec. 18, 1991

          1-a)   NP VS. DE VERA, 35 Phil. 126

          2)   REPUBLIC VS. IMPERIAL, 96 Phil 770

b.   Power to enforce and administer laws relative to the conduct of elections.

Read:

1)   TICZON VS. COMELEC, 103 SCRA 671

          2)   SANCHEZ VS. BILIWANG, 114 SCRA 454

2) SANCHEZ VS. BILIWANG, 114 SCRA 454

         b-1. Powers of the COMELEC

1. PANGILINAN VS. COMELEC, NOVEMBER 18, 1993

                   2. NPC VS. COMELEC, 207 SCRA 1

                   3. Labo vs. Comelec, 211 SCRA 297

     c.   Sole judge of all election contests

Read:

1)   GABATAN VS. COMELEC, 122 SCRA 1

          2)   GAD VS. COMELEC, May 26, 1987

          3)   UPP-KBL VS. COMELEC, June 4, 1987

          4)   DEFERIA VS. PARAS, 141 SCRA 518

     d.   Distinguish referendum from plebiscite

Read:     SANIDAD VS. COMELEC, 73 SCRA 333

   e.   Cases to be decided by the COMELEC EN BANC OR IN DIVISION 

Read:

CUA VS. COMELEC, 156 SCRA 582

f.   Regulation and control of public utilities like TV stations during the election period

Read:     UNIDO VS. COMELEC, 104 SCRA 17

     g.   Election inspectors

Read:     KBL VS. COMELEC, December 11, 1986

     h.   Are decisions of the COMELEC appealable? If so, to what court? On what ground or grounds?

Read:

1. Galido vs. Comelec, January 18, 1991

                   2. Garcia vs. De Jesus, March 4, 1992

3.  Art. IX-D, Secs. 1-4

Powers of the COA

Read:

  1. Caltex vs. COA, 208 SCRA 726

          2. Bustamante vs. COA, 216 SCRA 134

          3. Orocio vs. COA, 213 SCRA 109

Reference:

Political Law Reviewer by Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

College of Law, University of the Cordilleras

Baguio City

About these ads

About Magz

First of all, I am not a lawyer. I'm a graduate of AB Political Science and went to the College of Law but stopped going to law school for some reasons. I'm a passionate teacher who has been teaching English to speakers of other languages and a person who likes writing and blogging. I lost some important files and software when my computer broke down so the reason I created this website is to preserve the notes, reviewers and digests I collected when I was at the law school and at the same time, I want to help out law students who do not have enough time to go and read books in the library.

Posted on May 9, 2011, in Political Law and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 292 other followers

%d bloggers like this: