EN BANC
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, G.R. No. 162215
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
-
v e r s u s - CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA,
VELASCO, JR. and
NACHURA, JJ.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
Respondent. Promulgated:
July
30, 2007
x - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CORONA, J.:
This Court is once again called upon to settle a controversy
between two independent constitutional bodies and delineate the limits of their
respective powers. In the exercise of its mandate, this Court reaffirms its
commitment to constitutionalism and the rule of law.
This controversy traces its roots to Ombudsman
Simeon V. Marcelo’s letter[1] dated
July 28, 2003 to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) requesting the approval of
the amendment of qualification standards for Director II positions in the
Central Administrative Service and Finance and Management Service of the Office
of the Ombudsman. The letter read:
This
is in relation to the career positions of Director II of the Central
Administrative Service and the Finance and Management Service of this Office.
The qualification standards set for said Director II positions pursuant to
Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 1 dated January 24, 1997 are
as follows:
Education : Bachelor’s degree
Experience
: 3
years of supervisory experience
Training : None
required.
Eligibility : Career Service Executive Eligibility
(CSEE)/Career Executive Service (CES)
The
requirement for a Civil Service Executive Eligibility (CSEE)/Career Executive
Service (CES) eligibility presupposes that the Director II position belongs to
the third level and positions therein are covered by the Career Executive
Service.
However,
in the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 18, 2001 on CA-G.R. SP
No. 49699 as affirmed by the Supreme Court with finality on July 2, 2002 in
G.R. No. 148782 entitled “Khem N. Inok vs. Civil Service Commission”, it is
stated in said Decision that the letter and intent of the law is to circumscribe the Career Executive Service (CES) to CES
positions in the Executive Branch of Government, and that the Judiciary, the
Constitutional Commissions, the Office of the Ombudsman and the Commission on
Human Rights are not covered by the CES governed by the Career Executive
Service Board. Said Decision effectively granted the petition of Mr. Inok for security
of tenure as Director III of the Commission on Audit despite the absence of a CES
eligibility.
Accordingly
and consistent with the provision of Section 22(2), please be advised that the
Office of the Ombudsman has established the qualification standards for the
positions of Director II of the Central Administrative Service and Finance
Management Service as follows:
Education : Bachelor’s degree
Experience : 3 years of supervisory experience
Training : None
required.
Eligibility
: Career Service Professional/
Relevant Eligibility for Second Level
Position
In view of the foregoing, it is
respectfully requested that the Commission approve the qualification standards
for the above positions.[2]
Acting
thereon, the CSC issued Opinion No. 44, s. 2004[3] dated
January 23, 2004 disapproving the request.
This
refers to [the Office of the Ombudsman’s] proposed qualification standards (QS)
for Director II position in the Central Administrative Service and Finance
Management Service, Office of the
Ombudsman, which was forwarded to this
Office by Director Agnes Padilla of CSC-NCR.
Invoking
the Decision of the Court of Appeals in the Inok case, that Office established
the QS for the position of Director II of the Central Administrative Service
and Finance Management [Service], as follows:
Education : Bachelor’s degree
Experience : 3 years of supervisory experience
Training : None required
Eligibility : Career Service Professional/
Relevant
Eligibility for
Second Level
position
Under
the 1997 Revised Qualification Standards Manual, the qualification requirements
for Director II positions are as follows:
Education : Bachelor’s degree
Experience
: 3
years of supervisory experience
Training : None
required
Eligibility : Career Service Executive Eligibility
(CSEE)/Career Executive
Service (CES)
The Commission strictly subscribes to the
policy that Director II position being third level eligibility and [is] covered
by the Career Executive Service.[4] In CSC
Resolution No. 030919 dated August 28, 2003, the Commission rule[d] as follows:
“The
pronouncement of the Court of Appeals in the Inok case cannot be made the basis
for changing the employment status of De Jesus. Let it be stressed that nowhere
in the aforesaid decision states that the Office of the Ombudsman or other
constitutional agencies mentioned therein are exempt or are not covered by
Civil Service Law and Rules. On the contrary, the same decision declares that
these bodies are covered by the civil service system.
Basic is the
rule that all appointments in the government service, particularly the career
service, must be in accordance with the qualification requirements as laid down
under existing civil service rules and regulations. x x x”
The
Commission, as the central personnel agency of the government, is mandated by
the Constitution to administer all levels in the civil service, including that
of the third level. The Administrative Code enumerated the powers and functions
of the Commission, worthy to mention are the following:
“Section 12.
Powers and Functions. – The Commission shall have the following powers and
functions:
(1) Administer
and enforce the constitutional and statutory provisions on the merit system
for all levels and ranks in the Civil Service;
x x x
(4)
Formulate policies and regulations for
the administration, maintenance and implementation of position classification
and compensation and set standards for the establishment, allocation and
reallocation of pay scales, classes and positions; x x x”
The
Ombudsman and other constitutional offices are covered by the civil service
system. To set aside the authority of the Commission to require third level
eligibilities to said offices would be to nullify and strike down the very core
of the civil service, that is, the promotion of merit and fitness principle in
all aspects of personnel administration including the establishment of
qualification standards for all levels and ranks in the government.
In
view of the foregoing, we regret that [the Office of the Ombudsman’s] request
for approval of the qualification standards for the position of Director II at
the Central Administrative Service and Finance Management Service, Office of
the Ombudsman, cannot be granted.[5]
The
Office of the Ombudsman, claiming that its constitutional and statutory powers were
unduly curtailed, now seeks to set aside and nullify CSC Opinion No. 44, s.
2004 via this petition for certiorari.[6]
The
Office of the Ombudsman asserts that its specific, exclusive and discretionary
constitutional and statutory power as an independent constitutional body to
administer and supervise its own officials and personnel, including the
authority to administer competitive examinations and prescribe reasonable
qualification standards for its own officials, cannot be curtailed by the
general power of the CSC to administer the civil service system. Any
unwarranted and unreasonable restriction on its discretionary authority, such
as what the CSC did when it issued Opinion No. 44, s. 2004, is constitutionally
and legally infirm.
We
agree with the Office of the Ombudsman.
The CSC’s opinion that the Director
II positions in the Central Administrative Service and the Finance and
Management Service of the Office of the Ombudsman are covered by the CES is
wrong. Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Section 7 of EO[7] 292,
otherwise known as “The Administrative Code of 1987,” provides:
SECTION 7. Career Service. – The
Career Service shall be characterized by (1) entrance based on merit and
fitness to be determined as far as practicable by competitive examination, or
based on highly technical qualifications; (2) opportunity for advancement to
higher career positions; and (3) security of tenure.
The Career Service shall include:
(1) Open Career positions
for appointment to which prior qualification in an appropriate examination is
required;
(2) Closed Career positions
which are scientific, or highly technical in nature; these include the faculty
and academic staff of state colleges and universities, and scientific and
technical positions in scientific or research institutions which shall
establish and maintain their own merit systems;
(3) Positions in the Career Executive Service; namely, Undersecretary,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau Director, Assistant Bureau Director, Regional
Director, Assistant Regional Director, Chief of Department Service and other
officers of equivalent rank as may be identified by the Career Executive
Service Board, all of whom are appointed
by the President;
x x x x x
x x x x (emphasis supplied)
Thus, the CES covers presidential
appointees only. As this Court ruled in Office
of the Ombudsman v. CSC:[8]
From the above-quoted provision of the Administrative Code, persons occupying positions in the CES are
presidential appointees. x x x (emphasis supplied)
Under the Constitution, the Ombudsman
is the appointing authority for all officials and employees of the Office of
the Ombudsman, except the Deputy Ombudsmen.[9] Thus, a
person occupying the position of Director II in the Central Administrative
Service or Finance and Management Service of the Office of the Ombudsman is
appointed by the Ombudsman, not by the President. As such, he is neither embraced
in the CES nor does he need to possess CES eligibility.[10]
To
classify the positions of Director II in the Central Administrative Service and
the Finance and Management Service of the Office of the Ombudsman as covered by
the CES and require appointees thereto to acquire CES or CSE[11]
eligibility before acquiring security of tenure will lead to unconstitutional
and unlawful consequences. It will result either in (1) vesting the appointing
power for said position in the President, in violation of the Constitution or
(2) including in the CES a position not held by a presidential appointee,
contrary to the Administrative Code.[12]
Section 6, Article XI of the
Constitution provides:
Sec.
6. The officials and employees of the Office of the Ombudsman, other than the
Deputies, shall be appointed by the Ombudsman according to the Civil Service
Law.
This is complemented by RA[13] 6770,
otherwise known as “The Ombudsman Act of 1989.” Section 11 thereof states:
Sec.
11. Structural Organization. – The
authority and responsibility for the exercise of the mandate of the Office of
the Ombudsman and for the discharge of its power and functions shall be vested
in the Ombudsman, who shall have supervision
and control of the said Office.
(1) The Office of the Ombudsman may organize such directorates for
administration and allied services as may be necessary for the effective
discharge of its functions.
Those appointed as directors or heads shall have the rank and salary of
line bureau directors.
x
x x x x x x x x
(5) The position structure and
staffing pattern of the Office of the Ombudsman, including the Office of the
Special Prosecutor, shall be approved and prescribed by the Ombudsman. The
Ombudsman shall appoint all officers and employees of the Office of the Special
Prosecutor, in accordance with the civil service law, rules and regulations.
(emphasis supplied)
Under the Constitution, the Office of
the Ombudsman is an independent body.[14] As a guaranty
of this independence, the Ombudsman has the power to appoint all officials and
employees of the Office of the Ombudsman, except his deputies.[15] This
power necessarily includes the power of setting, prescribing and administering
the standards for the officials and personnel of the Office.
To further ensure its independence, the
Ombudsman has been vested with the power of administrative control and
supervision of the Office. This includes the authority to organize such
directorates for administration and allied services as may be necessary for the
effective discharge of the functions of the Office, as well as to prescribe and
approve its position structure and staffing pattern. Necessarily, it also includes
the authority to determine and establish the qualifications, duties, functions
and responsibilities of the various directorates and allied services of the
Office. This must be so if the constitutional intent to establish an independent
Office of the Ombudsman is to remain meaningful and significant.
Qualification standards are used as
guides in appointment and other personnel actions, in determining training needs
and as aid in the inspection and audit of the personnel work programs.[16] They
are intimately connected to the power to appoint as well as to the power of administrative
supervision. Thus, as a corollary to the Ombudsman’s appointing and supervisory
powers, he possesses the authority to establish reasonable qualification
standards for the personnel of the Office of the Ombudsman.
In this connection, Book V, Title I,
Subtitle A, Chapter 5, Section 22[17] of the
Administrative Code provides:
SEC. 22. Qualification Standards.
– (1) A qualification standard expresses the minimum requirements for a class
of positions in terms of education, training and experience, civil service
eligibility, physical fitness, and other qualities required for successful
performance. The degree of qualifications of an officer or employee shall be
determined by the appointing authority on the basis of the qualification
standard for the particular position.
Qualification standards shall be used as basis for civil service
examinations for positions in the career service, as guides in appointment and
other personnel actions, in the adjudication of protested appointments, in
determining training needs, and as aid in the inspection and audit of the
agencies’ personnel work programs.
It shall be administered in such manner as to continually provide
incentives to officers and employees towards professional growth and foster the
career system in the government service.
(2) The establishment,
administration and maintenance of qualification standards shall be the
responsibility of the department or agency, with the assistance and
approval of the Civil Service Commission and in consultation with the Wage and
Position Classification Office. (emphasis supplied)
Since the responsibility for the
establishment, administration and maintenance of qualification standards lies
with the concerned department or agency, the role of the CSC is limited to
assisting the department or agency with respect to these qualification
standards and approving them. The CSC cannot substitute its own standards for
those of the department or agency, specially in a case like this in which an
independent constitutional body is involved.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby GRANTED and Opinion No. 44, s. 2004
dated January 23, 2004 of the Civil Service Commission is SET ASIDE.
The Civil
Service Commission is hereby ordered to approve the amended qualification
standards for Director II positions in the Central Administrative Service and the
Finance and Management Service of the Office of the Ombudsman.
No
costs.
SO
ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate Justice |
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice
|
|
MA. ALICIA M.
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice |
|
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 34-37.
[2] Id.
[3] Signed by Chairperson Karina Constantino-David. Id., pp. 32-33.
[4] Id. Emphasis supplied for this particular statement only. Subsequent emphases were made in the original.
[5] Id.
[6] Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
[7] Executive Order.
[8] G.R. No. 159940, 16 February 2005, 451 SCRA 570.
[9] Section 6, Article XI.
[10] Besides, this Court has already set aside CSC resolution no. 030919 dated August 28, 2003. (Office of the Ombudsman v. CSC supra). Hence, the CSC could not validly invoke it to justify its position regarding the Office of the Ombudsman’s request for approval of the amendment of qualification standards for Director II positions in its Central Administrative Service and its Finance and Management Service.
[11] Career Service Executive.
[12] Office of the Ombudsman v. CSC, supra.
[13] Republic Act.
[14] See Section 5, Article XI of the Constitution.
[15]
The
rationale for the constitutional grant to the Office of the Ombudsman, the
constitutional commissions (i.e., the
CSC, the Commission and Elections and the Commission on Audit) and the
Commission on Human Rights of the power to appoint their own officers and
employees is mainly to safeguard their independence. This power of appointment
is similar to the authority granted to this Court with regard to the officials
and employees under Section 5(6) of the Constitution.
[16] See Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 5, Section 22 of the Administrative Code.
[17] This is identical to Section 20 of PD 807, otherwise known as “The Civil Service Decree of the Philippines.”