ELECTION LAW • ADMIN LAW • LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS 5.

  Incumbent sectoral representatives in the House of

Atty. R. Pascasio Representatives who are nominated in the party-list
K. Sumaya system shall not be considered resigned.

Qualifications of Party-list Nominees

POLITICAL PARTY; PARTY-LIST ORGANIZATION 1.   Natural-born citizen of the Philippines;
2.   Able to read and write;
PARTY 3.   Registered voter;
Political Sectoral Coalition 4.   A bona fide member of the party which he seeks to
An organized group of An organized group of Aggrupation of
citizens advocating an citizens belonging to any duly registered
represent for at least 90 days preceding the election;
ideology or platform, of the following sectors: nat’l, regional, 5.   At least 25 y/o; youth at least 25y/o but not more than
principles and policies for labor, peasant, fisherfolk, sectoral parties 30 y/o;
the general conduct of urban poor, indigenous or orgs. for 6.   Resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than
the government and cultural communities, political and/or
1 year immediately preceding the day of election.
which, as the most elderly, handicapped, election
immediate means of women, youth, veterans, purposes.
securing their adoption, overseas workers and Parameters in Philippine Party-List Election
regularly nominates and professionals, whose 1.   20% allocation – 20% of the total number of
supports certain of its principal advocacy
membership of the House of Representatives is the
leaders and members as pertains to the special
candidates for public interest and concerns of maximum number of seats available to party-list
office. their sector. organizations; such as there is automatically 1 party-
Groups which cannot be Sectoral parties or orgs list seat for every 4 existing legislative district;
registered as political may either be 2.   Guaranteed seat for a party-list organization
parties: marginalized or
1. Religious sects or underrepresented OR
garnering 2% of the total votes cast;
denominations; lacking in well-defined 3.   Proportional representation – the additional seats shall
2. Those who seek to political constituencies. be distributed to the party-list organizations garnering
achieve their goals sufficient number of votes in proportion to their total
through violence of
number of votes until all the additional seats are
unlawful means;
3. Those who refuse to allocated.
uphold and adhere to the 4.   Three-seat capacity: each qualified party, regardless
Constitution; of the votes obtained by a particular party, it is only
4. Those supported by entitled to a maximum of three seats.
foreign governments.

Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC – 13 party-lists’

Registration – by filing with the COMELEC not later than 90 days
before the election a petition verified by its president or
secretary stating its desire to participate in the party-list system
as a national, regional, or sectoral party or organization or a
coalition of such parties or organizations.
a.   To acquire juridical personality;
b.   To entitle it to rights and privileges granted to
 over .80 𝑥 .20
political parties;
c.   To qualify for subsequent accreditation.
•   A political party, organization or coalition shall be
registered under the party-list system as provided in
the Constitution in order for votes to be cast.
Grounds for Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration
1.   It is a religious denomination or sect, or organization
for religious purposes;
2.   It advocates violence/unlawful means to seek goals;
3.   It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules and
regulations relating to elections;
4.   It is a foreign party or organization;
5.   It is receiving support from foreign government or
party, directly or indirectly;
6.   It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
7.   It has ceased to exist for at least 1 year; or
8.   It fails to participate in the last 2 preceding elections
or fails to obtain at least 2% of the votes cast under the
party-list system in the two preceding elections.
Nomination of Party-list Nominees
1.   Submit not later than 45 days before the election a list
of names (with consent in writing by nominee), not less
than five (5), from which party-list representatives shall
be chosen in case it obtains the required number of
votes.
2.   A person may be nominated in one (1) list only.
3.   The list shall not include any candidate for any
elective office or a person who has lost his bid for an
elective office in the immediately preceding election.
4.   No change of names shall be allowed after submission
except (a) when the nominee withdraws in writing his
nomination; (b) when the nominee becomes
incapacitated; or (c) when the nominee dies.
representatives were proclaimed for being able to reach the 2%
mark. PAG-ASA filed a petition to mandate COMELEC to proclaim
and fill all the 52 slots provided for the party-list system. Hence, all 52
slots were filled by disregarding the 2% threshold. Proper formula:
To determine the number of party-list representatives:
𝑁𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 D𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡 Representatives
1.   Rank all the participating parties, organizations and
coalitions from the highest to the lowest based on the
number of votes they each received. Then the ratio for
each party is computed by dividing its votes by the total
votes cast for all the parties participating in the system. All
parties with at least two percent of the total votes are
guaranteed one seat each. Only these parties shall be
considered in the computation of additional seats. The
party receiving the highest number of votes shall
thenceforth be referred to as the "first" party.
2.   Determine the number of seats the first party is entitled to,
in order to be able to compute that for the other parties.
Since the distribution is based on proportional
representation, the number of seats to be allotted to the
other parties cannot possibly exceed that to which the
first party is entitled by virtue of its obtaining the most
number of votes.
3.   Solve for the number of additional seats that the other
qualified parties are entitled to, based on proportional
representation.
The Court has previously ruled in Guingona Jr. v. Gonzales
that a fractional membership cannot be converted into a whole
membership of one when it would, in effect, deprive another party's
fractional membership. It would be a violation of the constitutional
mandate of proportional representation.
Ang Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC – Petitioners in this case seek the
disqualification of some political parties and organizations that do
not represent the marginalized sector.
The party-list system is not exclusive to ‘marginalized and
underrepresented’ sectors and organizations. To require all national
and regional parties under the party-list system to represent the
marginalized and underrepresented is to deprive and exclude, by
judicial fiat, ideology-based and cause-oriented parties from the
party-list system.
Political parties, even the major ones, may participate in
the party-list elections. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution
provides that members of the House of Representatives may "be
elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional,
and sectoral parties or organizations." Furthermore, under Sections 7
and 8, Article IX (C) of the Constitution, political parties may be
registered under the party-list system.
Political parties can participate in party-list elections
provided they register under the party-list system and do not field
candidates in legislative district elections. [A political party, whether
major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district elections
can participate in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing
that can separately register under the party-list system. The sectoral
wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a
political party through a coalition.]
BANAT v. Commission on Elections – Only 13 partylists made it to the
2% mark in the 2007 elections. Buhay obtained the highest number
of votes and it got 3 seats in total. Bayan Muna, CIBAC, Gabriela,
and APEC got additional 1 seats each. BANAT filed a petition before
the COMELEC arguing that 55 seats be given to party-lists because
the Congress was composed of 220 district seats at that time.
The 80-20 rule is observed in the following manner: for
every 5 seats allotted for legislative districts, there shall be one seat
allotted for a party-list representative. Originally, the 1987
Constitution provides that there shall be not more than 250 members
of the lower house. However, the Constitution also allowed
Congress to fix the number of the membership of the lower house
as in fact, it can create additional legislative districts as it may deem
appropriate. As can be seen in the May 2007 elections, there were
220 district representatives, hence applying the 80-20 rule or the 5:1
ratio, there should be 55 seats allotted for party-list representatives.
The 20% allocation for party-list representatives is merely a
ceiling – meaning, the number of party-list representatives shall not
exceed 20% of the total number of the members of the lower house.
However, it is not mandatory that the 20% shall be filled.
Likewise, the 3 seat limit rule is valid. This is one way to
ensure that no one party shall dominate the party-list system.
Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC – 52 party-lists were disqualified in the
2013 elections because they were not organized under sectoral
lines. The disqualification was mainly because of them not being
representative of the marginalized.
On the part of national parties or organizations and
regional parties or organizations which intend to participate in the
party-list race, the new guidelines state that these parties “do not
need to organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent
any ‘marginalized or underrepresented sector.'”
As for political parties, they may participate in the party-
list race by registering under the party-list system and no longer field
congressional candidates. These parties, if they field congressional
candidates, however, are not barred from participating in the
party-list elections; what they need to do is register their sectoral
wing or party under the party-list system. This sectoral wing shall be
considered an “independent sectoral party” linked to a political
party through a coalition.
The high court held that purely sectoral parties or
organizations may either represent “marginalized and
underrepresented” constituencies or those “lacking well-defined
political constituencies.” The high court went on to enumerate
“marginalized and underrepresented” sectors, as follows: labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. The sectors that lack
“well-defined political constituencies” include professionals, the
elderly, women, and the youth. The high court stressed that the
framers of the 1987 Constitution did not intend to leave out “non-
sectoral parties” in the party-list system and exclusively limit it to
sectoral groups. The framers intended the sectoral parties to
constitute a part, but not the entirety, of the party-list system. There
can be no doubt whatsoever that the framers of the 1987
Constitution expressly rejected the proposal to make the party-list
system exclusively for sectoral parties only, and that they clearly
intended the party-list system to include both sectoral and non-
sectoral parties.
The rule on nominees and members coming from the
sector they intend to represent also applies only to the sectoral
parties or organizations. As for the nominees of these sectoral parties
and organizations, the new guidelines provide that they must either
be members of the sector or have a track record of advocacy for
their sector. Should some of the nominees of these national,
regional, and sectoral parties or organizations be disqualified, the
party or organization itself will not be disqualified “provided that
they have at least one nominee who remains qualified.”
Palparan v. HRET - Abayon is the wife of an incumbent
Congressman, and she ran for a party-list position under the party-
list Aangat Tayo. They won 1 seat and she assumed office as first
nominee, but private respondents in this case argue that the party
was not qualified to run for not representing the marginalized sector,
and Abayon herself did not represent a marginalized sector.
Meanwhile, Jovito Palparan is the first nominee of Bantay party-list
group. Private respondents also argue that he is not a
representative of the marginalized, especially since he committed
human rights violations against marginalized sectors and
organizations.
Abayon and Palparan argue that HRET has no jurisdiction
because as nominee of their parties, the issue of his eligibility is an
internal matter.
Although it is the party-list organization that is voted for in
the election, it is not the organization that sits as and becomes a
member of the House of Representatives. From the Constitution's
point of view, it is the party-list representatives who are "elected" into
office, not their parties or organizations. These representatives are
elected, however, through that peculiar party-list system that the
Constitution authorized and that Congress by law established where
the voters cast their votes for the organizations or parties to which
such party-list representatives belong.
Once elected, both the district representatives and the
party-list representatives are treated in like manner. They have the
same deliberative rights, salaries, and emoluments. They can
participate in the making of laws that will directly benefit their
legislative districts or sectors. They are also subject to the same term
limitation of three years for a maximum of three consecutive terms.
Petitioners Abayon and Palparan of course point out that
the authority to determine the qualifications of a party-list nominee
belongs to the party or organization that nominated him. This is true,
initially. The right to examine the fitness of aspiring nominees and,
eventually, to choose five from among them after all belongs to the
party or organization that nominates them. But where an allegation
is made that the party or organization had chosen and allowed a
disqualified nominee to become its party-list representative in the
lower House and enjoy the secured tenure that goes with the
position, the resolution of the dispute is taken out of its hand.
AUTOMATED ELECTION SYSTEM (RA 9369)
• Automated Election System – a system using appropriate
technology which has been demonstrated in the voting,
counting, consolidating, canvassing, and transmission of
election result and other electoral processes.
• Paper-based Election System – a type of automated election
system that uses paper ballots, records, and counts votes,
tabulates, consolidates/canvasses and transmits electronically
the results of the vote count.
Minimum System Capabilities
(a)   Adequate security against unauthorized access;
(b)   Accuracy in recording and reading of votes as well as
in the tabulation, consolidation/canvassing,
electronic transmission, and storage of results;
(c)   Error recovery in case of non-catastrophic failure of
device;
(d)   System integrity which ensures physical stability and
functioning of the vote recording and counting
process;
(e)   Provision for voter verified paper audit trail;
(f)   System auditability which provides supporting
documentation for verifying the correctness of
reported election results;
(g)   An election management system for preparing ballots
and programs for use in the casting and counting of
votes and to consolidate, report and display election
result in the shortest time possible;
(h)   Accessibility to illiterates and disable voters;
(i)   Vote tabulating program for election, referendum or
plebiscite;
(j)   Accurate ballot counters;
(k)   Data retention provision;
(l)   Provide for the safekeeping, storing and archiving of
physical or paper resource used in the election
process;
(m)   Utilize or generate official ballots as herein defined;
(n)   Provide the voter a system of verification to find out
whether or not the machine has registered his choice;
and
(o)   Configure access control for sensitive system data and
function.
Continuity Plan – The AES shall be so designed to include a
continuity plan in case of a systems breakdown or any such
eventuality which shall result in the delay, obstruction or
nonperformance of the electoral process. Activation of such
continuity and contingency measures shall be undertaken in
the presence of representatives of political parties and citizen's
arm of the Commission who shall be notified by the election
officer of such activation.
Advisory Council – The Commission shall create an advisory
Council, hereafter referred to as the Council, which shall be
convened not later than 18 months prior to the next schedule
electoral exercise, and deactivated six months after
completion of canvassing.
Members, who must be registered Filipino voters, of
known independence, competence and probity;
(a)   The Chairman of the Commission on information
and Communications Technology who shall act
as the chairman of the council;
(b)   One member from the DOST, DepEd,
representing the academe;
(c)   Three members representing ICT professional
organizations;
(d)   Two members representing non-governmental
electoral reform organizations.
Joint Congressional Oversight Committee – An Oversight
Committee is hereby created composed of seven members
each from the Senate and the House of Representatives, four
of whom shall come from the majority and three from the
minority, to monitor and evaluate the implementation of this
Act.
The oversight committee shall conduct a
comprehensive assessment and evaluation of the performance
of the different AES technologies implemented and shall make
appropriate recommendations to Congress, in session
assembled.
National Board of Canvassers
1.   Chairman;
2.   Two members all of whom shall be public school
teachers, giving preference to those with
permanent appointment and those who served
in the immediately preceding local or national
election.
Qualifications:
a.   Of good moral character and irreproachable;
b.   Registered voter;
c.   Never convicted of: (1) election offense; (2) crime
punishable of more than 6 months of imprisonment;
d.   No pending case;
e.   Able to speak, read, and write English or the local
language.
Disqualifications:
a.   He/spouse is related within 4th civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity, to any member of BEI or
candidate to be voted for, or to the latter’s spouse, in
the polling place;
b.   Engaged in any partisan political activity.
Roque v. COMELEC – COMELEC, in view of the 2010 elections,
implemented the Automated Election System nationwide. It
consisted of three phases: 1) voter registration, 2) automated
counting and canvassing system, 3) electronic transmission. A Joint
Venture Agreement with SMARTMATIC and Total Information
Management was approved by the COMELEC as the sole capable
bidder. Petitioner Harry Roque questions the constitutionality of the
automation system, arguing that automation cannot happen
without a previous test run, and that it constituted an abdication of
COMELEC’s responsibility to administer electoral laws.
The Court denied the petition holding that the COMELEC
is an independent constitutional body with a distinct and pivotal
role in our scheme of government. In the discharge of its functions
as overseer of fair elections, administrator and lead implementer of
laws relative to the conduct of elections, it should not be stymied
with restrictions that would perhaps be justified in the case of an
organization of lesser responsibility.
Capalla v. COMELEC – Fernando Capalla argues that the sale and
the acceptance of the extension of the period to exercise the OTP
occurred without competitive public bidding, and that the
machines were incapable for future use.
The Court ruled in favor of COMELEC and placed a stamp
of validity on the assailed resolutions and transactions entered into.
Considering that the performance security had not been released
to Smartmatic-TIM, the contract was still effective which can still be
amended by the mutual agreement of the parties, such
amendment being reduced in writing.
RECALL
The power of recall for loss of confidence shall be
exercised by the registered voters of a local government unit to
which the local elective official subject to such recall belongs.
Initiation of the Recall Process
a.   The Recall of any elective provincial, city, municipal or
barangay official shall be commenced by a petition
of a registered voter in the local government unit
concerned and supported by the registered voters in
the local government unit concerned during the
election in which the local official sought to be
recalled was elected subject to the following
percentage requirements:
Percentage of Population Petitioners
Petition Needed
25% 20,000
20% 20,000-75,000 < 5,000
15% 75,000-300,000 < 15,000
10% 300,000 + < 45,000
b.   A written petition for recall duly signed by the
representatives of the petitioners before the election
registrar or his representative, shall be filed with the
COMELEC.
The petition to recall shall contain the following:
1.   The names and addresses of the petitioners written in
legible form and their signatures;
2.   The barangay, city or municipality, local legislative
district and the province to which the petitioners
belong;
3.   The name of the official sought to be recalled; and
4.   A brief narration of the reasons and justifications
therefore.
c.   The COMELEC shall, within fifteen (15) days from the
filing of the petition, certify to the sufficiency of the
required number of signatures. Failure to obtain the
required number of signatures automatically nullifies
the petition.
d.   The COMELEC shall then provide the official sought to
be recalled a copy of the petition, cause its
publication a national newspaper of general
circulation and a newspaper of general circulation in
the locality and at the same time post copies thereof
in public and conspicuous places for a period.
e.   The COMELEC or its duly authorized representatives
shall, upon issuance of certification, proceed
independently with the verification and
authentication of the signatures of the petitioners and
registered voters contained therein. Representatives
of the petitioners and the official sought to be recalled
shall be duly notified and shall have the right to
participate therein as mere observers.
f.   Upon the lapse of the aforesaid period, the COMELEC
or its duly authorized representative shall announce
the acceptance of candidates to the positive and
thereafter prepare the list of candidates which shall
include the name of the official sought to be recalled.
Election on Recall – The officials sought to be recalled shall
automatically be considered as duly registered candidate or
candidates to the pertinent positions and, like other
candidates, shall be entitled to be voted upon.
Effectivity of Recall – The recall of an elective local official shall
be effective only upon the election and proclamation of a
successor in the person of the candidate receiving the highest
number of votes cast during the election on recall. Should the
official sought to be recalled receive the highest number of
votes, confidence in him is thereby affirmed, and he shall
continue in office.
Prohibition from Resignation – The elective local official sought
to be recalled shall not be allowed to resign while the recall
process is in progress.
Limitations on Recall
(a)   Any elective local official may be the subject of a
recall election only once during his term of office for
loss of confidence.
(b)   No recall shall take place within one (1) year from the
date of the official's assumption to office or one (1)
year immediately preceding a regular local election.
Garcia v. COMELEC – Garcia (Governor sought to be recalled)
argued the Preliminary Recall Assembly is not a valid mode of recall,
as it is partisan and can be controlled by the political majority.
Initially, the PRA was declared void by the Supreme Court
on the ground of violation of procedural due process because of
lack of notice, but Dinalupihan Mayor Oscar delos Reyes organized
another PRA and this time all officials were given notice, and 87 out
of 144 passed the resolution.
Claudio v. COMELEC – Petitioner Jovito Claudio in this case is the
mayor of Pasay. Chairs of several barangays asked for the initiation
of recall proceedings by holding a PRA. Claudio argues that the
recall election should not be given due course on the ground that
it was started before his first year in office. This was done in May 19,
1999, which is barely 1 year after his assumption of office. However,
the filing of the petition itself was held in July 2, 1999, and was held
valid.
Goh v. Bayron – There was a petition for recall however, the
proceedings were suspended on the ground that no financial
budget was available to hold the elections. This is because the
General Appropriations Act for the year of 2014 did not provide for
funds for recall.
REMEDIES AND JURISDICTION
Petition to Disqualify a Petition for Cancellation of the
Candidate Certificate of Candidacy
Based on prohibited acts Based on material
committed by a candidate. misrepresentations in the
COC.
May be filed not later than the Must be filed within 25 days
date of proclamation. from the filing of the COC.
FAILURE & POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTIONS, SPECIAL ELECTIONS
Grounds for Postponement
1.   Violence;
2.   Terrorism;
3.   Loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or
records;
4.   Force majeure; or
5.   Other analogous causes of such a nature that the
holding of a free, orderly and honest election
becomes impossible in any political subdivision.
a.   An election officer cannot postpone an election. Only
the COMELEC En Banc can postpone an election.
b.   The transfer of the location of the precinct and the
replacement of the public school teacher by military
personnel as member of the board of inspectors
made by an election officer without notice and
hearing are illegal.
Failure of Election
a.   The COMELEC en banc has the original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions for
declaration of failure of election or for annulment of
election results.
b.   The Commission shall, on the basis of a verified petition
and after due notice and hearing, call for the holding
or continuation of the election not held, suspended,
or which resulted in a failure to elect on a date
reasonably close to the date of the election not held,
suspended, or resulted in failure to elect but not later
than 30 days after the cessation of the cause of such
delay.
c.   In fixing the date for the special elections, the
COMELEC should see to it that:
i.   It should not be later than 30 days after the
cessation of the cause;
ii.   It should be reasonably close to the
supposed date.
Instances When Failure of Election May Be Declared:
1.   The election in any polling place has not been held on
the date fixed on account of force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes;
2.   The election in any polling place had been suspended
before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the
voting on account of FM, V, T, F, OAC;
3.   After the voting and during the preparation and
transmission of the election returns or in the custody or
canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to
elect on account of FM, V, T, F, OAC.
Call of Special Election
(1)   In case a vacancy arises in the Batasang Pambansa
eighteen months or more before a regular election,
the Commission shall call a special election to be held
within sixty (60) days after the vacancy occurs to elect
the Member to serve the unexpired term.
(2)   In case of the dissolution of the Batasang Pambansa,
the President shall call an election which shall not be
held earlier than forty-five nor later than sixty days from
the date of such dissolution.
Sison v. COMELEC – Joseph Peter Sison filed a case for failure of
elections before the COMELEC, asking that the canvassing of votes
being held in Quezon City be suspended on the ground that
election returns with no seal were included in the canvass; that
copies of ERs were brought home by BEIs; that highly suspicious
persons sneaked in some ERs into the canvassing area; that
watchers were not allowed inside the area; and that there were
some ERs with no data on the number of votes cast for the position
of vice mayor. COMELEC still proclaimed the winners and dismissed
the case. Petitioner argues that his rights to due process was
violated, and that COMELEC erred in dismissing the case despite his
allegations.
Failure of election may be declared after the voting and
during the preparation and transmission of the election returns or in
the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to
elect on account of FM, V, T, F, OAC.
Soliva v. COMELEC – after election day, all the LAKAS candidates
were proclaimed as winning candidates. Six days after that,
respondent filed a petition to declare a failure of elections due to
massive fraud, terrorism, ballot switching, stuffing of ballot boxes,
delivery of ballot boxes by petitioner Soliva, his wife and men from
several precincts to the supposed canvassing area, failure of the
counting of votes in the precincts or polling places, and other
anomalies or irregularities.
COMELEC granted the petition and declared a failure of
elections in RTR. COMELEC likewise declared the proclamation of
winners to be null and void. COMELEC called for a special election.
The COMELEC did not err, did not commit grave abuse of
discretion, the petition was dismissed. The 1987 Constitution vested
upon the COMELEC the broad power to enforce all the laws and
regulations of the conduct of elections as well as the plenary
authority to decide all questions affecting elections, except the
question as to the right to vote. Section 4 of RA 7166 provide that
the postponement, declaration of failure of elections and the
calling of special elections shall be decided by COMELEC sitting en
banc by a majority vote.
Ampatuan v. COMELEC – Candao asked that the elections be
annulled because it was “completely sham and farcical.” The
ballots were filled-up en masse by a few persons the night before
election day, and in some precincts, the ballot boxes, official ballots
and other election paraphernalia were not delivered at all.
COMELEC initially suspended proclamations but eventually 21.   Suspension of Elective Provincial, City, Municipal, or
proceeded to do so. Barangay Officer, unless for Graft and Corruption
The fact that a candidate proclaimed has assumed office 22.   On Registration of Voters, Voting, Canvassing
does not deprive the COMELEC of its authority to annul any canvass 23.   Prohibitions Relating to Candidacy and Campaign
and illegal proclamation. The validity of a proclamation may be 24.   Other prohibitions such as liquor ban, sale and display
challenged even after the irregularly proclaimed candidate has of merchandise, fairs, cockfights, refusal to carry
assumed office.
election mail, discrimination in the sale of airtime.
25.   Other Election Offenses under OEC, such as
ELECTION OFFENSES
intervention of foreigners, removal or destruction of
election propaganda.
1.   Vote-buying and Vote-selling
a.   By giving, offering or promising money or anything of
Penalties
value (including employment);
1 year – 6 years of imprisonment and shall not be
b.   By soliciting or receiving any expenditure or promise of
subject to probation. In addition, the guilty party shall be
any office or employment, public or private; or
sentenced to suffer disqualification to hold public office and
c.   Distribution of cigarettes to people who attend a
deprivation of the right of suffrage.
political meeting is prohibited.
If he is a foreigner, he shall be sentenced to
2.   Conspiracy to Bribe Votes
deportation which shall be enforced after the prison term has
3.   Wagering upon the Result of the Election
been served.
4.   Coercion
a.   Committed by – any public officer, head, etc.,
Prescription – 5 years from the date of commission.
against subordinates, employees, etc. by
coercion, intimidation, compulsion; or by
Jurisdiction and Prosecution
dismissal or threat to dismiss, transfer, suspend, or
1)   Investigation and prosecution. The Commission on
reduce salary.
Elections has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and
5.   Appointment of New Employees
prosecute cases involving violations of election laws;
When committed during 45 days before regular
but it may validly delegate the power to the Provincial
election and 30 days before special election.
Prosecutor.
ER:
2)   Trial and decision. The Regional Trial Court has
a.   Urgent need;
exclusive original jurisdiction to try and decide any
b.   Essential to the functioning of the offices.
criminal actions or proceedings for violation of
6.   Promoting or Giving (by any government official) any
election laws. The metropolitan or municipal trial
increase of salary or remuneration or privilege to any
court, by way of exception, exercises jurisdiction only
government official or employee.
over offenses relating to failure to register or to vote.
7.   Transfer or Detail of Government Official or Employee
without COMELEC Approval People v. Ferrer – it was held that distribution of cigarettes to people
a.   If fact of transfer is within the election period fixed who attended a political meeting falls within the context of the
by COMELEC; prohibition.
b.   Transfer or detail was without COMELEC’s
approval. Mappala v. Nunez – it was held that it is not necessary that the
8.   Intervention of Public Officers and Employees – deadly weapon be seized from the accused while he was in the
directly or indirectly precinct or within a radius of 100 meters therefrom; it is enough that
9.   Undue influence the accused carried a deadly weapon within the prohibited radius
10.   Unlawful Electioneering – on the day of registration during any of the days and hours specified in the law.
and election, by soliciting votes or undertaking any
propaganda before the BEI (on the registration day), People v. Bayona – Good faith is not a defense. Election offenses
and within the polling place and with a radius of 30 are generally mala prohibita. Proof of criminal intent is not
meters (on election day). necessary. Good faith, ignorance or lack of malice is not a defense;
the commission of the prohibited act is sufficient.
11.   Harassment and Dismissal of Employees, Laborers,
Tenants
APPEAL AND OTHER ELECTION ISSUES
12.   Appointment or Use of Special Policemen, Special
Agents, or Confidential Agents, during campaign
Election Contest – any adversary proceeding by which matters
period and on the day before and on Election Day.
involving title or claim of title to an elective office, made before
13.   Illegal Release of Prisoners before and after Election,
or after the proclamation of the winner, is settled whether or not
by the Director if the Bureau of Prisons, provincial
contestant is claiming office in dispute.
warden, keeper of jail, 60 days before and 30 days
after the election.
Ø   It is a summary proceeding and political in nature.
14.   Use of Public Funds, Equipment, and Facilities for
Ø   To ascertain if the candidate elected to office is the
Election Campaign
lawful choice of the electorate.
15.   Carrying of Deadly Weapon within a radius of 100M
from a precinct, during registration day, election day,
Kinds of Election Contest:
counting of votes and preparation of election returns.
(a)   Election Protest (contest between defeated & winning
Unless peace officer authorized to supervise.
candidates)
16.   Carrying of Firearms Outside Residence or Place of
1.   May be filed by any candidate who has filed a
Business, even with a permit to carry.
COC and has been voted upon for the same
17.   Use of Armored Land, Water, or Aircraft during
office;
campaign period and on the day before or on the
2.   Grounds:
Election Day itself.
a.   Fraud;
18.   Wearing uniforms and bearing arms, unless in pursuit
b.   Terrorism;
of person committing a crime, or escorting for
c.   Irregularities; or
transport of payrolls, valuables, or guarding private
d.   Illegal acts committed before, during, or
residence or persons.
after the casting and counting of votes.
19.   Release, disbursement, or expenditure of public funds,
3.   Must be filed within 10 days from proclamation of
45 days before for RE, 30 days for SE. Unless for
results of election. (It is suspended during the
maintenance, public bidding, or emergency work.
pendency of a pre-proclamation controversy.)
20.   Construction of public works, delivery of materials for
public works, and issuance of treasury warrants and
other devices. 45 |30
 (b)   Quo Warranto
1.   Filed by any registered voter in the constituency.
2.   Grounds:
a.   Ineligibility; or
b.   Disloyalty to the Republic of the
Philippines.
3.   File a sworn petition for quo warranto with the
Commission within ten days after the
proclamation of the results of the election.
1.   In an elective office: the issue is eligibility of the officer-
elect; the court or tribunal cannot declare the
protestant (or the candidate who obtained the
second highest number of votes) as having been
elected.
2.   In an appointive office: the issue is the legality of the
appointment; the court determines who of the parties
has legal title to the office.
Substitution
Situation Is Substitution Allowed?
If after the last day for the filing Yes. Only a person belonging
of the COC, an official to, and certified by, the same
candidate of a registered or political party may file a COC
accredited political party: to replace the candidate who
i. dies; died, withdrew, or was
ii. withdraws; or disqualified not later than mid-
iii. is disqualified for any cause. day of the day of the election.
When the candidate who dies No.
is an independent candidate.
If a person’s COC had been No.
denied due course and/or
cancelled.
Withdrawal of Certificate of Candidacy
Ø   May, at any time, before the Election Day, file a
Statement of Withdrawal under oath.
Ø   The filing of a withdrawal of a COC shall not affect
whatever civil, criminal, or administrative liabilities a
candidate may have incurred.
Ø   Effect: Disqualification to be elected in the position.
• Withdrawal of Withdrawal – must be made within the period
provided by law for the filing of certificates of candidacy.
Pre-Proclamation
The Commission has exclusive jurisdiction in pre-
proclamation controversies arising from national, regional or
local election.
A pre-proclamation controversy may be raised by any
candidate or by any registered political party, organization, or
coalition of political parties before the board of canvassers or
directly with the Commission.
Ø   Questions affecting the composition or proceedings
of the Board of Canvassers or correction of manifest
errors may be initiated in the Board or directly with the
Commission.
Issues that May Be Raised in the Pre-Proclamation Controversies:
(a)   Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of
canvassers;
(b)   The canvassed election returns, or the certificate of
canvass in appropriate cases, are incomplete,
contain material defects, appear to be tampered
with or falsified, or contain discrepancies in the same
returns or in other authentic copies thereof;
(c)   The election returns or certificate of canvass were
prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or
intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or
not authentic; and
(d)   When substitute or fraudulent returns or certificates of
canvass in controverted polling places were
canvassed, the results of which materially affected
the standing of the aggrieved candidate or
candidates.
(e)   Correction of manifest errors.
Execution of Pending Appeal
The trial court may grant a motion for execution
pending appeal, because the mere filing of an appeal does
not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over a case and to
resolve pending incidents.
Navarosa v. COMELEC – it was held that the Regional Trial Court may
grant a motion for execution pending appeal when there are valid
and special reasons to grant the same, such as:
(a)   the public interest involved or the will of the electorate;
(b)   the shortness of the remaining portion of the term; or
(c)   the length of time that the election contest has been
pending.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
• Administrative Law – that branch of modern law under which
the executive department of the government, acting in a
quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity, interferes with the
conduct of the individual for the purpose of promoting the well-
being of the community.
1.   Quasi-legislative authority – or rule making power;
2.   Quasi-judicial power – or adjudicatory function.
• Administrative Agency – a body endowed with quasi-
legislative and quasi-judicial powers or both for the purpose of
enabling it to carry out laws entrusted to it for enforcement or
execution.
Maceda v. Energy Regulatory Board - Such a relaxed procedure is
especially true in administrative bodies, such as the ERB which in
matters of rate or price fixing is considered as exercising a quasi-
legislative, not quasi-judicial, function. As such administrative
agency, it is not bound by the strict or technical rules of evidence
governing court proceedings.
Eugenio v. CSC – The controlling fact is that the Career Executive
Service Board (CESB) was created in the Presidential Decree (P.D.)
No. 1 on September 1, 1974 which adopted the Integrated Plan. It
cannot be disputed, therefore, that as the CESB was created by
law, it can only be abolished by the legislature. This follows an
unbroken stream of rulings that the creation and abolition of public
offices is primarily a legislative function. Except for such offices as
are created by the Constitution, the creation of public offices is
primarily a legislative function.
Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force v. CA – A quasi-judicial
body has been defined as "an organ of government other than a
court of law and other than a legislature, which affects the rights of
private parties through either adjudication or rule making."
De La Llana v. Alba – Nothing is better settled in our law than that
the abolition of an office within the competence of a legitimate
body if done in good faith suffers from no infirmity. It is well-known
rule also that valid abolition of offices is neither removal nor
separation of the incumbents. And, of course, if the abolition is void,
the incumbent is deemed never to have ceased to hold office. The
preliminary question laid at rest, we pass to the merits of the case.
As well-settled as the rule that the abolition of an office does not
amount to an illegal removal of its incumbent is the principle that, in
order to be valid, the abolition must be made in good faith.
Classification of Legislative Regulation
(a)   Supplementary – intended to fill in the details of the
law and “to make explicit what is only general.”
(b)   Contingent – issued upon the happening of a certain
contingency which the administrative body is given
the discretion to determine or to ascertain some
circumstances and on the basis thereof may enforce
or suspend the operation of a law.
Requisites of Administrative Regulation
(a)   Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature;
(b)   It must be within the scope of the authority given by
the legislature;
(c)   It must be promulgated in accordance with the
prescribed procedure;
(d)   It must be reasonable.
Penal Regulations
The power to define and punish crime is exclusively
legislative and may not be delegated to the administrative
authorities. While administrative regulations may have the force
and effect of law, their violation cannot give rise to criminal
prosecution unless the legislature makes such violation
punishable and imposes the corresponding sanctions.
(a)   The law itself must make violation of the administrative
regulation punishable;
(b)   The law itself must impose and specify the penalty for
the violation of the regulation;
(c)   The regulation must be published.
Quasi-Judicial Power
The power of the administrative agency to determine
questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply, in
accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself.
The proper exercise of the quasi-judicial power
requires compliance with two conditions, to wit:
(1)   Jurisdiction must be properly acquired by the
administrative body;
(2)   Due process must be observed in the conduct of the
proceedings.
It is a well-settled principle that unless expressly
empowered, administrative agencies are bereft of quasi-
judicial power.
1.   Rules of Procedure – Where an administrative body is
expressly granted the power of adjudication, it is
deemed also vested with the implied power to
prescribe the rules to be observed in the conduct of
its proceedings. But to be valid, the rules must not
violate fundamental rights or encroach upon
constitutional prerogatives.
2.   The Subpoena Power – The power to issue subpoena
and subpoena duces tecum is not inherent in
administrative bodies. The Supreme Court
distinguished between the power to “investigate” and
the power to “adjudicate”.
3.   The Contempt Power – Like the subpoena power, the
power to punish for contempt is essentially judicial and
cannot be claimed as an inherent right by the
administrative body. To be validly exercised, it must be
expressly conferred upon the body and, additionally,
must be used only in connection with its quasi-judicial
as distinguished from its purely administrative or
routinary functions.
Notice and Hearing
The right to notice and hearing is essential to due
process and its non-observance will as a rule invalidate the
administrative proceedings. Persons are entitled to be notified
of any pending case affecting their interests so that, if they are
minded, they may claim the right to appear therein and present
their side or refute the position of opposing parties.
Requisites of Administrative Due Process
1.   Right to hearing, to present his own case and to
submit evidence in support thereof;
2.   Tribunal must consider evidence presented.
3.   Decision must have something to support itself.
4.   Evidence must be substantial. Such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.
5.   Decision must be based on the evidence
adduced at the hearing, or at least contained in
the record and disclosed o the parties.
6.   The Board or its judges must act on its or their
independent consideration of the facts and the
law of the case, and not simply accept the views
of a subordinate in arriving at a decision.
7.   Decision must be rendered in such a manner that
the parties to the controversy can know the
various issues involved and the reasons for the
decision rendered.
Vivo v. PAGCOR – The essence of procedural due process is
embodied in the basic requirement of notice and a real opportunity
to be heard. In administrative proceedings, such as in the case at
bar, procedural due process simply means the opportunity to
explain one’s side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of
the action or ruling complained of. "To be heard" does not mean
only verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also thru
pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral
arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of
procedural due process.
Office of the Ombudsman v. Valencia – In administrative
proceedings, the law does not require evidence beyond
reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence. Substantial
evidence is enough. In this case, not even that was met.
Administrative Res Judicata
GR: The doctrine of res judicata forbids the reopening of a
matter that has been determined by competent authority.
Decisions and orders of administrative agencies, rendered
pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority, have, upon their
finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment, within
the purview of the doctrine of res judicata.
ER: The principle of res judicata may not be invoked in:
1.   Labor relations proceeding; and
2.   In case of judgment rendered on a null contract.
For res judicata to bar the institution of a subsequent action:
(1)   The former judgment is final;
(2)   The court rendering the said decision has jurisdiction
over the parties and the subject matter;
(3)   Judgment is based on the merits;
(4)   Between the two actions, there must be identity of
parties, subject matter and cause of action.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
An administrative decision may be appealed to the
courts of justice only if the Constitution or the law permits it or if
the issues to be reviewed involve questions of law.
Before said actions may be entertained:
1.   It must be shown that all the administrative remedies
prescribed by law or ordinance have been
exhausted; and
2.   That the administrative decision may properly be
annulled or set aside only upon a clear showing that
the administrative official or tribunal has acted without
or in excess of jurisdiction, or with a grave abuse of
discretion.
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction or Prior Resort
The courts cannot and will not resolve a controversy
involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an
administrative tribunal, where the question demands the
exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special
knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative
tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction simply calls for the
determination of administrative questions, which ordinarily
questions of fact, by administrative agencies rather courts of
justice.
Relief must first be obtained in an administrative
proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts
even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of the
court.
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies, an administrative decision must first be appealed to
the administrative superior up to the highest level before it may
be elevated to a court of justice for review.
Reasons:
(1)   The administrative superiors, if given the opportunity,
can correct the errors committed by their
subordinates;
(2)   Courts should as much as possible refrain from
disturbing the findings of administrative bodies in
deference to the doctrine of separation of powers;
 (3)   On practical grounds, it is best that the courts should
not be saddled with the review of administrative
cases;
(4)   Judicial review of administrative cases is usually
effected through the special civil actions of certiorari,
mandamus and prohibition, which are available only
if there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy.
Exceptions to the Doctrine of Exhaustion
1.   Where the administrative remedy is fruitless.
2.   Where there is estoppel on the part of the
administrative agency.
3.   Where the issue involved is purely a legal question.
4.   Where the administrative action is patently illegal,
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
5.   Where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction.
6.   Where there is irreparable injury or threat thereof,
unless judicial recourse is immediately made.
7.   In land cases, where the subject matter is private land.
8.   Where the law does not make exhaustion a condition
precedent to judicial recourse, or where no
administrative review is provided by law.
9.   Where the observance of the doctrine will result in the
nullification of the claim.
10.   Where there are special reasons or circumstances
demanding immediate court action. Such as the
urgency of judicial intervention.
11.   When due process of law is clearly violated.
12.   When the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and
adequate remedy.
13.   Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency – wherein
Department Secretaries are alter egos or assistants of
the President and their acts are presumed to be those
of the latter unless disapproved or reprobated by him.
Doctrine of Finality of Administrative Action
This doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on
fundamental considerations of public policy and sound
practice that at the risk of occasional error, the judgments of
the courts must become final at some definite date fixed by
law. This doctrine applies equally to quasi-judicial agencies.
LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
• Public Office – The right, authority or duty, created and
conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by
law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an
individual is invested with some sovereign power of the
government to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public.
Elements:
1)   Created by law or authority of law;
2)   Possess a delegation of a portion of the sovereign
powers of the government, to be exercised for the
benefit of the public;
3)   Powers conferred and duties imposed must be
defined, directly or impliedly, by the legislature or by
legislative authority;
4)   Duties must be performed independently and without
control of a superior power other than the law, unless
they be those of an inferior or subordinate office
created or authorized by the legislature, and by it
placed under the general control of a superior office
or body;
5)   Must have permanence or continuity.
• Public Officer – any person who, by direct provision of the law,
popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall
take part in the performance of public functions in the
Government of the Philippine Islands, of shall perform in said
Government or in any of its branches public duties as an
employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class,
shall be deemed to be a public officer.
It includes elective and appointive officials and
employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified
or unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation, even
nominal, from the government.
It refers to a person whose duties, not being of a
clerical or manual nature, involves the exercise of discretion in
the performance of the functions of the government.
Who has authority to prescribe qualifications?
CONGRESS provided that:
1.   The qualifications are germane to the objective/s for
which the public office was created; and
2.   The qualifications are not too specific as to fit a
particular, identifiable person, because that would
deprive the appointing authority of discretion in the
selection of the appointee.
Qualifications for elective local officials
1.   Must be a citizen of the Philippines;
2.   A registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city,
or province or, in the case of a member of the
sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang
panlungsod, or sangguniang bayan, the district where
he intends to be elected;
3.   A resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately
preceding the day of the election; and
4.   Able to read and write Filipino or any other local
language or dialect.
Governor, vice-governor, or member of the sangguniang 21 y/o
panlalawigan, or mayor, vice-mayor or member of the
sangguniang panlungsod of highly urbanized cities.
Mayor or vice-mayor of independent component cities,
component cities, or municipalities.
Sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan. 18 y/o
Punong barangay or member of the sangguniang barangay.
Sangguniang kabataan. 15-21
y/o
Frivaldo v. COMELEC – Qualifications for public office are continuing
requirements and must be possessed not only at the time of the
appointment or election or assumption of office but during the
officer’s entire tenure. Once any of the required qualifications is lost,
his title may be seasonally challenged.
Flores v. Drilon – As long as he is an incumbent, an elective official
remains ineligible for appointment to another public office. As
incumbent elective official, Gordon is ineligible for appointment to
the position of Chairman of the Board and CEO of SBMA; hence, his
appointment thereto pursuant to a legislative act that contravenes
the Constitution cannot be sustained.
Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan – An oath of office is a qualifying
requirement for a public office; a prerequisite to the full investiture
with the office. Only when the public officer has satisfied the
prerequisite of oath that his right to enter into the position becomes
plenary and complete. Until then, he has none at all. And for as long
as he has not qualified, the holdover officer is the rightful occupant.
Does the Congress also prescribe disqualifications?
YES. Provided that the prescribed qualifications do not
violate the Constitution.
General Disqualifications
A.   No candidate who lost in an election shall, within one
year after such election be appointed to any office in
Government.
B.   No elective office shall be eligible for appointment or
designation in any capacity to any public office or
position during his tenure.
C.   Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary
functions of his position, no appointive official shall
hold any other position in the Government.
Special Disqualifications
A.   The President, Vice President, the Members of the
Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not,
unless otherwise provided in the Constitution, hold any
other office or employment.
B.   No Senator of Member of the House of
Representatives may hold any other office or
employment in the Government, or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof., including GOCCs
or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his
 seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office
which may have been created or the emoluments
thereof increased during the term for which he was
elected.
C.   The members of the Supreme Court and of other
courts established by law shall not be designated to
any agency performing quasi-judicial or
administrative functions.
D.   No member of a Constitutional Commission,
Ombudsman and his deputies, shall during his tenure
hold any other office or employment.
E.   The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall not be
qualified to run for any office in the election
immediately succeeding their cessation from office.
F.   Members of Constitutional Commissions, the
Ombudsman and his Deputies must not have been
candidates for any elective position in the elections
immediately preceding their appointment.
G.   Members of Constitutional Commissions, the
Ombudsman and his Deputies are appointed to a
term of 7 years, without reappointment.
H.   The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity
within the fourth civil degree of the President shall not
during his tenure be appointed as members of the
Constitutional Commissions, or the office of the
Ombudsman or as secretaries, undersecretaries,
chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including
GOCCs.
Nepotism – It is an appointment issued in favor of a relative
within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of any of
the following:
(1)   appointing authority;
(2)   recommending authority;
(3)   chief of the bureau or office; and
(4)   person exercising immediate supervision over the
appointee
Exceptions:
(1)   persons employed in a confidential capacity;
(2)   teachers;
(3)   physicians; and
(4)   members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
Laurel v. CSC – By legal contemplation, the prohibitive mantle on
nepotism would include designation because what cannot be
done directly cannot be done indirectly. The rule admits of no
distinction between designation and appointment.
CSC v. Cortes – Cortes’ appointment as Information Officer in the
CHR, where her father is a member, is prohibited. Cortes is a relative
in the first degree of consanguinity of the Commissioner. Even if the
Commissioner abstained from voting, such did not cure the
nepotistic character of the appointment.
MODES OF ACQUIRING TITLE TO PUBLIC OFFICE
1.   By Election – by virtue of the mandate of the
electorate; covered by the Election Laws.
2.   By Appointment – Selection, by the authority vested
with the power, of an individual who is to exercise the
functions of a given office. It is deemed complete
once the last act required of the appointing authority
has been complied with and its acceptance
thereafter by the appointee, in order to render it
effective.
Nature: The power to appoint is in essence, DISCRETIONARY.
Requisites:
1.   Position is vacant;
2.   The appointing authority must be vested with the
power to appoint at the time appointment is made;
3.   The appointee should possess all the qualifications
including appropriate civil service eligibility and none
of the disqualifications;
4.   The appointment has been approved by the CSC (or
confirmed by the Commission on Appointments); and
5.   The appointee accepts the appointment by taking
the oath and entering into discharge of duty.
GR: Once made and completed, not subject to
reconsideration or revocation.
ER: Appointment is temporary.
Classifications of Appointment
• Permanent Appointment – extended to a person possessing
the requisite qualifications, including the eligibility required for
the position. It is protected by the constitutional guarantee of
security of tenure.
• Temporary Appointment – extended to one who may not
possess the requisite qualifications or eligibility as required by
law for the position. It is revocable at will, without the need of
just cause or a valid investigation.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Charter Test:
1.   Original or Special Charter – If the GOCC has been
created with their original charter by Congress, it is
within the purview of the Civil Service Law.
2.   Corporation Code - if it is a general corporation, it is
within the purview of the Labor Code.
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.
Composition
Chairman and two Commissioners:
1.   natural-born citizens of the Philippines;
2.   at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five
years of age;
3.   with proven capacity for public administration; and
4.   must not have been candidates for any elective
position in the elections immediately preceding their
appointment.
They shall be appointed by the President with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven
years without reappointment.
Of those first appointed, 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 of the predecessor. In no case shall any
Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting
capacity.
Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.
1.   Disciplinary cases;
2.   Cases involving “personnel action” affecting
employees in the Civil Service, including
“appointment through certification, promotion,
transfer, reinstatement, reemployment, detail,
reassignment, demotion and separation”;
3.   Employment status and qualification standards.
Classification of Positions in the Civil Service
1.   Career Service Position
2.   Non-Career Service Position
Career Service
Ø   Entrance Based on merit and fitness to be determined
as far as practicable by competitive examinations or
based technical qualifications.
Ø   Opportunity for advancement to higher career
positions.
Ø   Security of tenure.
1.   Open Career – prior qualification an appropriate
examination is required;
2.   Closed Career – scientific or highly technical in nature
with a separate merit system;
3.   Career Executive Service – USEC, ASEC, Director and
other officers of the same rank. These positions are
appointed by the President.
 4.   Commissioned Officers – Enlisted men of the armed
forces with a separate merit system;
5.   Personnel of GOCCs – performing governmental or
proprietary functions, who do not fall under non-
career service;
6.   Permanent Laborers – whether skilled, semi skilled or
unskilled.
Non-Career Service
Ø   Entrance on bases other than those of usual tests of
merit and fitness utilized for career service.
Tenure which is limited to:
1.   A period specified by law;
2.   Which is co terminus with the appointing authority;
3.   Which is limited to a duration of a particular project for
which purpose of employment was made.
1.   Elective Officials and their personal or confidential
staff;
2.   Emergency and seasonal personnel;
3.   Department heads and other officials of cabinet rank
who hold position at the pleasure of the president and
their staff;
4.   Chairman and members of the commissions and
boards with fixed term service and their personal or
confidential staff;
5.   Contractual Personnel
6.   Primary Confidential Positions because their tenure is
co-terminus with that of the appointing authority or
subject to his pleasure
Exempted from Competitive Examinations
a.   Policy determining position – one charged with laying
down of principal rules such as a Head of a
Department.
b.   Primarily confidential position denotes not only
confidence in the aptitude of the appointee for the
duties of the office but primarily a close intimacy
which ensures freedom of discussion and delegation
and reporting without embarrassment or freedom
from misgivings of betrayal of personal trust.
c.   Highly Technical Position requires technical skill or
training in the superior degree
Proximity Rule
• The test to determine whether the position is primarily
confidential or not is to consider the distance between the
positions of the appointing authority and the employee.
• A supervisor cannot be removed on the ground of loss of
confidence because applying the proximity rule, the supervisor
was too remote from the appointing authority.
PERSONNEL ACTION
Actions denoting the movement or progress of
personnel in the civil service.
1. Promotion – it is the movement from one position to another
with increase in duties and responsibilities as authorized by law
and usually accompanied by an increase in pay
Next-in-rank rule: person next in rank shall be given
preference in promotion when the position immediately above
his is vacated
Automatic Reversion Rule: The disapproval of the appointment
of a person proposed to a higher position invalidates the
promotion of those in the lower positions and automatically
restores them to their former positions.
Requisites:
a.   there must be a series of promotions;
b.   all promotional appointments are simultaneously
submitted to the Commission for approval;
c.   Commission disapproves the appointment of a person
to a higher position.
2. Certification – it is issued to a person who has been selected
from a list of qualified persons certified by CSC and who meets
all the qualifications prescribed for the position.
3. Transfer – refers to the movement from one position to
another which is of equivalent rank, level or salary without break
in service. It constitutes new appointment; it may be imposed
as an administrative penalty
Divinagracia v. Sto. Tomas – a transfer that results in promotion or
demotion, advancement or reduction, or a transfer that aims to lure
the employee away without his permanent position, cannot be
done without the employee’s consent for the would constitute
removal from office.
4. Detail – movement from one agency to another without the
issuance of an appointment.
5. Demotion – it refers to the movement from one position to
another which involves diminution in duties, responsibilities,
status or rank which may or may not involve reduction in salary
Grounds for Disciplinary Action
a)   Dishonesty – Concealment or distortion of truth in a
matter of fact relevant to his office.
b)   Oppression – grave abuse of authority.
c)   Neglect of Duty – failure to give proper attention to his
duty.
d)   Misconduct – transgression of rule of action,
commission of a forbidden act/ dereliction of duty.
e)   Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct – it is an act which
violates the basic norm of decency.
f)   Being Notoriously Undesirable.
g)   Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties.
h)   Inefficiency and Incompetence in the Performance of
Official Duties.
i)   Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude.
j)   Falsification of Official Documents.
k)   Habitual Drunkenness;
l)   Gambling;
m)   Refusal to Perform Official Duty or Render Overtime
Service;
n)   Physical or Mental Incapacity Due to Immoral or
Vicious Habits;
o)   Willful Refusal to Pay Just Debts or Willful Failure to Pay
Taxes Due to the Government;
p)   Habitual Absenteeism.
Reinstatement
A permanently appointed person and who has,
through no delinquency or misconduct, been separated
therefrom, may be reinstated to a position in the same level for
which he is qualified.
Monsanto v. Factoran – A pardon from conviction merely frees the
individual from all the penalties and legal disabilities imposed upon
him because of his conviction but it does not ipso facto restore him
to the public office necessarily relinquished or forfeited by reason of
his conviction. He must be given a new appointment to the position.
Garcia v. Chairman of COA – However, when a person is acquitted
because he did not truly commit the offense, he is relieved from all
punitive consequences of the criminal act. He need no longer apply
for reinstatement; he is restored to his office ipso facto upon the
issuance of the clemency, and he is entitled to back wages.
Reemployment
Names of persons who have been appointed
permanently to positions in the career service and who have
been separated as a result of reduction in force and/or
reorganization shall be entered in a list from which selection for
reemployment shall be made.
Reassignment
It refers to the movement from one organizational unit
to another in the same agency provided that such shall not
involve a reduction in rank, status, or salary. But like detail, the
reassignment should have a definite date or duration.
• Reassignments involving a reduction in rank, status
or salary violate an employee’s security of tenure, which is
assured by the Constitution, the Administrative Code of 1987,
and the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations.
Secondment
It is the movement of an employee from one
department or agency to another which is temporary in nature
and which may or may not require the issuance of an
appointment but may either involve reduction or increase in
compensation.
DE FACTO OFFICERS
De Facto De Jure
One who actually possesses the One who has a lawful
office although he has an title to the office but has
imperfect or only a colorable title not been able to take
thereto. possession of it or has
been ousted therefrom.
Has a color of title. Has a title.
a) There must be a de jure office;
b) There must be color of right or
general acquiescence by the
public; and
c) There must be actual physical
possession of the office in good
faith.
An intruder may grow into a de A de facto officer may
facto officer, if his assumption of ripen into a de jure
office is acquiesced in, thereby officer, if he repairs his
acquiring color of title to the omission and takes the
office. required oath or posts
the needed bond.
Color of Title is derived from:
i.   Reputation or acquiescence; or
ii.   Invalid appointment or election
Usurper – is one who takes possession of an office and
undertakes to act officially without authority, either actual or
apparent.
He has neither lawful title nor color of title to office.
His acts are absolutely void and can be impeached in
any proceeding at any time unless and until he continues to act
for so long a time as to afford a presumption of his right to act.
He is not entitled to a compensation.
Effects of Acts of a De Facto Officer
a)   The lawful acts of an officer de facto, insofar as the
right of third persons are concerned, are, if done within
the scope and by apparent authority of the office,
considered as valid and binding.
b)   A de facto officer cannot benefit from his own status
because public policy demands that unlawful
assumption of public office be discouraged.
c)   A de facto officer cannot be made to reimburse funds
disbursed during his term of office because his acts are
as valid as those of a de jure officer.
d)   A de facto officer is entitled to emoluments for actual
service rendered.
e)   A de facto officer is subject to the same liabilities
imposed on the de jure officer in the discharge of
official duties, in addition to whatever special
damages may be due from him because of his
unlawful assumption of office.
f)   Voidable acts, or those not previously authorized, may
be subsequently ratified by the government.
g)   Where the acts were not authorized, it is exclusive
responsibility of the public officer who committed it.
Rodriguez v. Tan – Senator who had been proclaimed and had
assumed office, but was later on ousted as a result of an election
protest, is a de facto officer during the time he held the office of
senator, and is entitled to the compensation, emoluments and
allowances which our Constitution provides for the position. This is
the policy and the rule that has been followed consistently in this
jurisdiction.
Garchitorena v. Crescini – The judge who filed the decision cannot
be considered a judge de jure for the reason that another judge
was actually acting in his place and stead and had been for nearly
a month prior to the promulgation of the decision in question.
Neither can he be considered a judge de facto for the
reason that there was a de jure judge actually discharging the
functions of the office in question. There cannot be a de facto judge
when there is a de jure judge in the actual performance of the
duties of the office.
Challenge to a De Facto Officer
The incumbency may not be attacked collaterally or
in an action to which he is not a party but in a direct proceeding
where title to the office will be the principal issue.
Quo Warranto (by what authority)
An action that may be brought against a person who
usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public
office, either by the Solicitor General in the name of the
Republic or by any person claiming title to the office.
Republic v. Sereno – Prescription does not lie against the State. The
one-year limitation is not applicable when the Petitioner is not a
mere private individual pursuing a private interest, but the
government itself seeking relief for a public wrong and suing for
public interest. As a general principle it may be stated that ordinary
statutes of limitation, civil or penal, have no application to quo
warranto proceeding brought to enforce a public right.
Sereno is a de facto officer. The effect of a finding that a
person appointed to an office is ineligible therefor is that his
presumably valid appointment will give him color of title that confers
on him the status of a de facto officer. For lack of a Constitutional
qualification, Respondent is ineligible to hold the position of Chief
Justice and is merely holding a colorable right or title thereto. As
such, Respondent has never attained the status of an impeachable
official and her removal from the office, other than by
impeachment, is justified. The remedy, therefore, of a quo warranto
at the instance of the State is proper to oust Respondent from the
appointive position of Chief Justice.
Doctrine of Necessary Implication
All powers necessary to the exercise of the power
expressly granted are deemed impliedly granted as well. The
claim of power may also be justified on the ground that the
power is inherent, e.g. police power.
Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency
Department secretaries may exercise powers
delegated to them by the President subject to the latter’s
power of control.
Sharp International Marketing v. CA – It is settled that mandamus is
not available to control discretion. The writ may issue to compel the
exercise of discretion but not the discretion itself. Mandamus can
require action only but not specific action where the act sought to
be performed involves the exercise of discretion. We agree with the
respondent court that the act required of the LBP President is not
merely ministerial but involves a high degree of discretion.
RIGHTS OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
1.   Right to Office
2.   Right to Salary
3.   Right to Back Salaries
4.   Right to Vacation and Sick Leave with Pay
5.   Right to Retirement Pay
6.   Right to Self-Organization
7.   Right to Not Be Removed or Suspended Except for
Cause Provided by Law
• Salary – Not an essential element of a public office for there is
such a thing as honorary office to which, no compensation is
given and where the incumbent is willing to serve gratis.
When a statute grants the salary, a statute may also
withdraw it.
GR: One does not have a vested right to a salary unless it is
protected by the Constitution. It may be subjected to any
change deemed fit by the Legislature who granted it in the first
place. The salary may be increased, decreased or even be
abolished by the discretion of the law-making body. Hence, the
functionary who is prejudiced cannot complain.
Due Process
GR: Cannot be invoked by the prejudiced since a salary is not
a property right.
ER: No abolition or reduction of salary can operate retroactively
to affect salaries already accrued or turned over. They are
already vested property.
Disbursement of Public Funds – Any disbursement of public
funds, which include the salaries and benefits to government
officials must:
a)   be authorized by law; and
b)   serve a public purpose.
In view of the public purpose requirement, the
disbursement of public funds, salaries and benefits of
government officers and employees should be granted to
compensate them for valuable public services rendered, and
the salaries and benefits paid to these employees must be
commensurate with services rendered. In the same vein,
additional allowances and benefits must be shown to be
necessary or relevant to the fulfillment of the official duties and
functions of the government officers and employees.
Step increments that are to be given to deserving officials and
employees shall be based on two criteria:
1)   merit system – for those who have served very
satisfactory or outstanding performance in assigned
functions for two consecutive rating periods.
2)   length of service – for those who have rendered
continuous satisfactory service in a particular position
for the last 3 years.
LIABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
• Three-Fold Liability Rule: The wrongful acts or omissions of
public officers may give rise to civil, criminal, and administrative
liability. The dismissal of an administrative case does not
necessarily bar the filing of a criminal prosecution for the same
acts.
Doctrine of Condonation – abandoned. Election is not a mode
of condoning an administrative offense, and there is simply no
constitutional or statutory basis in our jurisdiction to support the
notion that an official elected for a different term is fully
absolved of any liability arising from an offense done during a
prior term.
Presidential Immunity Doctrine
GR: Incumbent Presidents are immune from suit. Except:
1.   Where the petition for prohibition is directed not
against the President himself but against his
subordinates;
2.   The sitting President can be made respondent in an
election contest filed with the Supreme Court and in
an impeachment proceeding;
3.   With respect to criminal responsibilities under Rome
Statute on the International Criminal Court such as:
a.   Crimes of genocide;
b.   Against humanity;
c.   War crimes; and
d.   Crimes of aggression
Legislators
Members of the legislature, both national and local,
act as a body and discharge duties owing to the public in
general, hence, they cannot be held liable individually or
collectively, for the performance or non-performance of their
duties.
Judges
GR: Judges shall not be liable for their acts.
ER: When they act without jurisdiction. The law will not protect
them for exercising powers that do no belong to them. This is
usurpation.
As a rule, the acts of a judge, which pertain to his
judicial functions, are not subject to disciplinary power unless
they are committee with fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad
faith. The quantum of evidence to hold a judge administratively
liable is only a preponderance of evidence.
Quasi-Judicial Officers
Decisions rendered by them may be reversed by
courts of justice upon a showing that they were attended by a
grave abuse of discretion.
Local Officials
The rules governing the liability of officials in the
national government are applicable to local officials in the
discharge of their discretionary and ministerial functions.
Ministerial Officers
A ministerial act has been defined as “an act
performed in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the law or
mandate of legal authority, without regard to, or exercise of,
the judgment of the individual upon the propriety of the act
being done.
a)   Nonfeasance – the neglect o refusal, without sufficient
excuse, to perform an act, which it was the officer’s
legal duty to the individual to perform.
b)   Misfeasance – is the failure to use, in the performance
of a duty owing to the individual, that degree of care,
skill and diligence, which the circumstances of the
case reasonably demand.
c)   Malfeasance – the doing, either through ignorance,
inattention or malice, of that which the officer had no
legal right to do at all, as where he acts without any
authority whatever, or exceeds, ignores or abuses his
powers.
Liability for Acts of Subdivision
GR: Superior officers cannot be held liable for the acts of their
subordinates as otherwise competent persons may not be
willing to join the public service for fear of imputation to them of
shortcomings of others.
ER:
1.   Where, being charged with the duty of employing or
retaining his subordinates, he negligently or willfully
employs or retains unfit or improper persons;
2.   Where, being charged with the duty to see that they
are appointed and qualified in a proper manner, he
negligently or willfully fails to require of them the due
conformity or the prescribed regulations;
3.   Where he so carelessly or negligently oversees,
conducts or carries on the business of his office as to
furnish the opportunity for the default;
4.   Where he has directed, authorized or cooperated in
the wrong.
Personal Liability
An administrative proceeding is different from a
criminal case and may proceed independently thereof; the
quantum of proof in the latter is different, such that the verdict
in one need not necessarily be the same as in the other.
GR: The dismissal of an administrative case does not
necessarily follow the dismissal of a criminal case, the former
requiring as it does, only a preponderance of evidence while
the latter requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Shauf v. CA – The doctrine of immunity from suit will not apply and
may not be invoked where the public official is being sued in his
private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen.
Williams v. Rarang – Public officials can be held personally
accountable for acts claimed to have been performed in
connection with official duties where they have acted ultra vires or
where there is showing of bad faith.
Rama v. CA – A public officer who commits a tort or other wrongful
act, done in excess or beyond the scope of his duty, is not protected
and is personally liable therefor like any private individual.
Death of A Public Officer
GR: The death of a public officer does not preclude a
finding of administrative liability. Except:
1.   As when due process may be subverted;
2.   For equitable and humanitarian reasons;
3.   The penalty imposed would render the proceedings
useless.
• Settled is the rule that administrative offenses do not prescribe. Retirement Benefits
Retirement laws are liberally construed and
TERMINATION OF OFFICIAL RELATIONS administered in favor of the persons intended to be benefited,
and all doubts are resolved in favor of the retiree to achieve
1.   Expiration of term or tenure. their humanitarian purpose.
2.   Reaching the age limit.
3.   Resignation. 3. Resignation
4.   Recall. Act of giving up or the act of a public officer by which
5.   Removal. he declines his office and renounces the further right to use it. It
6.   Abandonment. an express or implied intention to surrender, renounce and
7.   Acceptance of an incompatible office. relinquish the office and the acceptance thereof by
8.   Abolition of office. competent and lawful authority.
9.   Prescription of the right to office. (a)   Voluntariness – it must be voluntary on the part of the
10.   Impeachment. public officer. If resignation was due to fraud or duress,
11.   Death. resignation may be repudiated.
12.   Failure to assume elective office within six months from (b)   Acceptance by competent authority which can be
proclamation. express or implied.
13.   Conviction of a crime. (c)   Acceptance of resignation shall be made by
14.   Filing of a certificate of candidacy. competent authority.

1. Expiration of Term or Tenure

Persons Authorized Persons Retiring
to Accept
Expiration of Term Tenure
Term is the period of time during Tenure is the period of time President Governors, vice governors and mayors and
which a public officer has the during which the public vice mayors of highly urbanized cities and
right to hold public office. officer actually held the independent component cities
office.
Governor Municipal mayors and vice mayors, city
mayors of competent cities
Astraquillo v. Manglapus – The petitioners appointments to Foreign
Service were made on "bases other than those of the usual test of
Sanggunian Sangguniang members
merit and fitness utilized for the career service." This being so, their
concerned
tenure was coterminous with that of the appointing authority
subject to his pleasures. City or Municipal Barangay officials
When a public officer holds office at the pleasure of the Mayors
appointing authority, his being replaced shall be regarded as
termination through expiration of term, not removal.
4. Recall
Principle of Hold-Over The termination of official relationship of an elective
The public officer is entitled to hold his office until his official for loss of confidence prior to the expiration of his term
successor shall have been duly chosen and shall have qualified. through the will of the electorate.
At this period, the public officer is a de jure officer.
Who shall initiate the recall process?
Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan – Under the concept of hold-over, the By the registered voters of the local government unit.
office does not become vacant upon the expiration of the term if *The Preparatory Recall Assembly has been
there is no successor elected and qualified to assume it, but the eliminated as a mode of initiating recall of elective local
present incumbent will carry over until his successor is elected and government officials due to R.A. 9244, Sec. 70 and Sec. 71.
qualified, even though it be beyond the term fixed by law. In the
instant case, although B.P. Blg. 51 does not say that a Sanggunian 5. Removal
member can continue to occupy his post after the expiration of his
term in case his successor fails to qualify, it does not also say that he Grounds
is proscribed from holding over. Absent an express or implied •   Dishonesty;
constitutional or statutory provision to the contrary, an officer is •   Oppression;
entitled to stay in office until his successor is appointed or chosen •   Misconduct;
and has qualified. The legislative intent of not allowing holdover •   Neglect of duty;
must be clearly expressed or at least implied in the legislative •   Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
enactment, otherwise it is reasonable to assume that the law- •   Notoriously graceful or immoral conduct;
making body favors the same. This is founded on obvious •   Improper or unauthorized solicitation of contributions
considerations of public policy, for the principle of holdover is from subordinate employees and by teachers or
specifically intended to prevent public convenience from suffering school officials from school children;
because of a vacancy and to avoid a hiatus in the performance of •   Violation of the existing Civil service law and rules or of
government functions.
the reasonable office regulations; and
•   Interest of the service.
2. Reaching of Age Limit
The Commissioner may:
Branch Age of Retirement
1.   remove any subordinate officer or employee from the
Judiciary 70 y.o.
service;
Other govt’ officer and 65 y.o.
2.   demote him in rank;
employees.
3.   suspend him for not more than 1 year without pay; or
4.   fine him an amount not exceeding 6 months salary.
ER: Special retirement laws. It allows optional retirement after an
officer has rendered a minimum no. of years of gov’t service.
If a public officer is removed but not for a just cause? Or there
was non-compliance with the prescribed procedure?
Rabor v. CSC – the court ruled that head of agency is vested with
the discretionary authority to allow or disallow extension of service It constitutes a reversible error and entitles the officer
of an official or employee who has reached the age of 65 without to be reinstated with back salaries and without loss of seniority
completing 15 years of government service, although discretion rights. If an official or employee is illegally dismissed and his
must be exercised conformably with CSC MC 27. reinstatement is ordered by the court, he is considered as not
It was also held in In Re: Gregorio Pineda that judiciary having left his office.
also allows extension if satisfied that the career of the retiree was
marked by competence, integrity and dedication.
Instances Where Termination Need Not Be Dependent On Just
Cause
1.   Tenure of “political” or “non-career” members of the
Foreign Service is coterminous with that of the
appointing authority or subject to his pleasure. Their
termination is not dependent on proof of some legally
recognized cause and after due notice and hearing
but relies on the will of the president.
2.   Officials and employees holding primarily, confidential
positions continue in office for as long as confidence
in them endures; the termination of their official
relation can be justified on the ground of loss of
confidence, but in that case, their cessation from
office involves no removal but expiration of term of
office.
3.   Officers and employees holding temporary or acting
appointments may be removed at any time, without
necessity of just cause or a valid investigation.

Procedure in Disciplinary Cases

Can administrative case continue even if it has been withdrawn

by complainant?
Yes. Disciplinary actions against public officers do not
involve purely private matters; they are impressed with public
interest by virtue of the public character of the public office. So
affidavit of desistance shall be disregarded.

What is the required proof?

Substantial proof is sufficient basis for the imposition of
any disciplinary action upon an employee. The standard of
substantial evidence is satisfied when the employer has
reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible
for the misconduct and his participation therein renders him
unworthy of trust and confidence demanded by his position

Jurisdiction
Heads of ministries, agencies and instrumentalities,
provinces, cities and municipalities have jurisdiction to
investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary action
against officers and employees under their jurisdiction.
Civil Service Commission has appellate jurisdiction, but
a complaint may be filed directly with the Commission, and the
latter may hear and decide the case, or deputize a
department or agency to conduct the investigation.

Preventive Suspension
Preventive suspension is not a penalty by itself; it is merely a
measure of precaution so that the employee who is charged
may be separated from the scene of his alleged misfeasance
while the same is being investigated, to prevent him from using
his position or office to influence prospective witnesses or
tamper with the records, which may be vital in the prosecution
of the case against him.

Kinds of Preventive Suspension of Civil Service Employees

Charged with Offenses Punishable by Removal or Suspension:
(a)   preventive suspension pending investigation; and
(b)   preventive suspension pending appeal if the penalty
imposed by the disciplinary authority is suspension or
dismissal and, after review, the respondent is
exonerated.

Summary Proceedings
No formal investigation is necessary and the
respondent may be immediately removed or dismissed if any of
the following circumstances is present:
(a)   When the charge is serious and the evidence of guilty
is strong;
(b)   When the respondent is a recidivist or has been
repeatedly charged and there is reasonable ground
to believe that he is guilty of the present charge;
(c)   When the respondent is notoriously undesirable.
Resort to summary proceedings by disciplinary
authority shall be done with utmost objectivity and impartiality
to the end that no injustice is committed: Provided, that
removal or dismissal except those by the President, himself, or
upon his order, may be appealed to the Commission.