Republic v imperial
lines by Commonwealth Act No. 607.
Facts: According to the Solicitor General, the first
commissioners of Elections were duly appointed and
qualified on July 12, 1945, with the following terms
of office:
Hon. Jose Lopez Vito, Chairman, for 9 years, expiring
on July 12, 1954 ,Hon. Francisco Enage, Member, for
6 years, expiring on July 12, 1951, Hon. Vicente Vera,
Member, for 3 years, expiring on July 12, 1948;
Upon the death of Chairman Jose Lopez Vito in May,
1947, Member Vicente de Vera was promoted
Chairman by appointment dated May 26, 1947. That
in accordance with previous rulings of SC, the term
of office of Chairman De Vera would have expired on
July 12, 1954, that is, the date when the term of
office of the first Chairman, Honorable Jose Lopez
Vito, would have expired; that Chairman Vicente de
Vera died in August, 1951, before the expiration of
the maximum term of nine years (on July 12, 1954)
of the first Chairman of the Commission; that on
August 11, 1951, the respondent Honorable
Domingo Imperial was appointed Chairman to
succeed Honorable Vicente de Vera; that while the
appointment of the respondent Honorable Imperial
provided that he was to serve "for a term expiring
July 12, 1960", the term for which he could legally
serve as Chairman legally expired on July 12, 1954,
that is, the expiration of the nine-year term for
which the first Chairman, Honorable Jose Lopez Vito,
was appointed; that the respondent Honorable
Rodrigo Perez was appointed Member of the
Commission on December 8, 1949, for "a term of
nine years expiring on November 24, 1958", vice
Honorable Francisco Enage, who was retired on
November, 1949; that the term of office of
respondent Perez legally expired on July 12, 1951,
the expiration of the term of six years for which
Commissioner Enage, his predecessor, was
appointed. Wherefore, the Solicitor General
concludes that the respondents Commissioners
Imperial and Perez have ceased to have any legal or
valid title to the positions.
Issue: Demand a re-examination and application of
the Constitutional amendment establishing an
independent Commission on Elections (Article X)
that became operative on December 2, 1940,
superseding the purely statutory Commission
previously created and organized along the same
Ruling: Section 1, paragraph 1, of Article X of the
Constitution reads as follows:
SEC. 1. There shall be an independent
Commission on Elections composed of a
Chairman and two other Members to be
appointed by the President with the
consent of the Commission on
Appointments, who shall hold office for a
term of nine years and may not be
reappointed. Of the Members of the
Commission first appointed, one shall hold
office for nine years, another for six years,
and the third for three years. The Chairman
and the other Members of the Commission
on Elections may be removed from office
only by impeachment in the manner
provided in this Constitution.
The provision that of the first 3 Commissioners
appointed one shall hold office for nine years,
another for 6 years and the third for 3 years when
taken together with the prescribed term of office for
9 years, without reappointment, evidences a
deliberate plan to have a regular rotation or cycle in
the membership of the Commission, by having
subsequent members appointable only once every 3
years, so that no President can appoint more than
one Commissioner, thereby preserving and
safeguarding the independence and impartiality of
the Commission as a body.
The operation of the rotational plan requires two
conditions, both indispensable to its workability: (1)
That the terms of the first 3 Commissioners should
start on a common date; and, (2) That any vacancy
due to death, resignation or disability before the
expiration of the term should be filled only for the
unexpired balance of the term. The starting date,
however, should be June 21, 1941 since that is the
date of the organization of the Constitutional
COMELEC, not July 12, 1945 as pointed out by the
Solicitor General.
Since the first three-year term had already expired,
the appointment (made on July 12, 1945) of the
Honorable Vicente de Vera must be deemed for the
full term of nine years, from June 21, 1944, to June
20, 1953.
The first vacancy occurred by expiration of the initial
6-year term of Commissioner Enage on June 21,
1937. His successor, respondent Rodrigo Perez, was
named for a full nine-year term. However, on the
principles heretofore laid, the nine-year term of
Commissioner Perez (vice Enage) should be held to
have started in June 21, 1947, to expire on June 20,
1956.
The second vacancy happened upon the death of
Chairman Jose Lopez Vito, who died on May 7, 1947,
more than two years before the expiration of his full
term. To succeed him as Chairman, Commissioner
Vicente de Vera was appointed. Such appointment, if
at all valid, could legally be only for the unexpired
period of the Lopez Vito's term, up to June 20, 1950.
To fill the vacancy created by Vera's assumption of
the Chairmanship, Commissioner Leopoldo Rovira
was appointed on May 22, 1947. Pursuant to the
principles laid down, Rovira could only fill out the
balance of Vera's term, until June 20, 1953, and
could not be reappointed thereafter.
Commissioner Vera's tenure as Chairman (vice Lopez
Vito) expired, as we have stated, on June 20, 1950,
the end of Lopez Vito's original term. A vacancy,
therefore, occurred on that date that Vera could no
longer fill, since his reappointment was expressly
prohibited by the Constitution. The next Chairman
was respondent Commissioner Domingo Imperial,
whose term of nine years must be deemed to have
begun on June 21, 1950, to expire on June 20, 1959.
The vacancy created by the legal expiration of
Rovira's term on June 20, 1953 appears unfilled up
to the present. The time elapsed, as we have held,
must be counted against his successor, whose legal
term is for nine years, from June 21, 1953 to June 20,
1962.
The fact must be admitted that appointments have
heretofore been made with little regard for the
Constitutional plan. However, if the principles set in
this decision are observed, no difficulty need be
anticipated for the future.
And it appearing, from the foregoing, that the legal
terms of office of the respondents Perez and
Imperial have not as yet expired, whether the
original terms started from the operation of the
Constitutional amendments or the enactment of C.
A. 657, the petition for quo warranto is hereby
dismissed without costs.
HDMF V COA
FACTS:
The HDMF is a government-owned and controlled
corporation On 25 March 1995, the HDMF entered
into a Contract for Manpower Services with DBPSC for
a period starting from 1 January 1995 to 31 December
1995 (1995 Contract). On 2 May 1996, the HDMF
renewed the Contract for another year under the
same terms and conditions, from 1 January 1996 to
31 December 1996 (1996 Contract). The HDMF again
renewed the Contract on 18 March 1997 for a period
starting from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 1997
(1997 Contract). The Contracts provide that DBPSC
shall supply HDMF temporary manpower services.
On 2 June 1997, the HDMF Board of Trustees
approved Resolution No. 1313, Series of 1997,
granting amelioration allowance to its employees,
including the DBPSC personnel assigned to its head
office. The grant covered employees who were in
HDMFs service on 31 December 1996, provided they
were still in the service at the time of its approval. The
amelioration allowance was chargeable against
HDMFs 1996 approved budget. The amelioration
allowance, equivalent to one month basic salary but
not less than P10,000, was released on 24 June 1997.
On 29 September 1997, State Auditor IV Delma M.
Villaflor conducted a post audit of the payment of
amelioration allowance and found that there was no
legal basis for the grant of such allowance to
employees of an independent contractor and thus
disallowed the same.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a legal basis for the
grant of amelioration allowance to HDMF
RULING: NO
The Applicability of Administrative Order No. 365
AO 365 authorized the grant of amelioration
assistance to all government personnel for the fiscal
year 1997, and prohibited payments of similar
benefits in future years unless authorized by the
President. AO 365 provides:
SECTION 1. All National Government Agencies,
Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations
(GOCCs), among others are hereby authorized to
grant Amelioration Assistance in the maximum
amount of Seven Thousand Two Hundred Pesos
(P7,200) each to their personnel, regardless of salary
and appointment status, who have rendered at least
four (4) months of service as of the payment of the
said benefit except those serving under service
contract.
SECTION 2. Heads of NGAs, LGUs including GOCCs
and GFIs as well as their respective governing
boards are hereby enjoined and prohibited from
authorizing/granting Amelioration Assistance or
any other similar benefit without prior approval
and authorization via Administrative Order by the
Office of the President.
SECTION 3. All government entities which
authorized the payment of Amelioration Assistance
in 1997 in excess of the amount authorized herein
are hereby directed to cause the refund of the
excess within a period of three (3) months to
commence after the issuance of this Order.
SECTION 4. Entities are hereby allowed to pay the
benefit herein authorized out of any available
savings for FY 1997.
AO 365 took effect on 10 October 1997. The HDMF
Board of Trustees approved on 2 June 1997
Resolution No. 1313, Series of 1997, granting the
amelioration allowance. A law or regulation has no
retroactive application unless the law or regulation
expressly provides for retroactivity. Article 4 of the
Civil Code is clear on the matter: Laws shall have no
retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.
AO 365 does not provide for any retroactive effect.
Besides, AO 365 clearly applies only to FY 1997 since
Sections 3 and 4 of AO 365 refer only to amelioration
allowance paid in 1997 from any available savings for
FY 1997. Thus, AO 365 cannot apply to 1996 and prior
years.
The Authority of HDMF to Grant Amelioration
Allowance
In approving the grant of amelioration allowance, the
HDMF relied on Section 2, Rule VIII of the Omnibus
Rules (Omnibus Rules) Implementing Executive Order
No. 292.
This provision, however, refers to career and
personnel development plans. It covers merit
promotions, performance evaluation, in-service
training, scholarships and training grants, suggestions
and incentive awards systems, and provisions for
welfare, counseling, recreation and similar services,
as well as other human resource development
interventions. In granting amelioration allowance to
the DBPSC personnel, HDMF stretched the scope of
the welfare provision beyond its meaning.
The COA points out that Section 2 of the Omnibus
Rules does not provide for any grant of allowance.
Even if we consider welfare as including economic
welfare, the grant of amelioration allowance should
cover only the regular employees of HDMF. The
Omnibus Rules specifically apply only to all officers
and employees both in the career and non-career
service. The DBPSC personnel are neither career nor
non-career service employees. They are not even
employees of HDMF or the government. They are
employees of DBPSC, a private corporation, which
temporarily assigned them to HDMF to perform
DBPSCs contractual obligations to HDMF.
HDMF also invokes Section 12 of its charter,
Presidential Decree No. 1752, as amended, to support
its cause:
SEC. 12. Powers of the Board. The Board shall have
the following powers:
(c) To authorize expenditures of the Fund in the
interest of effective administration and operations,
to adopt from time to time the budget for said
purposes.
Such power, however, is subject to existing laws and
does not give the HDMF Board blanket authority to
adopt budgets and authorize payments contrary to
law.
Presidential Decree No. 985 (PD 985), which took
effect on 22 August 1976, established a system of
compensation standardization and position
classification in the national government for all
departments, bureaus, agencies, and offices including
government-owned or controlled corporations and
financial institutions.
PD 985 authorizes additional financial
incentives only to employees of government
corporations and financial institutions. Presidential
Decree No. 1597 (PD 1597), which took effect on 11
June 1978, reiterates the same condition.
Republic Act No. 6758 (RA 6758) further
strengthened PD 985 and PD 1597. RA 6758
integrated all allowances, except those enumerated,
in the standardized salary rates prescribed.
True, RA 6758 does not specifically prohibit the grant
of other allowances. However, Section 21 of RA 6758
provides that the provisions of PD 985 and PD 1597,
which are not expressly modified, repealed or
otherwise inconsistent with RA 6758 shall remain in
effect.
Finally, on 31 May 1988, then President Corazon C.
Aquino issued Memorandum Order No. 177. Section
3 of the Memorandum Order provides:

SEC. 3. Compliance with Legal Requirements. All

government-owned or controlled corporations are
henceforth required to comply strictly with laws,
rules and regulations governing the grant of salary
increases, allowances and other benefits to their
officials and employees. The head of the
corporations shall be held responsible for any
unauthorized grant without prejudice to requiring
the refund by the employees concerned. (Emphasis
supplied)

Clearly, the HDMF Board does not have the authority,

except for 1997, to grant amelioration allowance to
its own employees. Nothing in any existing law or
presidential issuance grants authority to the HDMF
Board to pay amelioration allowance to private
employees of HDMFs service contractors.