A.

Modes of Acquiring Title to Public Office

Generally, the two modes of acquiring title to

public office are
1. Appointment
2. Election [DE LEON]
Modes
1. Appointment
The act of designation by the executive officer,
board, or body to whom that power has been
delegated, of the individual who is to exercise
the powers and function of a given office. It is
to be distinguished from the selection or
designation by a popular vote. [DE LEON].
2. Election
The choice or selection of candidates to public
office by popular vote through the use of the
ballot (Rulloda v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 154198
(2003)].
The act of selecting or choosing a person by
popular vote to occupy the office.
3. Designation
The mere imposition of new or additional duties
upon an officer to be performed by him in a
special manner. It presupposes that the officer
is already in the service by virtue of an earlier
appointment, performing other functions.
4. Other Modes: A person may also acquire
title to public office through two other
means, namely:
a. Succession by operation of law (when
the office to which one succeeds is
legally vacated) or;
b. By direct provision of law (such as
when the office is validly held in an exofficio
capacity by a public officer).
1. Appointments
Nature
Appointment is a Discretionary Power
“Appointment is an essentially discretionary
power and must be performed by the officer in
which it is vested according to his best lights,
the only condition being that the appointee
should possess the qualifications required by
law. If he does, then the appointment cannot be
faulted on the ground that there are others
better qualified who should have been
preferred” [Luego v. CSC, G.R. No. 69137
(1986)].
Administrators of public officers, primarily the
department heads should be entrusted with
plenary, or at least sufficient, discretion. Their
position most favorably determines who can
best fulfill the functions of a vacated office.
There should always be full recognition of the
wide scope of a discretionary authority, unless
the law speaks in the most mandatory and peremptory tone, considering all the
circumstances [Reyes v. Abeleda, G.R. No.
25491 (1968)].
Scope of discretion
The discretion of the appointing authority is not
only in the choice of the person who is to be
appointed but also in the nature and character
of the appointment intended (i.e., whether the
appointment is permanent or temporary).
Generally, a Political Question: Appointment is
generally a political question involving
considerations of wisdom which only the
appointing authority can decide.
Exception: Appointments requiring
confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments. In such cases, the Commission
on Appointments may review the wisdom of the
appointment and has the power to refuse to
concur with it even if the President's choice
possessed all the qualifications prescribed by
law [Luego v. CSC, supra].
Power of CSC to recall appointments does
not include control of discretion:
The CSC authority to recall an appointment
which has been initially approved when it is
shown that the same was issued in disregard
of pertinent laws, rules and regulations.
However, it does not have the power to recall
an appointment on the ground that another
person is better qualified [See Luego v. CSC,
supra].
The promotion of the “next-in-rank” is not
mandatory
While there is a preference for the next- in-rank
in the Civil Service Law [see Sec. 21(1)-(6), Bk.
V, Admin. Code (Civil Service Law)], it does not
impose a “rigid or mechanistic formula” that
requires the appointing power to select the
more senior officer. Unless the law speaks in
the most mandatory and peremptory tone,
there should be full recognition of the wide
scope of the discretionary authority to appoint
[Reyes v. Abeleda, G.R. No. 25491 (1968)].
There is no requirement that “vacancies must
be filled by promotion, transfer, reinstatement,
reemployment or certification,in that order.
That would be to construe the provision not
merely as a legislative prescription of
qualifications but as a legislative appointment,
repugnant to the Constitution. What [the law]
does purport to say is that as far as practicable
the person next in rank should be promoted,
otherwise the vacancy may be filled by
transfer, reinstatement, reemployment or
certification, as the appointing power sees fit,
provided the appointee is certified to be
qualified and eligible” [Pineda v. Claudio, G.R.
No. 29661 (1967)].
“Upon recommendation” is merely advisory: In
cases of provincial and city prosecutors and
their assistants, they shall be appointed by the
President “upon the recommendation of the
Secretary” [Sec. 10, P.D. No. 1275]. The
phrase “upon recommendation of the
Secretary of Justice” should be interpreted to
be a mere advice. It is persuasive in character,
but is not binding or obligatory upon the person
to whom it is made [Bermudez v. Torres, G.R.
No. 131429 (1999)].
N.B. The Secretary of Justice is under the
control of the President. The rule is different
with respect to recommendations made by
officers over whom the appointing power
exercises no power of control, e.g. as the
recommendation by the Governor of a
Province to the Secretary of the Department of
Budget and Management in the appointment of
a Provincial Budget Officer. In the said
example, the recommendation by the Governor
is a condition sine qua non for the validity of the
appointment [See San Juan v. CSC, G.R. No.
92299 (1991)].
Courts will act with restraint: Generally, as
regards the power of appointment, courts will
act with restraint.
Hence, mandamus will not lie to require the
appointment of a particular applicant or
nominee.
Exceptions
1. When there is grave abuse of discretion,
prohibition or mandamus will lie. [See
Aytona v. Castillo, G.R. No. 19313 (1962),
on the midnight appointments of President
Garcia].
2. Where the palpable excess of authority or
abuse of discretion in refusing to issue
promotional appointment would lead to
manifest injustice, mandamus will lie to
compel the appointing authority to issue
said appointments [Pineda v. Claudio, G.R.
No. 29661 (1967)].
Appointment is Generally an Executive
Function
General Rule: Appointment to office is
intrinsically an executive act involving the
exercise of discretion [Concepcion v. Paredes,
G.R. 17539 (1921)].
Exceptions
1. Congress may appoint its own officials and
staff [See Springer v. Government, 277
U.S. 189 (1928)].
2. When the Constitution vests the powers in
another branch of the State (i.e. Judiciary,
Sec. 5(6), Art. VIII) or an independent office
(e.g. Constitutional Commissions, Sec. 4,
Art. IX-A; Ombudsman, Sec. 6, Art. XI;
Commission on Human Rights, Sec.
18(10), Art. XIII).
N.B. Mechem believes that when appointment
is exercised by Congress, the courts, and
similar non- executive bodies, the exercise is
still an executive function.
The power to appoint may be granted by law to
officials exercising executive functions. This is
expressly sanctioned by the provision which
holds that “Congress may, by law, vest the
appointment of other officers lower in rank [...]
in the heads of departments, agencies,
commissions, or boards.” [Sec. 16, Art. VII,
Constitution]
Congress cannot vest such power in officials
not mentioned in the above provision, such as
heads of bureaus [DE LEON].
The power of local chief executives to appoint
local government employees under the Local
Government Code is separately sanctioned in
the power of Congress to “provide for the
qualifications, election, appointment and
removal, term, salaries, powers and functions
and duties of local officials, and all other
matters relating to the organization and
operation of the local units” [Sec. 3, Art. X,
Constitution].
Must be Unhindered by Congress
The President’s power to appoint under the
Constitution should necessarily have a
reasonable measure of freedom, latitude, or
discretion in choosing appointees [Cuyegkeng
v. Cruz, G.R. No. 16263 (1960)].
Congress cannot either appoint the
Commissioner of the Service, or impose upon
the President the duty to appoint any particular
person to said office. The appointing power is
the exclusive prerogative of the President,
upon which no limitations may be imposed by
Congress, except those resulting [1] from the
need of securing the concurrence of the
Commission on Appointments and [2] from the
exercise of the limited legislative power to
prescribe the qualifications to a given
appointive office [Manalang v. Quitoriano, G.R.
No. 6898 (1954)].
Legislative appointments
Legislative appointments are repugnant to the
Constitution [Pineda v. Claudio, G.R. No.
29661 (1967)].
Effectively legislative appointments are also
prohibited: “When Congress clothes the
President with the power to appoint an officer,
it (Congress) cannot at the same time limit the
choice of the President to only one candidate.
[...] when the qualifications prescribed by
Congress can only be met by one individual,
such enactment effectively eliminates the
discretion of the appointing power to choose
and constitutes an irregular restriction on the
power of appointment.” [Flores v. Drilon, G.R.
No. 104732 (1993)] In this case, the law
assailed provided that “for the first year of its mayor of the City of Olongapo shall be
appointed [by the President] as the chairman
and chief executive officer of the Subic
Authority.”
N.B. This is not to be confused with the power
of Congress to appoint its own staff and
officials, supra.
Requisites for a valid appointment
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 appointee accepts the appointment by
taking the oath and entering into discharge
of duty. [Garces v. CA, G.R. No. 114795,
(1996)].
2. Election
Election is the means by which the people
choose their officials for a definite and fixed
period and to whom they entrust for the time
being the exercise of the powers of the
government. (Garchitorena v. Crescini, 39 Phil.
258)
In an election, an officer occupies the office by
virtue of the mandate of the electorate. They
are elected for a definite term and may be
removed therefrom only upon stringent
conditions. [Farinas v. Executive Secretary,
G.R. No. 147387 (2003)].
The first consideration of every democratic
polity is to give effect to the expressed will of
the majority.
3. Designation
It is the imposition of additional duties, usually
by law, on a person already in public office.
[Binamira v. Garrucho, G.R. No. 92008 (1990)].
Designation may also be loosely defined as an
appointment because it likewise involves the
naming of a particular person to a specified
public office. That is the common
understanding of the term. However, where the
person is merely designated and not
appointed, the implication is that he shall hold
the office only in a temporary capacity and may
be replaced at will by the appointing authority.
In this sense, the designation is considered
only an acting or temporary appointment,
which does not confer security of tenure on the
person named.
An employee who is designated in an acting
capacity is not entitled to the difference in
salary between his regular position and the
higher position to which he is designated, in the
absence of any authority to authorize the
payment of his additional salary [Dimaandal v.
Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 122197
(1998)].

B. Modes and Kinds of Appointment

p. 215 UP Rev

A permanent appointment is extended to a

person possessing the requisite qualifications,
including the eligibility required for the position,
and thus, protected by the constitutional
guarantee of security of tenure. (NACHURA,
Outline Reviewer in Political Law)
2. Temporary
A temporary appointment is an acting
appointment; it is extended to one who may not
possess the requisite qualifications or eligibility
required by law for the position, and is
revocable at will, without the necessity of just
cause or valid investigation. [NACHURA]
Temporary appointment shall not exceed 12
months, but the appointee may be replaced
sooner if a qualified civil service eligible
becomes available. [P.D. 807, Sec. 25(b)]
An “acting” appointment is a temporary
appointment and revocable in character.
[Marohombsar v. Alonto, 194 SCRA 391]
A mere designation does not confer security of
tenure, as the person designated occupies the
position only in an acting capacity. [Sevilla v.
CA, 209 SCRA 637]
Acquisition of the appropriate civil service
eligibility by a temporary appointee will not ipso
facto convert the temporary appointment into a
permanent one; a new appointment is
necessary. [Province of Camarines Sur v. CA,
G.R. No. 104639, (1995)]
The mere fact that a position belongs to the
Career Service does not automatically confer
security of tenure. Such right will have to
depend on the nature of the appointment
which, in turn, depends on the appointee’s
eligibility or lack of it. [De Leon v. CA, G.R. No.
127182 (2001)]
When temporary appointments not allowed: In
no case shall any Member [or Chair] of the (a)
Civil Service Commission, (b) Commission on
Elections, or (c) Commission on Audit be
appointed or designated in a temporary or
acting capacity. [Sec. 1(2), Art. IX-B; Sec. 1(2),
Art. IX-C; Sec. 1(2), Art. IXD, Constitution]
a. Presidential Appointments
Four Groups of Officers the President is
Authorized to Appoint [Sarmiento v. Mison,
G.R. No. 79974 (1987)]
1. Specifically enumerated under Sec.
16, Art. VII of the Constitution, i.e.:
a. Heads of the executive departments;
b. Ambassadors;
c. Other public ministers and consuls;
d. Officers of the armed forces from the
rank of colonel or naval captain;
e. Other officers whose appointments
are vested in him by the Constitution:
1. Regular members of the
Judicial and Bar Council
2. The Chairman and
Commissioners of the Civil
Service Commission
3. The Chairman and
Commissioners of the
COMELEC
4. The Chairman and
Commissioners of the
Commission on Audit
5. Members of the Regional
Consultative Commission

All other officers of the Government

whose appointments are not
otherwise provided for by law;
3. Officers whom the President may be
authorized by law to appoint (e.g.
heads of GOCCs, undersecretaries,
heads of bureaus and offices, and
other officials);
4. Officers lower in rank whose
appointments the Congress may by
law vest in the President alone.
Requires CA Confirmation or Not
WHEN CA CONFIRMATION REQUIRED
[Sec. 16, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution; Sarmiento
v. Mison, 156 SCRA 549]
1. Specifically enumerated under Sec. 16, Art.
VII of the Constitution:
a. Heads of the executive departments;
b. Ambassadors;
c. Other public ministers and consuls;
d. Officers of the armed forces from the
rank of colonel or naval captain;
e. Other officers whose appointments
are vested in him by the Constitution.
WHEN CA CONFIRMATION NOT REQUIRED
[Sec. 16, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution]:
1. All other officers whose appointments are
not otherwise provided for by law;
2. Officers whom the President may be
authorized by law to appoint;
3. Appointments explicitly exempted from the
confirmation requirement under the
Constitution:
(a) Vice-President as a member of the
cabinet [Sec. 3, Art. VII];
(b) Members of the Supreme Court and
judges of lower courts [Sec. 9, Art.
VIII];
(c) The Ombudsman and his deputies
[Sec. 9, Art. XI].
The list of appointments requiring confirmation
is exclusive. Congress cannot, by law, require
confirmation by the CA for a public office
created by statute. This would be
unconstitutional as it expands the powers of
the CA [Calderon v. Carale, G.R. No. 91636
(1992)].

Disapproval vs. Bypass

An ad interim appointee disapproved by the
COA cannot be reappointed. But a by-passed
appointee, or one whose appointment was not
acted upon the merits by the CA, may be
appointed again by the President, because
failure by the CA to confirm an ad interim
appointment is not disapproval.
Renewal of by-passed appointment
“A by-passed appointment is one that has not
been finally acted upon on the merits by the
Commission on Appointments at the close of
the session of Congress. There is no final
decision by the Commission on Appointments
to give or withhold its consent to the
appointment as required by the Constitution.

Absent such decision, the President is free to

renew the ad interim appointment of a bypassed
appointee.”
An ad interim appointment is a permanent
appointment, and its being subject to
confirmation does not alter its permanent
character. (Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng
Maynila v. IAC, 140 SCRA 22)
Classification of appointments into regular and
ad interim can be used only when referring to
the four (4) categories of appointments made
by the President of the Philippines in the first
sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VIII of the
Constitution, which require confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments, viz.:
(a) Heads of executive departments;
(b) Ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls;
(c) Officers of the armed forces of the
Philippines, from the rank of colonel or
naval captain; and
(d) Officers whose appointments are vested in
the President under the Constitution.
(Sarmiento v. Mison, 156 SCRA 549)
3. Midnight Appointments
General rule: A President or Acting President
shall not make appointments two (2) months
immediately before the next presidential
elections and up to the end of his term
Exception: Temporary appointments to
executive positions when continued vacancies
therein will prejudice public service or
endanger public safety [Sec. 15, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution]
This provision applies only to presidential
appointments. There is no law that prohibits
local executive officials from making
appointments during the last days of their
tenure. [De Rama v. CA, G.R. No. 131136
(2001)]
The prohibition does not apply to Members of
the Supreme Court and the judiciary. [De
Castro vs. JBC, G.R. No. 191002, (2010)]
b. Appointing Power
Par. 1, Sec. 16, Art. VII, Constitution
The President shall nominate and, with the consent
of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the
heads of the executive departments, ambassadors,
other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the
armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval
captain, and other officers whose appointments are
vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also
appoint all other officers of the Government whose
appointments are not otherwise provided for by law,
and those whom he may be authorized by law to
appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the
appointment of other officers lower in rank in the
President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of
departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.
Power to Appoint as Presidential
Prerogative
The power to appoint is the prerogative of the
President, except in those instances when the
Constitution provides otherwise. Usurpation of
this fundamentally Executive power by the
Legislative and Judicial branches violates the
system of separation of powers that inheres in
our democratic republican government. [Rufino
v. Endriga, G.R. No. 139554 (2006)].
However, the grant of power to appoint to the
heads of agencies, commissions, or boards is
a matter of legislative grace. Congress has the
discretion to grant to, or withhold from, the
heads of agencies, commissions, or boards,
the power to appoint lower-ranked officers. If it
so grants, Congress may impose certain
conditions for the exercise of legislative
delegation, like requiring the recommendation
of subordinate officers or the concurrence of
the other members of the commission or board.
The Constitution is clear that the officers whom
the heads of departments, agencies,
commissions, or boards may appoint must be
of lower rank than those vested by law with the
power to appoint.
Four Groups of Officers the President is
Authorized to Appoint [Sarmiento v. Mison,
G.R. No. 79974 (1987)]
1. Specifically enumerated under Sec. 16,
Art. VII of the Constitution, i.e.:
a. Heads of the executive
departments;
b. Ambassadors;
c. Other public ministers and
consuls;
d. Officers of the armed forces
from the rank of colonel or
naval captain;
e. Other officers whose
appointments are vested in him
by the Constitution;
1. All other officers of the Government
whose appointments are not otherwise
provided for by law;
2. Officers whom the President may be
authorized by law to appoint;
3. Officers lower in rank whose
appointments the Congress may by
law vest in the President alone.

C. Powers and Duties of Public Officers

1. Scope of power of a public officer

l
Source of Powers of Public Officer
Authority of Public Officers is derived from the
people themselves. The people, directly or
through representatives, create offices and
agencies as they deem desirable for the
administration of the public function. [DE
LEON]
Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them.
[Sec. 1, Art. II, 1987 Constitution]
The right to be a public officer, then, or to
exercise the powers and authority of a public
office, must find its source in some provision of
the public law.

In the absence of a valid grant, public officials

are devoid of power. A public official exercises
power, not rights. The Government itself is
merely an agency through which the will of the
State is expressed and enforced. Its officers
therefore are likewise agents entrusted with the
responsibility of discharging its functions. As
such there is no presumption that they are
empowered to act. There must be a delegation
of such authority, either express or implied
[Villegas v. Subido, G.R. No. L-26534 (1969)].
But once the power is expressly granted, it will
be broadly construed in line with the doctrine of
necessary implication. [DE LEON]
Doctrine of Necessary Implication
All powers necessary for the effective exercise
of the express powers are deemed impliedly
granted [NACHURA]
Authority can be exercised only during the term
when the public officer is, by law, invested with
the rights and duties of the office.
Territorial limitation of authority of public
officers:
a. The authority of public officers is limited to
territory where law has effect, by virtue of
which they claim, has sovereign force – the
authority cannot exist in places where the
law has no effect
b. Action at a place not authorized by law is
ordinarily invalid – where a public officer
authorized by law to perform his office at a
particular place, action at a place not
authorized by law is invalid. (i.e. judge
levying and selling property outside its
jurisdiction is invalid.) [DE LEON]
Duration of authority
Limited to the term during which he is by law
invested with the rights and duties of the office
[DE LEON]
Construction of grant of powers
Express grants of power are subject to a strict
interpretation and will be construed as
conferring those powers only which are
expressly imposed or necessarily implied.
[DE LEON; Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage
Bank v. Monetary Board, G.R. 70054 (1991)]
2. Classification of Powers and Duties
a. As to Nature
1. Ministerial – Official duty is ministerial when
it is absolute, certain and imperative involving
merely execution of a specific duty arising from
fixed and designated facts. Where the officer or
official body has no judicial power or discretion
as to the interpretation of the law, and the
course to be pursued is fixed by law, their acts
are ministerial only. [State ex rel. School Dist.
v. Ellis, 163 Neb. 86 (Neb. 1956)]
General Rule: Performance of duties of this
nature may be properly delegated to another.
Exceptions
• Delegation is expressly prohibited by law;
or
• The law expressly requires that the act be
performed by the officer in person.
Mandamus will lie but only upon a clear
showing of a legal right [Sec. 3, Rule 65, Rules
of Court]
2. Discretionary – Acts which necessarily
require the exercise of reason in the adaptation
of means to an end, and discretion in
determining how or whether the act shall be
done or the course pursued. When the law
commits to any officer the duty of looking into
facts and acting upon them, not in a way which
it specifically directs, but after a discretion in its
nature, the function is discretionary (e.g. quasijudicial
acts).
General Rule: A public officer cannot delegate
his discretionary duties to another.
Rationale: In cases where the execution of the
office requires exercise of judgment or
discretion by the officer, the presumption is that
he was chosen to because he was deemed fit
and competent to exercise such judgment.
Exception: The power to substitute another in
his place has been expressly granted by law.

Mandamus will not lie for the performance of a

discretionary duty.
Exception to the Exception: When the
discretion is granted only as to the manner of
its exercise and not the discretion to act or not
to act, the court may require a general action
[BF Homes v. National Water Resources
Council, G.R. No. 78529 (1987)]
b. As to the Obligation of the Officer to
Perform His/Her Powers and Duties
1. Mandatory – Powers conferred on public
officers are generally construed as mandatory
although the language may be permissive,
where they are for the benefit of the public or
individuals.
2. Permissive – Statutory provisions define the
time and mode in which public officers will
discharge their duties, and those which are
obviously designed merely to secure order,
uniformity, system and dispatch in public
business are generally deemed directory.
If the act does not affect third persons and is
not clearly beneficial to the public, permissive
words will not be construed as mandatory.
[DE LEON]
c. As to the Relationship of the Officer to
His/Her Subordinates
1. Power of Control – It implies the power of
an officer to manage, direct or govern,
including the power to alter or modify or set
aside what a subordinate had done in the
performance of his duties and to
substitute his judgment for that of the
latter.
2. Power of Supervision – Supervisory
power is the power of mere oversight over
an inferior body which does not include any
restraining authority over such body. A
supervising officer merely sees to it that the
rules are followed, but he himself does not
lay down such rules, nor does he have the
discretion to modify or replace them. [DE
LEON]
3. Duties of Public Officers
a. General (Constitutional) duties
1. To be accountable to the people; to
serve them with utmost responsibility,
integrity, loyalty and efficiency; to act
with patriotism and justice; and to lead
modest lives [Sec. 1, Art. IX]
2. To submit a declaration under oath of
his assets, liabilities and net worth
upon assumption of office and as often
thereafter as may be required by law
[Sec. 17, Art. XI]
3. To owe the State and the Constitution
allegiance at all times [Sec. 18, Art. XI]
[NACHURA]
4. Duty to make financial disclosures for
Members of Congress— All Members
of the Senate and the House of
Representatives shall, upon
assumption of office, make a full
disclosure of their financial and
business interest. They shall notify the
House concerned of a potential conflict
of interest that may arise from the filing
of a proposed legislation of which they
are authors. [Sec. 12, Art. VI]
b. Duties of Public Officers as Trustees for
the Public
1. In general
a. Duty to obey the law
b. Duty to accept and continue in office
c. Duty to accept burden of office
d. Duty as to diligence and care in the
performance of official duties
e. Duty in choice and supervision of
subordinates
2. Ethical duties – bound to perform honestly,
faithfully, and to the best of his ability, and to
act primarily for the benefit of the people. An
attempt to exercise those powers corruptly for
some improper purpose is null and void.
a. Duty to refrain from outside activities
that interfere with the proper discharge
of their duties
b. Duty not to use his official power to
further his own interest.
c. Duty to act with civility [DE LEON]

c. Specific Duties under the Code of

Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees
1. Act promptly on letters and requests
2. All public officials shall, within fifteen (15)
working days from receipt, respond to
letters, telegrams or other means of
communication sent by the public. The
reply must contain the answer taken on the
request.
3. Submit annual performance reports
4. All heads or other responsible officers of
agencies of the government or of GOCCs
shall, within forty-five (45) working days
from the end of the year, render a full and
complete report of performance and
accomplishments, as prescribed by
existing rules and regulations of the
agency, office or corporation concerned.
5. Process documents and papers
expeditiously
6. All official papers and documents must be
processed and completed within a
reasonable time from the preparation
thereof and must contain, as far as
practicable, not more than three (3)
signatories therein.
7. Act immediately on the public’s personal
transactions
8. All public officials and employees must
attend to anyone who wants to avail
himself of the services of their offices, and
must, at all times, act promptly and
expeditiously.
9. Make documents accessible to the public
10. All public documents must be made
accessible to, and readily available for
inspection by, the public within reasonable
working hours [DE LEON, citing Sec. 5,
R.A. 6713].

D. Rights of Public Officers

1. Rights incident to public office

a. The rights of one elected or appointed
to office are, in general, measured by
the Constitution or the law under which
he was elected or appointed.
b. Right to office – The just and legal
claim to exercise the powers and the
responsibilities of public office.
2. Rights as a Citizen
a. Protection from publication
commenting on his fitness and the like
i. The mere fact that one
occupies a public office does
not deprive him of the
protection accorded to citizens
by the Constitution and the
laws.
ii. However, by reason of the
public character of his
employment or office, a public
officer is, in general, held not
entitled to the same protection
from publications commenting
on his fitness and the like, as is
accorded to the ordinary
citizen.
b. Engaging in certain political and
business activities
i. Public employees may be
required to suspend or refrain
from certain political or
business activities that are
embraced within the
constitutional rights of others,
when such activities are
reasonably deemed
inconsistent with their public
status and duties. [DE LEON]
c. Right to Compensation/ Salary
Compensation
In reference to the remuneration of public
officers, whether it is in the form of a fixed
salary or wages, per diems, fees, commissions, or perquisites of whatsoever
character.
Distinguished from honorarium which is
something given not as a matter of obligation
but in appreciation for services rendered.
Salary
Personal compensation to be paid to the public
officer for his services, and it is generally a
fixed annual or periodical payment depending
on the time and not on the amount of the
services he may render [DE LEON]
Basis of Right to Compensation [DE LEON]
1. Created by law
2. Services rendered - actual performance of
duties
Exceptions: Vacation leaves under CSC
MC No. 41-98; Preventive suspension
subsequently found to be unjustified [Gloria
v. CA, G.. No. 131012 (1999)]; Back
salaries in case of reinstatement
[Constantino-David v. Pangandaman-
Gania, G.R. No. 156039 (2003)].
3. Compensation fixed by law
4. Legal title to office
Exception: When there is no de jure officer
claiming the office, the de facto officer is
entitled to salaries for the period when he
actually discharged functions [Civil
Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary,
G.R. No. 83896 (1991)].
5. Amount of compensation
6. The Congress shall provide for the
standardization of compensation of
government officials and employees,
including those in government-owned or
controlled corporations with original
charters, taking into account the nature of
the responsibilities pertaining to, and the
qualifications required for their positions
[Sec. 5, Art. IX-B, 1987 Constitution].
Salary Not Subject to Garnishment
The salary of a public officer may not, by
garnishment, attachment or order of execution,
be seized before being paid to him and
appropriated for the payment of his debts. [The
Director of the Bureau of Commerce and
Industry v. Concepcion, G.R. No. L-9031,
(1922)].
Delivery required
The salary check of a government officer or
employee does not belong to him before it is
physically delivered to him. Until that time, the
check belongs to the government as public
fund and may not be garnished. [De la Victoria
v. Burgos, G.R. No. 111190(1995)].
Prohibition against receiving additional ,
double, or indirect compensation
No elective or appointive public officer
employee shall receive additional, double, or
indirect compensation unless specifically
authorized by law, nor accept without the
consent of the Congress, any present,
emolument, office, or title of any kind from any
foreign government. Pensions and gratuities
shall not be considered as additional, double or
indirect compensation [Sec. 8, Art. IX-B, 1987
Constitution].
Ex Officio Position
The ex officio position being actually and in
legal contemplation part of the principal office,
it follows that the official concerned has no right
to receive any other form of additional
compensation for his services in the said
position [Philippine Health Insurance Corp v.
COA, G.R. No. 222838, (2018)]
Other Constitutional Provisions Regarding
Compensation of Public Officers
a. The salaries of Senators and Members of
the House of Representatives shall be
determined by law. No increase in said
compensation shall take effect until after
the expiration of the full term of all the
Members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives approving such increase
[Sec. 10, Art. VI]
b. The salaries of the President and Vice-
President shall be determined by law and
shall not be decreased during their tenure.
No increase in said compensation shall
take effect until after the expiration of the
term of the incumbent during which such
increase was approved. They shall not emolument from the Government or any
other source. [Sec. 6, Art. VII]
c. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court,
and of judges of lower courts shall be fixed
by law. During their continuance in office,
their salary shall not be decreased. [Sec.
10, Art. VIII]
3. Other Rights [DE LEON]
Rights under the Constitution
a. Right to self-organization
The right to self-organization shall not be
denied to government employees. [Sec.
2(5), Art. IX-B]
b. Right to protection of temporary
employees
Employees in the government given
temporary appointments do not enjoy
security of tenure. They shall be given such
protection as may be established by law to
prevent indiscriminate dismissals.
c. Freedom of members of Congress from
arrest and from being questioned
A Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives shall, in all offenses
punishable by not more than six years
imprisonment, be privileged from arrest
while Congress is in session. No member
shall be questioned nor be held liable in
any other place for any speech or debate in
the Congress or in any committee thereof
[Sec. 11, Art. VI].
d. Right not to be removed or suspended
except for cause provided by law
Rights under the Civil Service Decree and
the New Administrative Code
a. Right to preference in promotion
b. Right to present complaints and grievances
c. Right not to be suspended or dismissed
except for cause as provided by law and
after due process
d. Right to organize
On the right to Collective Bargaining in
government employment, it is the legislature
and, where properly given delegated power,
the administrative heads of government which
fix the terms and conditions of employment.
While employees of chartered GFIs enjoy the
constitutional right to bargain collectively, they
may only do so for non economic benefits.
The DBP is bound by the Salary
Standardization Law, and monetary awards
and benefits can only be granted in accordance
with the law.
SSL: "coverage, conditions for the grant,
including the rates of allowances, benefits, and
incentives to all government employees, shall
be rationalized in accordance with the policies
to be issued by the President upon
recommendation of the Department of Budget
and Management." [DBP v. COA, G.R. No.
210838 (2018)]
Rights under the Revised Government
Service Insurance Act
Covered employees are entitled to retirement
benefits, separation benefits, unemployment or
involuntary separation benefits, disability
benefits, survivorship benefits, funeral benefits
and life insurance benefits.
Right to Retirement Pay
Retirement laws are liberally construed in favor
of the retiree [Profeta v. Drilon, G.R. No.
104139 (1992)]. It may not be withheld and
applied to his indebtedness to the government
[Tantuico v. Domingo, G.R. No. 96422 (1994)].
Right to Reimbursement and Indemnity
When a public officer, in the due performance
of his duties, has been expressly or impliedly
required by law to incur expenses on the public
account, not covered by his salary or
commission and not attributable to his own
neglect or default, the reasonable and proper
amount thereof forms a legitimate charge
against the public for which he should be
reimbursed.
Within the same limits, the officer is entitled to
be indemnified by the public against the
consequences of acts which he has been
expressly or impliedly required to perform upon the public account, and which are not
manifestly illegal and which he does not know
to be wrong.
Right to Reinstatement and Back Salary
Reinstatement
The restoration to a state or condition from
which one had been removed or separated.
One who is reinstated assumes the position he
had occupied prior to the dismissal. Back
salary or wages is a form of relief that restores
the income that was lost by reason of unlawful
dismissal.
Back Salary
An officer who has been lawfully separated or
suspended from his office is not entitled to
compensation for the period during which he
was so suspended.
Where an officer was unlawfully removed and
was prevented for a time by no fault of his own
from performing the duties of his office, he may
recover back wages, and the amount that he
had earned in other employment during his
unlawful removal should not be deducted from
his unpaid salary.
The officer cannot be faulted for her inability to
work or to render any service from the time she
was illegally dismissed up to the time of her
reinstatement. Verily, to withhold her back
salaries and other benefits during her illegal
dismissal would put to naught the constitutional
guarantee of security of tenure for those in the
civil service. [Constantino-David v.
Pangandaman-Gania, supra]
Right to Property, Devices and Inventions
Title to a public office carries with it the right,
during the incumbency of the officer, to the
insignia and property thereof.
The question whether records, discoveries,
inventions, devices, data and the like, made or
prepared by an officer while he is occupying the
office, belong to the public, must be determined
with reference to the facts of each case.
a. Where such are indispensable in the
proper conduct of the office, the officer
may not take them as his own property.
b. If, not being required by law, they are
prepared by the officer apart from his
official duties and are not
indispensable in the proper conduct of
the office, the officer may acquire a
property right therein.