Provincial Government of Aurora v.

Hilario Marco,
G.R. No. 202331 April 22, 2015

The prohibition on midnight appointments only applies to presidential appointees, not

to appointments made by local chief executives. However, the Civil Service
Commission may nonetheless promulgate rules and regulations that would prohibit
such on local chief executives. It may issue rules and regulations prohibiting local chief
executives from making appointments during the last days of their tenure.
Appointments of local chief executives must conform to these civil service rules and
regulations in order to be valid.

FACTS:
Governor Ramoncita P. Ong (Governor Ong) permanently appointed Hilario Marco
(Marco) as Cooperative Development Specialist II 5 days before the term of
Governor Ong end. Marco and other appointees are submitted to the CSC field office
in Aurora. However, when Governor Bellaflor Castillo (Governor Castillo) assumed
office, she called a meeting and her Provincial Budget Officer manifested that the
province had no funds available to pay for the salaries of Governor Ong's 26
appointees including Marco.

Marco’s contention:
Thus, this resulted to Disapproval of Marco’s appointment. He was also served a
letter stating that he should refrain from reporting for work. Marco then appealed
before the CSC regarding his disapproval of appointment. The CSC granted the
appeal and the CSC ruled that it did not affect the validity of Marco's appointment
because the Province "failed to submit documentary evidence to support its
claim [that it had no funds to pay for the services of Governor Ong's
appointees]."

Province of Aurora’s contention:

They maintain that Marco's appointment was void on the ground that he was a
midnight appointee. Marco was appointed by Governor Ong five (5) days before the
end of her term, in violation of Civil Service Commission Resolution No.
030918, paragraph 2.1 of which provides:

2.1. All appointments issued by elective appointing officials after elections up to

June 30 shall be disapproved, except if the appointee is fully qualified for
the position and had undergone regular screening processes before
the Election Ban as shown in the Promotion and Selection Board (PSB)
report or minutes of meeting.

The provincial government of Aurora averred that the ruling by the Court in
Nazareno, et.al. vs. City of Dumaguete should apply, when in that case, the Court
declared that the 89 appointments made were void in violation the prohibition on

Downloaded by Rolly Arot (14rol.art30@gmail.com)

midnight appointments, and CSC Resolution No. 010988 which prohibited mass
appointments made by an outgoing Local Chief Executive without no apparent need
for their immediate issuance.

ISSUE:
W/N the appointment of Marco in violation of the rules on Midnight Appointment?

RULING:
NO, The appointment of Marco is not violative of the rules on Midnight
Appointment, and the application of Nazareno is misplaced.

First, it must be noted that the prohibition of Midnight Appointments under Sec. 15
of Art. VII of the Constitution only applies to presidential appointments. However,
the Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of the government,
may establish rules to promote efficiency and professionalism in the civil service.

Second, Nazareno was decided on the basis of CSC Resolution No. 101988, which
was superseded by CSC Resolution No. 030918, the applicable rule in this case.

The rule applicable in this case provides that appointments covered by the rule in
Midnight Appoints should be disapproved, except if the appointee is fully qualified
for the position and had undergone regular screening processes before the Election
Ban as shown in the Promotion and Selection Board (PSB) report or minutes of
meeting.

In this case, records show that Marco was fully qualified for the position, and had
undergone regular screening processes before the election ban, unlike in Nazareno
where there was no showing that the appointees possessed such qualification and
undergone regular screening processes. Moreover, the fact that the appointments
were in bulk does not invalidate the appointments, unlike the previous CSC
Resolution.

Q: What are midnight appointments?

A: A midnight appointment "refers to those appointments made within two months
immediately prior to the next presidential election." Midnight appointments are
prohibited under Article VII, Section 15 of the Constitution:

SECTION 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up
to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments,
except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies
therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.

Q: Why prohibited?
A: Midnight appointments are prohibited because an outgoing President is "duty
bound to prepare for the orderly transfer of authority to the incoming President, and
he [or she] should not do acts which he [or she] ought to know, would embarrass or
obstruct the policies of his [or her] successor." An outgoing President should not
Downloaded by Rolly Arot (14rol.art30@gmail.com)
"deprive the new administration of an opportunity to make the corresponding
appointments.

Downloaded by Rolly Arot (14rol.art30@gmail.com)

 Provincial Government of Aurora v. Hilario Marco,
G.R. No. 202331 April 22, 2015
Doctrine:
The prohibition on midnight appointments only applies to presidential appointees, not
to appointments made by local chief executives. However, the Civil Service
Commission may nonetheless promulgate rules and regulations that would prohibit
such on local chief executives. It may issue rules and regulations prohibiting local chief
executives from making appointments during the last days of their tenure.
Appointments of local chief executives must conform to these civil service rules and
regulations in order to be valid.

FACTS:
Governor Ramoncita P. Ong (Governor Ong) permanently appointed Hilario Marco
(Marco) as Cooperative Development Specialist II 5 days before the term of
Governor Ong end. Marco and other appointees are submitted to the CSC field office
in Aurora. However, when Governor Bellaflor Castillo (Governor Castillo) assumed
office, she called a meeting and her Provincial Budget Officer manifested that the
province had no funds available to pay for the salaries of Governor Ong's 26
appointees including Marco.

Marco’s contention:
Thus, this resulted to Disapproval of Marco’s appointment. He was also served a
letter stating that he should refrain from reporting for work. Marco then appealed
before the CSC regarding his disapproval of appointment. The CSC granted the
appeal and the CSC ruled that it did not affect the validity of Marco's appointment
because the Province "failed to submit documentary evidence to support its
claim [that it had no funds to pay for the services of Governor Ong's
appointees]."

Province of Aurora’s contention:

They maintain that Marco's appointment was void on the ground that he was a
midnight appointee. Marco was appointed by Governor Ong five (5) days before the
end of her term, in violation of Civil Service Commission Resolution No.
030918, paragraph 2.1 of which provides:

2.1. All appointments issued by elective appointing officials after elections up to

June 30 shall be disapproved, except if the appointee is fully qualified for
the position and had undergone regular screening processes before
the Election Ban as shown in the Promotion and Selection Board (PSB)
report or minutes of meeting.

The provincial government of Aurora averred that the ruling by the Court in
Nazareno, et.al. vs. City of Dumaguete should apply, when in that case, the Court
declared that the 89 appointments made were void in violation the prohibition on

Downloaded by Rolly Arot (14rol.art30@gmail.com)

midnight appointments, and CSC Resolution No. 010988 which prohibited mass
appointments made by an outgoing Local Chief Executive without no apparent need
for their immediate issuance.

ISSUE:
W/N the appointment of Marco in violation of the rules on Midnight Appointment?

RULING:
NO, The appointment of Marco is not violative of the rules on Midnight
Appointment, and the application of Nazareno is misplaced.

First, it must be noted that the prohibition of Midnight Appointments under Sec. 15
of Art. VII of the Constitution only applies to presidential appointments. However,
the Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of the government,
may establish rules to promote efficiency and professionalism in the civil service.
Second, Nazareno was decided on the basis of CSC Resolution No. 101988, which
was superseded by CSC Resolution No. 030918, the applicable rule in this case.

The rule applicable in this case provides that appointments covered by the rule in
Midnight Appoints should be disapproved, except if the appointee is fully qualified
for the position and had undergone regular screening processes before the Election
Ban as shown in the Promotion and Selection Board (PSB) report or minutes of
meeting.

In this case, records show that Marco was fully qualified for the position, and had
undergone regular screening processes before the election ban, unlike in Nazareno
where there was no showing that the appointees possessed such qualification and
undergone regular screening processes. Moreover, the fact that the appointments
were in bulk does not invalidate the appointments, unlike the previous CSC
Resolution.

Q: What are midnight appointments?

A: A midnight appointment "refers to those appointments made within two months
immediately prior to the next presidential election." Midnight appointments are
prohibited under Article VII, Section 15 of the Constitution:

SECTION 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up
to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments,
except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies
therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.

Q: Why prohibited?

Downloaded by Rolly Arot (14rol.art30@gmail.com)

A: Midnight appointments are prohibited because an outgoing President is "duty
bound to prepare for the orderly transfer of authority to the incoming President, and
he [or she] should not do acts which he [or she] ought to know, would embarrass or
obstruct the policies of his [or her] successor." An outgoing President should not
"deprive the new administration of an opportunity to make the corresponding
appointments.

Downloaded by Rolly Arot (14rol.art30@gmail.com)