OMBUDSMAN
VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
G.R. No. 162215, July 30, 2007
Facts:
Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo wrote a letter dated July 28,
2003 to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), requesting the approval of the
amendment of qualification standards for Director II positions in the Central
Administrative Service and Finance and Management Service of the Office of the
Ombudsman. The CSC issued Opinion No.
44, s. 2004 disapproving the request on the ground that Director II position,
being third level eligibility, is covered by the Career Executive Service. The
Office of the Ombudsman, thus, filed a petition for certiorari seeking to set
aside and nullify CSC Opinion No. 44, s. 2004.
The Office of the Ombudsman asserts that its specific,
exclusive and discretionary constitutional and statutory power as an
independent constitutional body to administer and supervise its own officials
and personnel, including the authority to administer competitive examinations
and prescribe reasonable qualification standards for its own officials, cannot
be curtailed by the general power of the CSC to administer the civil service
system. Any unwarranted and unreasonable restriction on its discretionary
authority, such as what the CSC did when it issued Opinion No. 44, s. 2004, is
constitutionally and legally infirm.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the Director II positions in the
Central Administrative Service and the Finance and Management Service of the
Office of the Ombudsman are covered by the CES
Held:
1. No. Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Section 7
of EO 292, otherwise known as “The Administrative Code of 1987,” provides:
SECTION
7. Career Service. – The Career Service
shall be characterized by (1) entrance based on merit and fitness to be determined
as far as practicable by competitive examination, or based on highly technical
qualifications; (2) opportunity for advancement to higher career positions; and
(3) security of tenure.
The
Career Service shall include:
(1)
Open Career positions for appointment
to which prior qualification in an appropriate examination is required;
(2) Closed
Career positions which are scientific, or highly technical in nature; these
include the faculty and academic staff of state colleges and universities, and
scientific and technical positions in scientific or research institutions which
shall establish and maintain their own merit systems;
(3) Positions
in the Career Executive Service; namely, Undersecretary, Assistant
Secretary, Bureau Director, Assistant Bureau Director, Regional Director,
Assistant Regional Director, Chief of Department Service and other officers of
equivalent rank as may be identified by the Career Executive Service Board, all of whom are appointed by the President;
x x x
x x x x x x (emphasis supplied)
Thus, the CES covers presidential
appointees only.
2. Under the
Constitution, the Ombudsman is the appointing authority for all officials and
employees of the Office of the Ombudsman, except the Deputy Ombudsmen.
Thus, a person occupying the position of Director II in the Central
Administrative Service or Finance and Management Service of the Office of the
Ombudsman is appointed by the Ombudsman, not by the President. As such, he is
neither embraced in the CES nor does he need to possess CES eligibility.
To classify the positions of Director II in the Central
Administrative Service and the Finance and Management Service of the Office of
the Ombudsman as covered by the CES and require appointees thereto to acquire
CES or CSE eligibility before acquiring security of tenure will lead to
unconstitutional and unlawful consequences. It will result either in (1)
vesting the appointing power for said position in the President, in violation
of the Constitution or (2) including in the CES a position not held by a
presidential appointee, contrary to the Administrative Code.
Section 6, Article XI of the Constitution provides:
Sec. 6. The officials and employees of the Office of the
Ombudsman, other than the Deputies, shall be appointed by the Ombudsman
according to the Civil Service Law.
This is complemented by Sec. 11 of RA 6770, otherwise
known as “The Ombudsman Act of 1989.”
Under
the Constitution, the Office of the Ombudsman is an independent body. As
a guaranty of this independence, the Ombudsman has the power to appoint all
officials and employees of the Office of the Ombudsman, except his deputies.This
power necessarily includes the power of setting, prescribing and administering
the standards for the officials and personnel of the Office.
To
further ensure its independence, the Ombudsman has been vested with the power
of administrative control and supervision of the Office. This includes the
authority to organize such directorates for administration and allied services
as may be necessary for the effective discharge of the functions of the Office,
as well as to prescribe and approve its position structure and staffing
pattern. Necessarily, it also includes the authority to determine and establish
the qualifications, duties, functions and responsibilities of the various
directorates and allied services of the Office. This must be so if the constitutional
intent to establish an independent Office of the Ombudsman is to remain
meaningful and significant.
Qualification standards are used as guides in appointment
and other personnel actions, in determining training needs and as aid in the
inspection and audit of the personnel work programs. They are intimately
connected to the power to appoint as well as to the power of administrative
supervision. Thus, as a corollary to the Ombudsman’s appointing and supervisory
powers, he possesses the authority to establish reasonable qualification
standards for the personnel of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Since the responsibility for the establishment,
administration and maintenance of qualification standards lies with the
concerned department or agency, the role of the CSC is limited to assisting
the department or agency with respect to these qualification standards and
approving them. The CSC cannot substitute its own standards for those of
the department or agency, specially in a case like this in which an
independent constitutional body is involved.
Petition GRANTED and Opinion No. 44, s. 2004 SET ASIDE.
0
Comments
