Aida D. Eugenio Vs Civil Service Commission G.R. No. 115863 March 31, 1995

AIDA D.
EUGENIO vs CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
G.R. No. 115863 March 31, 1995
Facts: The power of the Civil Service Commission to abolish the Career
Executive Service Board is challenged in this petition for certiorari and
prohibition.
First the facts. Petitioner is the Deputy Director of the Philippine Nuclear
Research Institute. She applied for a Career Executive Service (CES)
Eligibility and a CESO rank on August 2, 1993, she was given a CES
eligibility. On September 15, 1993, she was recommended to the President
for a CESO rank by the Career Executive Service Board.
All was not to turn well for petitioner. On October 1, 1993, respondent Civil
Service Commission2 passed Resolution No. 93-4359 integrating the
Career Executive Services Commission to the Civil Service Commission.
The above resolution became an impediment to the appointment of

petitioner as Civil Service Officer, Rank IV.
Finding herself bereft of further administrative relief as the Career

Executive Service Board which recommended her CESO Rank IV has been
abolished, petitioner filed the petition at bench to annul, among others,
resolution No. 93-4359. She argued that said resolution is in violation of
the constitution, respondent commission usurped the legislative functions
of congress when it abolished the CESB, an office created by law, through
the issuance of CSC: resolution no. 93-4359;
The Solicitor General agreed with the contentions of petitioner. Respondent

Commission, however, argued that the instant petition states no cause of
action against the public respondent and that the integration of the CESB
to the CSC is authorized by law.
Issue: Whether or not the CSC usurped the legislative functions of

Congress when it integrated the CESB to the Commission?
Ruling: Yes. 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. 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. Commission's power to reorganize is limited to offices
under its control as enumerated in Section 16, supra. From its inception,
the CESB was intended to be an autonomous entity, albeit administratively
attached to respondent Commission. As conceptualized by the
Reorganization Committee "the CESB shall be autonomous. It is expected
to view the problem of building up executive manpower in the government
with a broad and positive outlook." The essential autonomous character
of the CESB is not negated by its attachment to respondent Commission.
By said attachment, CESB was not made to fall within the control of
respondent Commission.
The petition is granted and Resolution No. 93-4359 of the respondent

Commission is hereby annulled and set aside.
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION vs THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
G.R. No. 83815

February 22, 1991
Facts:
Petitioners seek a declaration of the unconstitutionality of Executive Order

No. 284 issued by President Corazon C. Aquino on July 25, 1987.
Executive Order No. 284, according to the petitioners allows members of

the Cabinet, their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold other
than government offices or positions in addition to their primary positions.
The pertinent provisions of EO 284 is as follows:
Section 1: A cabinet member, undersecretary or assistant secretary or

other appointive officials of the Executive Department may in addition to
his primary position, hold not more than two positions in the government
and government corporations and receive the corresponding compensation
therefor.
Section 2: If they hold more positions more than what is required in section
1, they must relinquish the excess position in favor of the subordinate
official who is next in rank, but in no case shall any official hold more than
two positions other than his primary position.
Section 3: At least 1/3 of the members of the boards of such corporation

should either be a secretary, or undersecretary, or assistant secretary.
Petitioner’s contend the constitutionality of EO 284 because it

adds exceptions to Section 13 of Article VII other than those provided
in the constitution. According to the petitioners, the only exceptions
against holding any other office or employment in government are
those provided in the Constitution namely: 1. The Vice
President (may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet under
Section 3 par.2 of Article VII: “The Vice-President may be appointed
as a Member of the Cabinet. Such appointment requires no
confirmation.”) and the secretary of justice (as an ex-officio member
of the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of Sec. 8 of article VIII: “A
Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the
Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman,
the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex
officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of
law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of
the private sector.”)
Issue: Whether or not Executive Order No. 284 is constitutional?
Ruling: No. It is unconstitutional. Executive Order No. 284 was declared

null and void. In the light of the construction given to Section 13 of Article
VII, Executive Order No. 284 is unconstitutional. By restricting the number
of positions that Cabinet members, undersecretaries or assistant
secretaries may hold in addition their primary position to not more than
two positions in the government and government corporations, EO 284
actually allows them to hold multiple offices or employment in direct
contravention of the express mandate of Sec. 13 of Article VII of the 1987
Constitution prohibiting them from doing so, unless otherwise provided in
the 1987 Constitution itself.
The phrase “unless otherwise provided in this constitution” must be given

a literal interpretation to refer only to those particular instances cited in
the constitution itself: Sec. 3 Art VII and Sec. 8 Art. VIII.
Executive Order No. 284 is hereby declared null and void and is accordingly
set aside.

Aida D. Eugenio Vs Civil Service Commission G.R. No. 115863 March 31, 1995

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aida D. Eugenio Vs Civil Service Commission G.R. No. 115863 March 31, 1995

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aida D. Eugenio Vs Civil Service Commission G.R. No. 115863 March 31, 1995

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AIDA D.

EUGENIO vs CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

G.R. No. 115863 March 31, 1995

The above resolution became an impediment to the appointment of

Finding herself bereft of further administrative relief as the Career

The Solicitor General agreed with the contentions of petitioner. Respondent

Issue: Whether or not the CSC usurped the legislative functions of

The petition is granted and Resolution No. 93-4359 of the respondent

CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION vs THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

G.R. No. 83815

Petitioners seek a declaration of the unconstitutionality of Executive Order

Executive Order No. 284, according to the petitioners allows members of

Section 1: A cabinet member, undersecretary or assistant secretary or

Section 3: At least 1/3 of the members of the boards of such corporation

Petitioner’s contend the constitutionality of EO 284 because it

Issue: Whether or not Executive Order No. 284 is constitutional?

Ruling: No. It is unconstitutional. Executive Order No. 284 was declared

The phrase “unless otherwise provided in this constitution” must be given

You might also like