A REVIEWER BY

CONSTI GROUP 1

1-A

AGGABAO
ALPAPARA
CAYANONG
GENOVEZA
NARCISO
ORDOÑA
PANDY
PINEDA
SAMALA
TONGSON
VELUZ

ARTICLE IX
Common Provisions
COMMON
PROVISIONS

The Constitutional Commissions, which shall be independent,

SECTION 1 are the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections,
and the Commission on Audit

COMMISSIONS AND THEIR KEY FUNCTIONS

In order to protect their integrity, these commissions have

been made independent constitutional bodies.

1. Civil Service Commission

Personnel office of government
- administers matters concerning government employees, from
appointment to retirement

2. Commission on Elections
Electoral office of government
- enforces laws on elections and has original jurisdiction over
electoral protests, inclusion and exclusion of voter and/or candidates

3. Commission on Audit
Auditing office of government
- monitors government expenditures and ensures that there are no
unnecessary, excessive, and extravagant uses of government funds
COMMON
PROVISIONS

No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his

SECTION 2 tenure, hold any other office or employment. Neither shall he
engage in the practice of any profession which, in any way, may
be affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he be
financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract
with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the
Government, any of its subdivisions, agencies, or
instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries.

The salary of the Chairman and the Commissioners shall be

SECTION 3
fixed by law and shall not be decreased during their tenure

RA 6758
establishes salary grades of government officials
Chairman of a Constitutional Commission: Salary Grade 31
Commissioner: Salary Grade 30

The Constitutional Commission shall appoint their officials and

SECTION 4
employees in accordance with law.

Appointing Power
The commissions may appoint within their own offices but still
have to be subject to the rules and laws promulgated by the CSC
so as not to take its power of appointments
COMMON
PROVISIONS

The Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Their approved

SECTION 5 annual appropriations shall be automatically and regularly
released.

Automatic Release of Appropriations

Automatic release - obligation by the Department of the Budget
Department. They may not retain any amount or program its
release.
The “no report, no release” policy of the Commission on Audit
cannot be enforced upon offices who enjoy fiscal autonomy due
to the constitutional mandate that the amounts appropriated to
them must be automatically released.

Each Commission en banc may promulgate its own rules

SECTION 6
concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any of its
offices. Such rules, however, shall not diminish, increase, or
modify substantive rights.

Commission Rules
The Supreme Court cannot judge/disprove of the internal rules
of any of the Commissions because they are independent bodies.
However, they may exercise judicial review over them.
Congress cannot review rules promulgated by commission
Rule of Commission v Rule of Court: What prevails?
- Rule of commission if proceedings are before commission, court if before
court
COMMON
PROVISIONS
INDEPENDENCE OF THE COMMISSIONS
Because the commissions perform vital government functions,
it is essential that they be protected against outside influences
and political pressure.

The sections under Common Provisions embody this

independence:

Section 2
list of prohibitions against engaging in activities which can distract them
from their responsibilities
Prohibition regarding the “practice of a profession” does not include
teaching.
Prohibition against “active management of business” does not prohibit the
actual owning of the business but prohibits the Commissioner from being a
managing officer or being a member of the governing board which may be
affected by the functions of his office.

Section 3
Protects their salary from diminution during their continuance in office

Section 4
Gives them independent appointment powers in accordance with the law

Section 5
Gives them fiscal autonomy

Section 6
Gives them authority, sitting en banc, to promulgate rules of procedure
COMMON
PROVISIONS

FUNA V. CHAIRMAN

Doctrine
Each commission is allowed to promulgate its own rules, and appoint its
officials. A member of a constitutional commission exercising such powers is
outside the scope of his position.

Facts
In 2010, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appointed Francisco T.
Duque III as Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, which was confirmed
by the Commission on Appointments.

President Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 864 (EO 864) which made
Duque a member of the Board of Directors or Trustees in an ex officio
capacity of the following government-owned or government-controlled
corporations:
1.  GSIS
2.  PHILHEALTH
3.  Employees Compensation Commission
4.  Home Development Mutual Fund

Issue
W/N the designation of Duque violate the constitutional prohibition against
the holding of dual or multiple offices for the Members of the Constitutional
Commissions
COMMON
PROVISIONS

FUNA V. CHAIRMAN

Ruling
Yes. it is unconstitutional for EO 864 and the designation of Duque in an ex
officio capacity as a member of the Board of Directors or Trustees of the GSIS,
PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF.

Sec. 2 of Article 9 specifically prohibits any member of any constitutional

commission to hold any office on official or ex offio capacity in any
government agency, or instrumentality. GSIS, PHILHEALTH, HDMF, and the
ECC are all GOCCs.

Sec. 6 of art. 9 provides that each commission can promulgate its own rules
and procedures

A conflict of interest may arise in the event that a Board decision of the
GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF concerning personnel-related matters
is elevated to the CSC considering that such GOCCs have original charters,
and their employees are governed by CSC laws, rules and regulations.

Therefore, the appointment of Duque as an ex offio member of the board of

the said GOCCs is declared unconstitutional.
COMMON
PROVISIONS

Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its

SECTION 7 Members, any case or matter brought before it within sixty days
from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case
or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon
the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by
the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless
otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision,
order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within
thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.

Decisions of the Commissions

Since they are collegiate bodies, decisions are made by the whole
body and not by individual members.
- Even the Chairman, Commissioners, counsels on their own cannot
decide for the commission

Decisions of commissions are arrived at through a majority

vote of all its members
- The commissions may not promulgate a rule which requires
unanimity. This rule applies whether they sit in divisions or en banc.

There is no decision until the draft is signed and promulgated.

- Ambil Jr. v Comelec: Ponente vacated commissioner post before
promulgation, his ponencia is not considered binding.

If a commissioner retires before the decision is promulgated, his vote

will not count.
- Dumayas Jr v Comelec: Two commissioners retired before
promulgation of a decision that they deliberated in. They are not
considered part of the commission, and so the remaining 4 will be
used as basis for majority of votes.
COMMON
PROVISIONS

Review of Decisions

Before June 1, 1955: only SC by certiorari

After, pursuant to RA 7902: may be appealed to the CA within 15 days of notice
of the decision
- Change of process is possible under provision - “Unless otherwise provided by
the Constitution or by law…”

Requisites for Certiorari to the SC:

- Only after motion for reconsideration
ex: For COMELEC, the reconsideration must be done by the COMELEC En
Banc.
- Only en banc decisions by Comissions
questions of grave abuse of discretion in en banc decisions

The provision stating that COMELEC decisions are final when they involve
municipal and barangay elections are not conflicting with the Supreme Court
provision.
SC may intervene in supervisory function of COMELEC in instances where
electoral proceedings may impede on the right to suffrage.
The certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited to decisions taken
cognizance by commissions in the exercise of their adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
powers. It does not pertain to the executive powers such as COMELEC’s
appointing power.
COMMON
PROVISIONS

GUALBERTO DELA LLANA V. THE CHAIRPERSON,

COMMISSION ON AUDIT

Doctrine
There is nothing in the Constitution that requires the Commission on Audit to
conducta pre-audit of all government transactions and for all government
agencies.

Facts
On 26 October 1982, the COA issued Circular No. 82-195, lifting the system of
pre-audit of government financial transactions, albeit with certain exceptions. It
affirmed the state policy that all resources of the government shall be managed,
expended or utilized in accordance with law and regulations, and safeguarded
against loss or wastage through illegal or improper disposition.

After the 1986 revolution, the new administration found grave irregularities
and anomalies in the previous administration's finances. Thus, the COA issued
Circular No. 86-257 as temporary remedy so as to reinstate the pre-audit of
selected government transactions. Eventually, the COA issued a more
permanent remedy, Circular No. 89299, which lifted the pre-audit of
government transactions of national government agencies (NGAs) and
government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs). It mandated the
implementation of an adequate internal control system.

Petitioner Gualberto Dela Llana, as a taxpayer, wrote to the Commission on

Audit (COA) regarding the recommendation of a Senate Committee to set up an
internal pre-audit service. The COA informed Dela Llana regarding the prior
issuance of Circular No. 89-299 which provides that whenever the
circumstances warrant, the COA may adopt such other control measures as
necessary and appropriate to protect the funds and property of an agency.

Dela Llana filed a petition for certiorari  alleging that the COA's pre-audit duty
cannot be lifted by a mere circular, considering that the it is a constitutional
mandate enshrined in Section 2 of Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution.
COMMON
PROVISIONS

GUALBERTO DELA LLANA V. THE CHAIRPERSON,

COMMISSION ON AUDIT

Issue
W/N the COA’s power includes the duty to conduct pre-audit

Ruling
Yes. it is unconstitutional for EO 864 and the designation of Duque in an ex
ofPetitioner's allegations find no support in the aforequoted Constitutional
provision. There is nothing in the said provision that requires the COA to
conduct a pre-audit of all government transactions and for all government
agencies. The only clear reference to a pre-audit requirement is found in
Section 2, paragraph 1, which provides that a post-audit is mandated for certain
government or private entities with state subsidy or equity and only when the
internal control system of an audited entity is inadequate. In such a situation,
the COA may adopt measures, including a temporary or special pre-audit, to
correct the deficiencies.

Hence, the conduct of a pre-audit is not a mandatory duty that this Court may
compel the COA to perform. This discretion on its part is in line with the
constitutional pronouncement that the COA has the exclusive authority to
define the scope of its audit and examination. When the language of the law is
clear and explicit, there is no room for interpretation, only application. Neither
can the scope of the provision be unduly enlarged by this Court.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DISMISSED.

COMMON
PROVISIONS

DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC

Doctrine
A COMELEC decision must be a final decision or resolution of the Comelec en
banc, not of a division, certainly not an interlocutory order of a division.The
Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari, an interlocutory order
or even a final resolution of a Division of the Commission on Elections.

Facts
On February 21, 2013, petitioners posted two tarpaulins within a private
compound housing the San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod. Each tarpaulin was
approximately six feet (6') by ten feet (10') in size. They were posted on the front
walls of the cathedral within public view. The first tarpaulin contains the
message "IBASURA RH Law". The second tarpaulin contains the heading
"Conscience Vote" and lists candidates as either "(Anti-RH) Team Buhay" with a
check mark, or "(Pro-RH) Team Patay" with an "X" mark.

Respondent Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon, in her capacity as Election Officer of

Bacolod City, issued a Notice to Remove Campaign Materials addressed to
petitioner Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra. The election officer ordered the
tarpaulin’s removal within three (3) days from receipt for being oversized.
COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 provides for the size requirement of two feet (2’)
by three feet (3’). COMELEC Law Department issued a letter ordering the
immediate removal of the tarpaulin; otherwise, it will be constrained to file an
election offense against petitioners.

Concerned about the imminent threat of prosecution for their exercise of free
speech, petitioners initiated this case through this petition for certiorari and
prohibition with application for preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order.
COMMON
PROVISIONS

DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC

Issue
W/N the notice/order by election officer Majacuron and by the COMELEC
are considered judgments/final orders/resolutions of the COMELEC which
would warrant a review of this court via rule 65 petition.

Ruling
Yes, the SC can review the actions done by the COMELEC in this case. The
COMELEC acted in grave abuse of discretion and did not have any
jurisdiction in threatening imminent criminal action against the Diocese’
right to expression. The SC had jurisdiction over the case given that it
involved the actions of a constitutional organ and involved the threat to the
freedom of speech and expression which is a genuine issue of
constitutionality.

No, the tarpaulins are considered as forms of expression and it is protected

under the constitution. These are not campaign materials by election
candidates; they are opinions expressed by the Diocese.

The petition was granted and the TRO made permanent. The COMELEC
notice and letter were declared unconstitutional.
 COMMON
PROVISIONS

QUERUBIN V. COMELEC

Doctrine
A COMELEC decision must be a final decision or resolution of the Comelec en
banc, not of a division, certainly not an interlocutory order of a division.The
Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari, an interlocutory order
or even a final resolution of a Division of the Commission on Elections.

Facts
This case is a petition for certiorari or prohibition under Rule 64 of the Rules of
Court, with prayer for injunctive relief was filed assailing the validity and
seeking to restrain the implementation of the Commission of Elections
(COMELEC) en banc's Decision, that was allegedly  repugnant to the provisions of
BP 68 (Corporation Code of the Philippines) RA 9184 (Government Procurement
Reform Act).

COMELEC en banc created Resolution No. 14-0715, releasing the bidding

documents for the "Two-Stage Competitive Bidding for the Lease of Election
Management System (EMS) and Precinct-Based Optical Mark Reader (OMR) or
Optical Scan (OP-SCAN) System to be used in the 2016 National and Local
Elections. The joint venture of Smartmatic-TIM Corporation (SMTC),
Smartmatic International Holding B.V., and Jarltech International Corporation
(collectively referred to as "Smartmatic JV") and Indra Sistemas, S.A. (Indra)
submitted their bid.

Upon evaluation of the submittals, the BAC, through its Resolution No. 1 dated
December 15, 2014, declared Smartmatic JV and Indra eligible to participate in
the second stage of the bidding process.
BAC issued a Notice requiring them to submit their Final Revised Technical
Tenders and Price proposals, which both companies complied with.
COMMON
PROVISIONS

QUERUBIN V. COMELEC

Facts Continuation
Smartmatic JV was deemed qualified in terms of its financial proposal while
Indra was disqualified for submitting a non-responsive bid. A post-qualification
evaluation was conducted and the BAC, through Resolution No. 9 disqualified
Smartmatic JV.

Smartmatic JV moved for reconsideration and filed a Protest in the COMELEC.

COMELEC en banc promulgated the assailed Decision granting Smartmatic JV's
protest. Petitioners are assailing the Decision of the COMELEC through the
instant recourse. They alleged that the COMELEC en banc acted with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring Smartmatic
JV as the bidder with the lowest calculated responsive bid Smartmatic JV cannot
be declared eligible or the bidder with the lowest calculated responsive bid
because one of its proponents, SMTC no longer has a valid corporate purpose as
required under Sec. 14 of BP 68

Issue
W/N Rule 64 is applicable in assailing the COMELEC en banc's Decision
granting Smartmatic JV's protest
COMMON
PROVISIONS

QUERUBIN V. COMELEC

Ruling
The rule cited by petitioners, Article IX-A, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution, is an
application of the constitutional mandate requiring that, unless otherwise
provided by law, the rulings of the constitutional commissions shall be subject to
review only by the Supreme Court on certiorari.
Rule 64 does not cover rulings of the COMELEC in the exercise of its
administrative powers. Court has consistently held that the phrase "decision,
order, or ruling" of constitutional commissions, the COMELEC included, that may
be brought directly to the Supreme Court on certiorari is not all-encompassing,
and that it only relates to those rendered in the commissions' exercise of
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers.

Rule 64, which complemented the procedural requirement under Article IX-A,
Section 7, should likewise be read in the same sense—that of excluding from its
coverage decisions, rulings, and orders rendered by the COMELEC in the exercise
of its administrative functions. The case pertains to the propriety of the polling
commission's conduct of the procurement process, and its initial finding that
Smartmatic JV is eligible to participate therein.

Thus, subject matter of Smartmatic JV's protest, does not qualify as one
necessitating the COMELEC's exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
powers that could properly be the subject of a Rule 64 petition, but is, in fact,
administrative in nature.
COMMON
PROVISIONS

Each Commission shall perform such other functions as may be

SECTION 8 provided by law.