Consti 1

Sept. 15, 2014

Last 15 mins.

complained of are employees of agencies, local or national,

within said geographical areas; x x x x
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the CSC acted
within its jurisdiction when it initiated the conduct of a
preliminary investigation on the alleged civil service
examination irregularity committed by the petitioner.

Decisions
CSC decision is reviewable by certiorari to the
CA under Rule 43. This CSC decision refers to
their decision in their exercise of their quasijudicial functions. It has nothing to do with
their quasi-judicial function in their finding of
liability in relation to disciplining power or
supervisory power. This decision of the CSC is
not reviewable.
In CAPABLANCA vs. CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, G.R. No. 179370, November
19, 2009, the decision of the CSC finding him
liable for cheating in the CSC, which imposed a
penalty of perpetual disqualification to take
another CS exam, is that decision of CSC
appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule
43? The Supreme Court said No. You go to the
ordinary__. That should be the Regional Trial
Court to be __ by the Regional Office of the
CSC.
*Digest from Batch 2012
EUGENIO S. CAPABLANCA vs. CIVIL
COMMISSION
G.R. No. 179370 November 19, 2009

SERVICE

The CSC, as the central personnel agency of the

Government, is mandated to establish a career service, to
strengthen the merit and rewards system, and to adopt
measures to promote morale, efficiency and integrity in
the civil service. The civil service embraces all branches,
subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the
government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters. Specifically, Section
91 of Republic Act (RA) No. 6975 (1990) or the
Department of Interior and Local Government Act of
1990 provides that the Civil Service Law and its
implementing rules and regulations shall apply to all
personnel of the Department, to which herein petitioner
belongs.
In addition, Section 28, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil
Service Rules and Regulations specifically confers upon the
CSC the authority to take cognizance over any
irregularities
or
anomalies
connected
with
the
examinations, thus:
Sec. 28. The Commission shall have original
disciplinary jurisdiction over all its
officials and employees and over all cases
involving civil service examination
anomalies or irregularities.
To carry out this mandate, the CSC issued Resolution No.
991936, or the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in
the Civil Service, empowering its Regional Offices to take
cognizance of cases involving CSC examination anomalies:
SECTION 6. Jurisdiction of Civil Service Regional Offices. The Civil Service Commission Regional Offices shall have
jurisdiction over the following cases
A. Disciplinary
1. Complaints initiated by, or brought before, the Civil
Service Commission Regional Offices provided that the
alleged acts or omissions were committed within the
jurisdiction of the Regional Office, including Civil Service
examination anomalies or irregularities and the persons

The Comelec
and
COA
Decisions are
reviewable by the SC under Rule 64 in relation
to Rule 65.

Comelec
In your outline, most of the decisions of the
Comelec there are decisions vis--vis decisions
of the Electoral Tribunal.
There is no question on the decisions of the
Comelec
in
quasi-judicial
cases.
They
reviewable by the SC under Rule 64 in relation
to Rule 65.
Any other decisions of the Comelec not in
relation to its quasi-judicial functions, like in
one old case, the order of the Comelec to
appoint or designate or assign an election
officer and not the other, quo warranto was
filed, however, that decision of the Comelec is
not subject to the review power of the SC.

Rule 64
The other decisions in your outline are the
clauses which I know you have taken up in you
Election Laws.
The usual process in the Comelec is that, the
division decides your case and you file a
Motion for Reconsideration and it is already
automatic appeal to the Comelec en banc.
Generally, it is the Comelec en banc decision
which is subject to this Rule 64. You cannot go
directly.
Of course, there are cases that you can go
directly but its not Rule 64 anymore. Its
under Rule 65 for the lack of jurisdiction of the
Division of the Comelec.
But if you go through the usual process, you
have to use Rule 64. Still, questions of
jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.
COA
The case of REBLORA VS. AFP 698 SCRA 727
(2013) is just to emphasize the rule on appeal.
This case involves a naval captain who retired.
There was an agreement for additional

retirement pay which he claimed. The AFP

denied his claim so he went to COA, which
denied his claim also. So, he went to SC under
Rule 45 (error of judgment). SC said decisions
of COA are final unless there is error on
jurisdiction. Appropriately, it should be Rule 64
in relation to Rule 65.

Amendments
The amendment process has been brought to
public consciousness because we have been
subjected
to
possible
term
limitation
amendment.
Amendment vs. Revision
Amendment refers to a change in the
Constitution but does not substantially alter
the basic set up or framework of the
government in the existing one. So, its not the
amount of the changes but the quality of the
changes. If it changes the basic framework of
the government, then, its not an amendment.
It is revision.
Amendment can be had by the 3 modes given:
1. Congress
acting
as
Constituent
Assembly
2. Constitutional Convention in 2 modes
3. Referendum
Revision can be had in 2 modes:
1. Constituent Assembly
2. Constitutional Convention in 2 modes
When it is Constituent Assembly, the Congress
itself becomes a body task to amend or revise
the Constitution. It is not anymore required to
elect members to a certain body to change the
Constitution.
In Constitutional Convention, there are
separate elections. In the first mode, Congress
calls for Constitutional Convention by a
required vote of 2/3 of all members of the
congress. Then, there will be an election.
Or let the public, the electorate, by majority
vote, decide the question on whether there
should be a Constitutional Convention.
In the first mode, automatically Congress
enacts. Then, there will be election. In the
Second mode, only a majority is required,
there should be 2 electoral processes. One, to
let the public decide whether there should be a
Constitutional Convention. And two, if so,
there will be an election to the membership of
the Constitutional Convention.

The third is referendum which is available only

to amendments. It cannot be done in ordinary
legislation. ___.
The other factor with respect to the conduct of
the amendment and revision is the relationship
of Congress if it were to be a Constituent body
or a Constitutional Convention with respect to
the entire set of government.
If Congress is a Constituent body itself, how
should its exercise be treated? What if theres
a Constitutional Convention called and the
members elected and therefore, it is
established, how is its actions still treated in
the entire realm of the government? (not sure
with the italicized..)
Divisions of Powers we have.
It has always been established that a
Constitutional Convention is considered to be
separate from the other branches of the
government. That it is supposed to be a
creation as authorized by law calling it just for
the purpose of amending or revising the
Constitution.
Its exercise or discharge of powers should not
be subjected to judicial review. Thats
generally how it is treated in our set up. Unless
it refers to the Constitutional requirement as
provided in the provision. Generally therefore,
the actions of the Conventional Convention
that subject to judicial review would only be on
the procedural matter, holding to be exact.
As to the substantial matters involved in the
amendment or revision as proposed, the
Constitutional Conventions discharge would be
beyond review. That is easier in the
Constitution already. What about if Congress
constitute itself as Constituent Assembly?
The problem that is, at the time of PGMA when
Boy Nograles was still the Speaker. It was
suggested that Congress meet as Constituent
body at certain time of the week not in conflict
with their legislative duties. They opted to
meet separately because they want to work
independently and thereafter meet just to
reconcile some provision and then, vote on it.
The question is can they do that procedurally?
Again, it has always been, in the context of
Constitutional Convention, that it is a separate
entity. It is not a creation of Congress, not
under Congress, and once established, it is
supposed to be not subject to any review
except for the procedural aspect as required by
the Constitution to be followed. If there is no

Constitutional requirements to be followed, like

the changes to make, then, that is not subject
to any review.
Thats precisely the reason why the critics of
term
extension
would
not
want
any
Constitutional amendments to be done at this
point when there are terms of offices __.
Because no matter how you say to the world,
this would only refer to the economic
provisions of the Constitution, what would
prevent them from proposing amendments
which are not economic especially on the term
limitation. On the substantial provision of the
Constitution, anything can be made even if
Congress will say that these are only changes
to be made. If eventually they make more
changes, nobody can ever question that before
the Supreme Court, even under the abuse of
discretion. There is no Constitutional limitation
placed in the Constitution except on the
procedure and on the voting. In the
substantive aspects, everything is open for
consideration. That is why even the idea is
being sold that only the economic provisions.
Nobody will believe that. And we continue
tomorrow.

To err is human; to transcribe is divine.

~dime o flame~