Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

d

'6C
@
CIVIL SERVICE
ECIMMISSION
Para sa tountBAYAN
BONIFACIO, Jose A. Number:
1400629
Re: EligibilityA/alidity for Re-employment in a
Government Agency under a Job-Order Contract Promulgated: 24 APR
2014
Of a Former Public Servant who Availed of the
Retirement/Separation Package under Executive
Order (EO) No. 366 dated October 4,2004, and
Likewise Previously Ran and Lost in the
Immediately Preceding Barangay Elections
x----------------
RESOLUTION
Jose A. Bonifacio, a former employee of the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR), in a Letter-lnquiry dated January 21,2014 seeks a resolution from the
Commission on the eligibility/validity for re-employment in a government agency
under a Job-Order Contract of a former public servant who availed of the
retiremenVseparation package under Executive Order (EO) No. 366 dated October 4,
2004, and who likewise previously ran for a position and lost in the 2013 Barangay
Elections. Salient portions of Bonifacio's tetter read,-as f,ollows:
-
'
"Our department, Department of Agrarian Reform, is at
present implementing EO366 and some of us availed of the early
retirement with incentives. However, we who availed of the incentives
until now we have not yet received said packages, hence we are still
working in our Agency as holdover capacity while waiting said
packages as mandated by the 80366. Our Departraent implemented
said EO366
ffictive
August 201 3. On October I
,
2013 we who availed
the EO366 with incentives are now considered as HOLDOVER
retirees ofour agency.
"Last
October, 2013, olrr nation conducted a Barangay
Election and two of our
fficemates
who ovailed of the 8O366 with
incentives
filed
their candidacy, the other won and the other lost.
"The winning individual did not reporl already and signify his
intention not to continue receiving hi.s salary
from
our department,
however the losing individual insisted he can return
for
work as per
CSC Resolution No. 02-0012 Re: GATO, Vicente 5."
4r;
Spciatist
comnrissioo,s""rutu.i"r
diiiJr*
om""
InaR.A.C.E'toserue:Responsiue,Accessible,Cortrteousuyf,EffectivePublicseruice
ECSL]Building, IBPRoad,ConstitutionHills, ll26QuezonCiry.8%l-79351931-ig39l93l-8092.Ecscphil@webrnail.csc.gov.ph./ewww.csc.gov.ph
Bonifacio../page 2 of 7
x - - - - - - -- - -- - - -- - - - - - - -- - - -x
xxx
"1.
Can an individual who availed of the EO366 with
incentives who ran in a barangay election is in the same
footing
as
with the case in CSC Resolution No. 02-0012 without defeating the
provision of Section 7 of RA 67 I 3;
"2. Can an individual who availed of the 8O366 with
incentives can be hired as equaled to CSC Resolution No. 02-0012
without defeating the provision of Section 7 of RA 6713.
"Hopingfor your immediate resolution on this matter because
of the transcendental issue since our government is at present
implementing the EO366 and we who are affected, who much still
wanted to stay, have no choice than to availed the packages of EO366
will be bawed
from
entering again in the government service within
five
years wherein we still beyond the age of compulsory retirement
age and capable to served the public if again given the opportunity."
As a matter of policy, the Commission does not render any definitive legal
opinion over facts, circumstances or issues relative to a case or controversy that may
be eventually referred to, or elevated for resolution by the Commission through a
complaint or on appeal or petition for review. However, considering the importance of
the issues posited in Bonifacio's inquiry, the Commission deems it proper to render a
definitive resolution thereto for the mutual benefit and guidance of the public servants
affected.hy.the-p-ro-v-isio$s of E. O. No. 36,6and the g_o_,ygrnmeLt
Agqrrcies
qgncgrye*d.
The issues to be resolved are, as follows:
l. Whether a public servant affected by the provisions of EO No. 366, who
availed of the retirement/separation benefits may be rehired in government
without violating the provision of Section 7 of RA 6713; and
2. Whether a public servant affected by the provisions of EO No. 366, who
availed of the retiremenVseparation benefits, and who likewise ran and lost in
the 2013 Barangay Elections may be rehired in government without violating
the provision of Section 7 of RA 6713.
In point is Section 17, Rule VII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) of E. O. No.366, which reads, as follows:
"Section
17. Policy on Rehiring of Retired/ Sepurated
Personnel. Government personnel who voluntarily
retired/separated as a result ofthe rationalization efforts ofthe
Department/Agency concerned shall not be appointed or hired
in anv agencv of the Executive Branch. including in
Bonifacio../page 3 of 7
x- - - -- -- - - - - - - --- --- - - --- --x
GOCCs/GFIs. except in educational institutions and hospitals,
within a period of
Jive
(5) years. Reemployment in any Branch
of Government shall be considered as new entry to the civil
service.
"Provision of consultancy services by government
personnel who voluntarily retired/separated as a result of the
rqtionalization shall be governed by Section 7 of RA 6713 or
the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for
Public Officials
and Employees dated 20 February 1989." (Underscoring
supplied)
Relative thereto, Section 7 of RA 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides:
"Section
7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to
acts and omissions of public
fficials
and employees now prescribed in
the Constitution and existing laws, the
following
shall constitute
prohibited acts and transactions of any public
fficial
and employee
and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
"(a) Financial and material interest. - Public
fficials
and employees shall not, directly or indirectly, have any
financial
or material interest in any transaction requiring
the approval of their
ffice.
*" *'-6)
oitiiae employmeiit-"ia-oth"Vfriiini{'ielateid
' thereto. - Public
fficials
and employees during their
incumbency shall not:
"(l)
Own, control, manage or accept employment as
officer, employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent,
trustee or nominee in any private enterprise. regulated,
supervised or licensed by their
ffice
unless expressly
allowed by law;
" (2) Enqage in the
private
oractice o-f their profession
unless authorized bJt the Constitution or law. provided.
that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with
the ir qfficial
functions ;
or
" (3) Recommend any person to any position in a private
enterprise which has a regular or pending
fficial
transaction with their office.
./*
+
Specialist
Commission
Secretariat
& Liaison OffiC
Bonifacio../page 4 of 7
x- - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - x
"These prohibitions shall continue to apply
for
a period
of one (l) year after resignation, retirement, or
separation
from
public
ffice,
except in the case of
subparagraph (b) (2) above, but the pro-fessional
concerned cannot practice his profession in connection
with any matter be-fore the o.ffice he used to be with. in
which case the one-year prohibition shall likewise
apply.
" (Underscoring supplied)
The provision of Section 17, Rule VII of the IRR of E. O. No. 366, expressly
prohibits the reernployment of public servants who voluntarily retired/separated as a
result of the rationalization efforts of the Department/Agency concerned in any
agency of the Executive Branch, including in GOCCs/GFIs, except in educational
institutions and hospitals, within a period of five (5) years. The reemployment or
rehiring contemplated in the said provision of the rules clearly refers to reappointment
in the government service and not services covered by Contracts of Services, Job
Orders, or Consultancy Services.
The intent of the rule is evident in the statement in the last sentence of the said
provision which reads: "Reemployment
in any Branch of Government sholl be
considered as new entry to the civil service
".
Further, it is clearly established under
Rule XI of the Omnibus Rules on Appointment and Other Personnel Actionsl that
Contracts of Services, Job Orders, or Consultancy Services are not considered
government services and are not covered by civil service law.
In connection with the foregoing discussion, particularly, on consultancy
services by-fioVdr"ffi'dnt personnel who voiuntarily retiTeil/sepafded as a-fesult of the
rationalization, Section 17, Rule VII of the IRR of E. O. No. 366 provides that it shall
be subject to the provision of Section 7 of R.A. No. 6713. A perusal of the provisions
under Section 7 of R.A. No.67l3 reveals that the provision relevant to consultancy
services is that covered under subparagraph (b) (2) which refers to the prohibition on
the private practice of profession in connection with any matter before the office he
used to be with for a period of one (l) year after resignation, retirement, or separation
from public office.
The prohibition on the private practice of profession, as contemplated in
Section 7 of R. A. No. 6713, refers to instances wherein the former public servant, in
his/her practice of profession, which may be in the form of consultancy services,
appears, intervenes, or transacts before his former office in connection with any
matter before said office, for and in behalf of his personal or of a third party's interest.
The evil sought to be avoided in this situation is the undue influence or pressure that
the fomrer public servant may pose upon his/her fnrmer co-ernployees and/or
t
CSC M.rorandum Circular No. 40, s. 1998, as amended.
Bonifacio../page 5 of 7
x-------- - -- -- --- ---- - -- - - -x
subordinates, which may result in a deliberate or unintentional undue advantage
afforded for the benefit of his cause or for the third party which he/she represents.
Said prohibition does not apply in cases of consultancy services where the
services of a former public servant who voluntarily retired/separated as a result of the
rationalization, was contracted for and in favor of his/her former office. In this case,
the interest being served is that of the public office/agency that hired him and not his
personal or of a third party.
Accordingly, anent the first issue, the Commission rules that reemployment in
the government service of a public servant who voluntarily retired or is separated as a
result of the rationalization efforts of the Department/Agency concerned in any
agency of the Executive Branch, including in GOCCs/GFIs, except in educational
institutions and hospitals, within a period of five (5) years, is prohibited pursuant to
Section 17, Rule VII of the IRR of E. O. No. 366. The same prohibition applies within
a period of one (1) year to an affected public servant who subsequently engages in
consultancy services, whereby he/she appears, intervenes, or transacts before his/her
former office in connection with any matter before said office, for and in behalf of
his/her personal or of a third party's interest.
On the other hand, former public servants who voluntarily retired/separated as
a result of the rationalization efforts of the Department/Agency concerned, are not
barred from rendering services to any government agency under Contracts of
Services, Job Orders or Consultancy Services where the services of a former public
servant were contracted for and in favor of his/her former office.
Anenttfid*5E-doncl'issue, the same is similar to the first issue except that in this
case, the inquiry focuses on whether a former public servant who voluntarily
retired/separated as a result of the rationalization efforts of the Department/Agency
concerned and who likewise was previously a candidate for a position and lost in the
2013 Barungay Elections may be rehired in government without violating the
provision
of Section 7 of R. A. No.6713.
Section 17, Rule VII of the tRR of E. O. No. 366 which states the prohibition
on reappointment or rehiring of public servants affected by rationalization does not
provide a special classification or provision for those who likewise became a
candidate in an election. At any rate, limitation on the appointment of a candidate who
lost in any election is set forth in other laws and rules.
section 6o Article IX-B of the 1987 constitution likewise states that:
"SEe.
6. No candidate u,ho hcs lost in any election shall,
within one year after such election, be appointed to any
ffice
in the
Government or any government-owned
or controlled corporation or in
any of its subsidiaries."
T
ES
'/,^"
Commission Secretariat & Liaison Offic
Bonifacio../page 6 of 7
x- -- - - -- - --- - - --- - - - - - -- - - -x
On the other hand, Section 4, Rule XIII of the Omnibus Rules
Appointment and Other personnel Actions2 provides, as follows:
"Section
4. A person who lost in an election
(excent
Barsnqay electiod shall not be eligible
for
appointment or
reemployment to any
ffice
in the government or any government-
owned or controlled corporation within one year
following
such
election."
Similarly, Section 94 (b) of the Local Government Code of 1991, states:
"Section
94. Appointment of Elective and Appointive Local
Officials; Candidates Who Lost in an Election.
xxx
"(b)
Except
for
losing candidates in barangqv elections no
candidate who lost in any election shall, within one (1) year
after such election, be appointed to any
ffice
in the
Government or any government-owned or controlled
corporations or in a any of their subsidiaries. " (Underscoring
supplied)
From the foregoing, it is clear that, except for losing candidates in barangay
elections, other candidates in any election are disqualified from being appointed to
any office in the government or any government-owned or controlled corporation
within dne yar ftITowiflgSuch election.
In the case of GATO, Vicente S.3 the Commission ruled that those employed
on
job
order basis do not hold a public appointive office within the contemplation of
Civil Service law and rules and the same does not violate the rule prohibiting
appointments of losing candidates in an election within one-year from the date of such
election. on the other hand, the one year prohibition d.oes not apply to losing
candidates in barangay elections.
Accordingly, anent the second issue, the Commission rules that aside from the
prohibition/disqualification provided under Section 17, Rule VIt of the IRR of E. O.
No. 366, there are no other provisions set forth in the laws and/or rules that prohibit a
public servant who voluntarily retired/separated as a result of rationalization and who
is likewise a losing candidate in a barangay election from being appointed/rehired to
any office in the government.
'
sup.u.
3
Re: query;
Hiring of Non-winning Election Candidates on Job Order Basis; CSC Resolution No. 02-
0012 dated January 3,2002,
:L"ffi*"
Commission.secretariat
& Liaison Office
Bonifacio../page 7 of 7
x-------- ---- - --- ----- --- --x
WHEREFORE, the commission hereby rules that reemployment in the
government service of a public servant who voluntarily retired/separated as a result of
the rationalization efforts of the DepartmenVAgency concemed in any agency of the
Executive Branch, including in GOCCs/GFIs, except in educational institutions and
hospitals, within a period of five (5) years, is prohibited pursuant to Section 17, Rule
VII of the IRR of E. O. No. 366. The same prohibition applies within a period of one
(1) year to an affected public servant who subsequently engages in consultancy
services, whereby he/she appears, intervenes, or transacts before hisflrer former office
in connection with any matter before said office, for and in behalf of his/her personal
or of a third party's interest pursuant to Section 7 of R. A. No. 6713.
On the other hand, a public servant who voluntarily retired/separated as a
result of the rationalization efforts of the Department/Agency concerned, is not
disqualified from rendering services to any government agency under Contracts of
Services, Job Orders or Consultancy Services where the services of a former public
servant was contracted for and in favor of his/her former office.
Further, a public servant who voluntarily retired/separated pursuant to E.O No.
366 and who is likewise a losing candidate in a barangay election is not disqualified
from being appointed/rehired to any office in the government by reason of his/her
previous candidacy in a barangay election. However, he/she shall not be appointed or
hired in any agency of the Executive Branch including in GOCCs/GFIs, except in
educational institutions and hospitals, within a period of five (5) years pursuant to
Section 17, Rule vII of the Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR) of E.o. No.
366.
.Queasn-Cjty.._
-z-Uklt-1/r/14'/
NIEVES L. OSORIO
Commissioner
DO
Commission Secretariat and Liaison Office"
BON IFACIO ReappointmenlJob Order (RATpLAN)O-0 t 4-02002 (C MS)/cslojoy
. DUQUE III
TS.
B. BONIFACIO
UR-T(I PAYdirEs

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi