I.

1. ACCURATE. The CSC cannot substitute its judgment to that of the appointing power so
long as the person appointed has the minimum eligibility requirements for the position.
The Constitution only grants the power to revoke the appointment to the CSC when the
person fails to satisfy the minimum eligibility requirements. If the minimum eligibility
requirements are fulfilled, then it is ministerial for the CSC to approve the appointment.
2. INACCURATE. An ad interim appointment, as a general rule, is valid once made and
cannot be revoked by the President before confirmation. The ad interim appointment
remains valid denied by the CSC when the Congress is back in session or until the next
recess when the appointment remains unacted upon. However, this is subject to
exceptions as when there was fraud involved.
3. ACCURATE. According to jurisprudence, a de facto is not entitled to emoluments even if
he occupied the office in good faith, if there is a de jure officer because the de facto
officer is deemed to have assumed the risks in entering into the office.
4. INNACURATE. According to jurisprudence, a person holding a primarily confidential
position is still entitled to the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. This means
that there must be valid grounds, like loss of trust and confidence by the appointing
power, for the expiration of the primary confidential officers term. Such removal
cannot b made to depend on the whim and caprices of the appointing power alone.
5. ACCURATE. The Ombudsmans revisory jurisdiction is essential to an Ombudsman
institution. The goal is to give the Ombudsman sufficient leeway or freedom to perform
its duties and functions without unnecessary hindrance from the courts and other
agencies. Without it, the Ombudsman will be reduced to a toothless tiger.

II.

A. X may avail of the remedy provided by Rule 65 of the rules of court if there was grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction on the part of the
disciplinary authority. As long as X was able to support his complaint with substantial
evidence and the disciplinary authority committed grave abuse of discretion or gross
negligence in overlooking the evidence entirely, then Rule 65 petition will be a proper
remedy in this case. Even if this is an administrative proceeding, jurisprudence dictates
that courts can take cognizance and review the decision if it is tainted with grave abuse
of discretion.
B. No. It is not subject confirmation. The wording of the Constitutional provision pertaining
to the appointment of the Chairman and members of the Commission on Human Rights
(CHR) does not specify that the appointments should be with approval of the
Commission on Appointments. Jurisprudence dictates that the constitutional provisions
 should be applied as worded. When the Constitution does not provide for a
replacement, we cannot read it in such a way as to prove what is not there.
C.
a. No, it is not conclusive. The CSC has no authority to classify the position as one
under the career service or not. It is the nature of the position which determines
the positions classification. This is explained by jurisprudence.
b. If Js position is to be considered as primarily confidential, then the loss of trust
and confidence in J of the Head of the Agency (appointing power) due to Js vices
and uncooperative attitude are valid grounds for his removal by virtue of
expiration of term (the pleasure of the appointing power). This is based on
jurisprudence.
c. Career service positions are characterized by competitive exams or tests in the
determination of who is qualified for the position and objective standards in
appraising the worth of the candidates for the position and in determining who
is to be appointed to the position.

III.

A. In the law on public officers, security of tenure means that an officer cannot be removed
from office or his position without due process and for invalid / illegal grounds. In the
law of public officers however, there are instances which require the change of office or
position but is not tantamount to a violation of the right to security of tenure. For
example, it is allowed for officers to be detailed to another agency for a period of time
so long as there is no diminution of pay and seniority or other benefits. An officer can be
transferred to a different agency or position so long as it is of the same rank, pay or
benefits in the previous office and there will be no violation of the security of tenure.
There is no security of tenure to speak of when the office was legally and validly
abolished as there can be no security of tenure when there was no office to speak of.
However, when a similar office is later created with similar functions as the abolished
office, security of tenure demands the officers re-appointment to the new position /
office created.
B. Q can successfully sack reinstatement. Q can claim that he was illegally dismissed as the
supposed abolishment of his position was only a ploy to remove him from service under
the guise of legality but in truth and in fact was in violation of his right to security of
tenure. The fact that a new office was created to replace his abolished position and the
fact that the new office had similar functions to his previous position raises a red flag
and renders questionable the validity of the reasons for the need to abolish his position
in the first place. Why abolish a position and then create a new one with the same
functions? The only logical answer would be that it was a modus to circumvent Qs
 security of tenure. It is true that when an office is abolished, the general rule is that the
office cannot complain that his right to security of tenure was violated. However, this
rule admits of exceptions as in this case where there are grounds to believe that the
abolishment was used to circumvent the law. Therefore, Qs dismissal being illegal, he is
deemed to not have left his position at all and therefore has the better right to be
reinstated since Q is the de jure officer. The other qualified person appointed is only a
de fact officer and thus, his position can be challenged in a quo warranto proceeding
any time.
C. The doctrine of official immunity from liabilities for public officers is important because
without it, the public officers will be intimidated by the possibility of being impeded in
multiple suits against them which will result in their shying away from doing their duties
and functions which will be detrimental to the public interest. Also, if multiple suits are
indeed filed against the public officers then the attention and time of the public officers
would be focused on defending themselves from liability and thus they would have less
time to carry out their public functions and duties. The said doctrine addresses these 2
problems so as to ensure the vigor and efficiency of our public officers.
To be able to place the doctrine of official immunity of public officers and to hold the
officers liable for their acts or omissions it is required that (a) public officer grossly
refused or failed to carry out his duties in which the law grants the plaintiff an interest;
(b) that the plaintiff suffered damage from such refusal or failure of the officer to carry
out his duty in good faith with the diligence required by law.

IV.

A.
a. The COMELEC should deny the motion to dismiss filed by R. The reason for
the denial is that R was not a member of the House of Representatives since
he wasnt elected (in fact, there was still no election at all) nor proclaimed a
winner and neither did he enter into office yet as a Congressman. More
importantly, the law confers jurisdiction on the COMELEC to take cognizance
of petitions for disqualification of candidates filed before the proclamation of
the winning candidates.
b. The disqualification case should be dismissed as it fails in the merits. S
contention holds no water as it has already been settled by jurisprudence
that a persons residence or domicile is not changed by the fact that he
resided elsewhere if such was in pursuance of further studies by the
individuals. In this case, R left for the US to pursue graduate studies.
Therefore, his stay there from August 2012 to February 2013 does not affect
his residence which still remains to be the Philippines. The necessary
 conclusion therefore is that he is considered to have satisfied the 1-year
residence requirement prescribed by the Constitution since his stay in the US
was in pursuance of further studies and thus it did not therefore interrupt his
residency in the Philippines.
B. In a petition to cancel a certificate of candidacy (COC) , the grounds are related to
the formalities of the COCs filed, the truthfulness of the contents of the COC, etc.
while in a quo warranto petition the grounds are those which pertain to grounds are
those which pertain to the grounds for disqualification due to lack of citizenship,
residency, and other requirements to be eligible to hold he office. A petition to
cancel a COC is filed 25 days after the filing of the COC while a quo warranto petition
is filed 10 days after proclamation of the winner. A petition to cancel COC is filed
before elections, while quo warranto petition is filed after elections and
proclamation. A petition to cancel COC may be on the COMELECs own initiative
while a quo warranto must always be instituted by a 3rd party. A petition to cancel
COC may be filed by any person 18 years of age, while a quo warranto may be
initiated by a registered voter. A petition to cancel COC seeks to deprive the
candidate with the defective COC the opportunity to participate in the elections,
while in a petition for quo warranto, the goal is to prevent the proclaimed winner
from entering into office and his duties.
C. According to jurisprudence and our discussions in class, the Omnibus Election Code
expressly makes applicable to election cases the provisions in the Rules of Court
regarding execution pending appeal. Said provisions of the Rules of Court grants the
trial court to issue an order of execution pending appeal. Therefore, the decision
in favour of T, rendered by the RTC, may be executed pending appeal to the
COMELEC upon his motion.