ARTICLE IX.
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
I. General considerations [Art. IX(A)]
A. Independence
CASES:
Macalintal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 157013, July 10,
2003
Arroyo v. DOJ, G.R. No. 199082, September 18, 2012
(read also the opinion of J. Brion)
B. Inhibitions and disqualifications [Sec. 2]
C. Salaries [Sec. 3]
D. Power to make appointments of their officials and em-
ployees [Sec. 4]
E. Fiscal autonomy [Sec. 5]
1. Extent/meaning
2. Compared with fiscal autonomy of
a. The judiciary [Sec. 3, Art. VIII]
b. The Office of the Ombudsman [Sec. 14, Art.
XI]
F. Rule-making power [Sec. 6]
G. Voting [Sec. 7]
CASE: Estrella v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 160465, April
28, 2004 (overturning Cua v. Comelec, G.R. No.
80519-21, December 17, 1987)
H. Judicial Review of adjudicatory functions
1. Modes of review – GR: certiorari to Supreme
Court under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court; EXC: unless otherwise provided
by the Constitution or by law (e.g., appeals from
CSC decision cognizable by the CA under Rule
43 of the Rules of Court)
CASE: Patalinghug v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
178767, January 30, 2008
I. Functions
1. As provided in the Constitution [Article IX]
2. As may be provided by law [Sec. 8]
J. Appointment and terms of office
1. Appointing authority – President, with concurrence
of Commission on Appointments
2. Term
a. Duration – 7 years without reappointment
CASE: Funa v. Villar, G.R. No. 192791, April
24, 2012
b. Uneven/staggered terms
3. Appointment to vacancy only for the unexpired
term of predecessor
CASE: Funa v. Villar, supra
4. No appointment or designation in temporary or
acting capacity
CASES:
Nacionalista Party v. Bautista, G.R. No. L-3452,
December 7, 1949
Brillantes v. Yorac, G.R. No. 93867, December
18, 1990
II. The Civil Service Commission [Art. IX-B]
A. Composition – a Chairman and two Commissioners
[Sec. 1(1)]
B. Qualifications [Sec. 1(1)]
C. Scope of civil service – all branches, subdivisions, in-
strumentalities, and agencies of the Government, in-
cluding GOCCs with original charters
CASES:
National Service Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. L-
69870 November 29, 1988
Civil Service Commission v. Sojor, G.R. No.
168766, May 22, 2008
D. Classification
1. Career service
2. non-career
E. GR: CSC administers civil service; EXC: SC adminis-
trative jurisdiction over all courts and judicial personnel
CASE: Ampong v. Civil Service Commission, G.R.
No. 167916, 26 August 2008
F. The merit system – appointments in the civil service
made only according to merit and fitness [Sec. 2(2)]
1. GR: merit and fitness determined by competitive
examination
2. EXC: policy-determining, primarily confidential, or
highly technical positions
a. policy-determining position
b. primarily confidential position
CASE: Civil Service Commission v. Javier,
G.R. No. 173264, February 22, 2008
c. highly technical position
G. Security of tenure - officer or employee of the civil ser-
vice shall be removed or suspended except for cause
provided by law [Sec. 2(3)]
1. GR: Applies to carrier civil service officers and em-
ployees, not to policy-determining, primarily confi-
dential, or highly technical positions
CASE: Salazar v. Mathay, G.R. No. L-44061,
September 20, 1976
2. EXC: policy-determining, primarily confidential,
and highly technical positions have no security of
tenure; no “removal” or “dismissal” but only “expi-
ration of term”
CASES:
Salazar v. Mathay, supra
Griño v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No.
91602, February 26, 1991
3. Government reorganizations vis-à-vis security of
tenure
CASES:
Dario v. Mison, G.R. No. 81954, August 8, 1989
Mendoza v. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 78053, June
4, 1990
H. Prohibition against electioneering or partisan political
activity [Sec. 2(4)]
CASES:
Cailles v. Bonifacio, G.R. No. L-45937, February 25,
1938
Santos v. Yatco, G.R. No. L-16133, November 6,
1959
I. Right to self-organization of government employees
[Sec. 2(5)]
CASES:
SSS Employees Association v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 85279, July 28, 1989
Manila Public School Teachers Association v.
Laguio, G.R. No. 95445, August 6, 1991 (read the dis-
sents of JJ. Gutierrez, Cruz and Feliciano]
J. Temporary government employees [Sec. 2(6)]
1. Source of protection – as may be provided by law
2. Distinction: temporary vs. provisional appointment
– former: given one who possesses no civil service
eligibility; latter: given to one with civil service eli-
gibility different from that which is appropriate for
the position to which he was appointed
K. Oath or affirmation of public officers and employees
[Sec. 4]
L. Standardization of compensation [Sec. 5]
1. Constitutional basis of the Salary Standardization
Law: “Congress shall provide for the standardiza-
tion of compensation of government officials and
employees, including those in [GOCs] with original
charters, taking into account the nature of the re-
sponsibilities pertaining to, and the qualifications
required for, their positions.”
2. Read the salient features of the SSL (RA 6578)
M. Disqualifications [Sec. 6 & 7]
1. The one-year ban against losing candidates – No
candidate who has lost in any election, shall within
1 year after such election, be appointed to any
government office, or any GOCC or their subsidi-
aries
CASE: People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
164185, July 23, 2008
2. 1st par., Sec. 7, Art. IX-B: No elective official shall
be eligible for appointment or designation to any
public office during his tenure
CASE: Flores v. Drilon, G.R. No. 104732, June
22, 1993
3. 2nd par., Sec. 7, Art IX-B: GR: no appointive official
shall hold any other office or employment in the
 government or any subdivision, agency or instru-
mentality thereof, including GOCCs or their sub-
sidiaries; EXC: unless otherwise allowed by law or
by the primary functions of his position
CASES:
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary,
G.R. No. 83896, February 22, 1991
Public Interest Center Inc. v. Elma, G.R. No.
138965, June 30, 2006 (decision); March 5, 2007
(resolution)
4. Prohibition against double compensation [Sec. 8]
1. GR: additional, double, or indirect compensa-
tion prohibited; EXC: (a) unless specifically
authorized by law; (b) pensions or gratuities
CASE: Benguet State University v. COA,
G.R. No. 169637, June 8, 2007
2. Accept, without the consent of the Congress,
any present, emolument, office, or title of any
kind from any foreign government
III. The Commission on Elections [Art. IX-C]
A. Composition – a Chairman and 6 Commissioners [Sec.
1(1)]
B. Qualifications [Sec. 1(1)]
CASE: Cayetano v. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113, Sep-
tember 3, 1991 (read also the dissents of JJ. Padilla,
Cruz and Gutierrez)
C. Organization [Sec. 3]
1. Divisions – hears and decides election cases
2. En banc – hears and decides motions for recon-
sideration of Division decisions in election cases
D. Constitutional powers and functions
1. Enforce and administer election laws; prosecute
cases of violations of election laws [Sec. 2(1) &
2(6)]
CASES:
Pamatong v. Comelec, G.R. No. 161872, April
13, 2004
Bedol v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179830, December
3, 2009
2. Decide election contests [Sec. 2(2) and Sec. 3]
a. Jurisdiction
i. exclusive original jurisdiction – over all
contests relating to the elections, returns,
and qualifications of all elective regional,
provincial, and city officials
ii. appellate jurisdiction – over all contests
involving elective municipal officials de-
cided by RTCs, or involving elective ba-
rangay officials decided by MTCs;
COMELEC decisions, final orders, or rul-
ings on election contests involving elec-
tive municipal and barangay offices final,
executory, and not appealable
CASE: Flores v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
89604, April 20, 1990
b. How COMELEC exercises adjudicatory pow-
ers [Sec. 3]
i. Divisions – hears and decides election
cases
ii. En banc – hears and decides motions for
reconsideration of Division decisions in
election cases
3. Decide administrative questions [Sec. 2(3)]
a. Examples of administrative issues
i. number and location of polling places
ii. appointment of election officials and in-
spectors
iii. registration of voters (but not questions
involving right to vote, which is a judicial
question)
b. COMELEC’s contempt power N/A in adminis-
trative matters
CASE: Guevara v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-
12596, July 31, 1958
4. Power to deputize with the President’s concur-
rence [Sec. 2(4)]
a. Who may be deputized
i. law enforcement agencies
ii. instrumentalities of the Government, in-
cluding the Armed Forces of the Philip-
pines
b. Purpose of deputation - ensuring free, orderly,
honest, peaceful, and credible elections.
5. Register political parties & accredit citizen’s arms
[Sec. 2(5)]
6. File petitions in court for inclusion and exclusion of
voters [Sec. 2(6)]
7. Recommendatory power [Sec. 2(7)
8. Reportorial function [Sec. 2(9)] – submit to Presi-
dent and Congress, a comprehensive report on
the conduct of each election, plebiscite, initiative,
referendum, or recall
9. Regulate public utilities and media [Sec. 4]
a. When – during the election period
b. Scope of regularity power
i. franchises or permits for the operation of
transportation and public utilities
CASE: Diocese of Bacolod v. COME-
LEC, G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015
ii. media of communication or information
CASES:
Philippine Press Institute v. COME-
LEC, G.R. No. L-119694 May 22, 1995
Telecommunications and Broadcast
Attorneys of the Phils. v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 132922 April 21, 1998
c. Aim of regulation
10. Recommend executive clemency for violation of
election laws (Sec. 5)
11. Contempt power
CASES:
Guevara v. Comelec, supra
Bedol v. COMELEC, supra
E. Party system in the Philippines [Sec. 6-8]
1. Free and open system – allowed to evolve accord-
ing to the free choice of the people [Sec. 6]
2. GR: prohibition against block voting; EXC: party-
list elections [Sec. 7]
3. Prohibitions & allowance on political parties
F. Election period [Sec. 9]
1. Duration – commences 90 days before election;
ends 30 days thereafter
2. Election period v. campaign period
CASE: Peralta v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-47771,
March 11, 1978
G. Judicial review of administrative functions of the
COMELEC
CASES:
Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v. Ferrer,
G.R. No. L-31455, February 28, 1985
People v. Delgado, G.R. No. L-31455, February 28,
1985
IV. The Commission on Audit [Art. IX-D]
A. Composition – a Chairman and two Commissioners
[Sec. 1(1)]
CASE: Funa v. Villar, supra
B. Qualifications [Sec. 1(1)]
C. Powers and functions [Sec. 2]
1. audit all accounts pertaining to revenue and ex-
penditures
a. government in general
b. government subdivisions, agencies, or instru-
mentalities
CASE: Boy Scouts of the Philippines v.
COA, G.R. No. 177131, June 7, 2011
c. GOCCs with original charters
CASE: Feliciano v. COA, G.R. No.
147402, January 14, 2004
2. perform post-audit on all accounts pertaining to
revenue and expenditures
a. constitutional bodies, commissions and of-
fices that have been granted fiscal autonomy
under the Constitution [SC; ConComs; Om-
budsman]
CASE: Re: COA Opinion on the Computa-
tion of the Appraised Value of the Proper-
ties Purchased by the Retired Chief/Asso-
ciate Justices of the Supreme Court, A.M.
11-7-10-SC, July 31, 2012
b. autonomous state colleges and universities
c. other GOCCs [without “original charter”] and
their subsidiaries
CASE: Feliciano v. COA, supra
 d. non-governmental entities receiving subsidy
or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through
the Government, which are required by law or
the granting institution to submit to such audit
as a condition of subsidy or equity
3. adopt such measures, including temporary or spe-
cial pre-audit, as are necessary and appropriate to
correct the deficiencies where internal control sys-
tem of the audited agencies is inadequate
4. keep the general accounts of the Government
and, for such period as may be provided by law,
preserve the vouchers and other supporting pa-
pers pertaining thereto
5. define the scope of, and establish the techniques
and methods required for, its audit
6. promulgate accounting and auditing rules and reg-
ulations, including those for the prevention and
disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive,
extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or
uses of government funds and properties
D. COA’s function vis-à-vis the congressional power of
the purse
CASE: Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R.
No. 160261, November 10, 2003 [particularly opinion
of J. Corona]
E. No exemptions from COA jurisdiction [Sec. 3]
CASE: Petitioner-Organizations v. Executive Sec-
retary, G.R. Nos. 147036-37, April 10, 2012
F. Reportorial requirement [Sec. 4]