Case Summary (G.R. No. 155336)
Key Dates
• February 14, 1998 – Republic Act No. 8522 (General Appropriations Act of 1998) enacted.
• September–November 1998 – CHR Resolutions A98-047, A98-055, A98-062 adopting an upgrading and reclassification scheme.
• March 29, 1999 – CSC-NCR recommends rejection of affected appointments for lack of DBM approval.
• December 16, 1999 & June 9, 2000 – CSC–Central Office denies CHREA’s request to affirm CSC-NCR recommendation.
• November 29, 2001 – Court of Appeals affirms CSC–Central Office resolutions, dismissing CHREA’s petition.
• November 25, 2004 – Supreme Court grants CHREA’s petition, reversing CA decision and reinstating CSC-NCR ruling.
• July 21, 2006 – Supreme Court issues resolution on respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution:
– Article XIII, Section 17(4) on CHR appropriations (“approved annual appropriations … automatically and regularly released”).
– Article VIII, Section 3 (Judiciary fiscal autonomy).
– Article IX, Part A, Section 5 (Civil Service Commission, Commission on Elections, Commission on Audit fiscal autonomy).
– Article XI, Section 14 (Ombudsman fiscal autonomy).
• Republic Act No. 8522 (General Appropriations Act 1998), Sec. 78 and Special Provisions applicable to constitutionally autonomous offices.
• Republic Act No. 6758 (Compensation Standardization Law).
• Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987).
• CFAG Joint Resolution No. 49 (July 24, 1998) defining “fiscal autonomy.”
Constitutional Basis for CHR’s Fiscal Autonomy
Article XIII, Section 17(4) of the 1987 Constitution directs only that the CHR’s approved appropriations “shall be automatically and regularly released.” Unlike the Judiciary (Art. VIII, Sec. 3), constitutional commissions (Art. IX, Sec. 5), and the Office of the Ombudsman (Art. XI, Sec. 14), CHR’s provision omits the explicit grant “The Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.”
Scope of Fiscal Autonomy Under the 1987 Constitution
In Bengzon v. Drilon, the Court defined constitutional fiscal autonomy to include freedom over budget preparation, fee imposition, rate fixing (within lawful limits) and disbursement without outside control. CHR’s constitutional provision grants only the narrow aspect of automatic release of funds; it is not counted among the fully autonomous bodies enumerated in Articles VIII–XI.
Deliberations of the Constitutional Commission
During drafting, the ConCom debated whether to include “The Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy” alongside the release clause. Commissioners agreed that the second sentence alone (“approved annual appropriations … automatically and regularly released”) sufficed and deliberately omitted the broader autonomy clause, confirming that CHR’s constitutional autonomy is limited to fund release.
Definition of Fiscal Autonomy by CFAG
By CFAG Joint Resolution No. 49, CHR and other autonomous offices defined fiscal autonomy as “independence … regarding financial matters from outside control,” encompassing budgeting, flexibility in fund utilization, use of savings, and disposition of receipts. Having adopted this definition, CHR cannot now claim that automatic release alone constitutes full fiscal autonomy.
Requirement of DBM Approval for Reclassification
Republic Act No. 6758 vests in DBM sole authority over a unified position classification and compensation system. Republic Act No. 8522, Sec. 78, further provides that organizational changes require specific law or Presidential direction. DBM Secretary Diokno evaluated
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 155336)
Facts of the Case
- On 14 February 1998, Republic Act No. 8522 (General Appropriations Act of 1998) was enacted, containing special provisions for Constitutional Offices enjoying fiscal autonomy.
- Article XXXIII of R.A. 8522 authorized such offices to (a) formulate and implement organizational structures, (b) fix and determine salaries, allowances and benefits, and (c) make personal-services adjustments, including creating or transferring plantilla positions, subject to existing compensation standardization laws.
- The same Act authorized the use of savings for printing publications, office repairs, equipment purchase, employment of temporary staff, miscellaneous expenses, and other official purposes.
- On 4 September 1998, the CHR promulgated Resolution No. A98-047 upgrading and reclassifying selected posts, funded from savings under Personal Services, including creation of ten additional plantilla positions.
- On 19 October 1998, Resolution No. A98-055 further raised salary grades of certain positions and authorized funding from savings.
- On 17 November 1998, Resolution No. A98-062 “collapsed” vacant plantilla positions to generate funds for the foregoing staff modifications.
DBM Disapproval
- The CHR submitted its staffing scheme to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) for approval.
- DBM Secretary Benjamin Diokno denied the request, holding that:
• The proposal effectively elevated field units to bureau or regional-office level without legal basis.
• It changed support services to substantive offices without functional change.
• Under Section 78 of the GAA 1998 and RA 6758 (Compensation Standardization Law), no organizational changes or key-position alterations are allowed without specific law or presidential directive and DBM approval.
Civil Service Commission Proceedings
- On 29 March 1999, CSC–NCR recommended rejection of the questioned appointments due to lack of DBM approval.
- CHREA petitioned CSC–Central to affirm CSC–NCR’s recommendation, arguing that only DBM can evaluate and approve reclassification schemes.
- On 16 December 1999, CSC–Central denied CHREA’s request (Resolution