Case Summary (G.R. No. 161886)
Petition and Core Issue
Petitioner Funa challenged EO 864 and Section 14 of EO 292 on the grounds that they violated the independence of the CSC and the dual-office prohibition of Article IX-A, Section 2. He argued that serving on GOCC boards—entities under the President’s control—compromised CSC autonomy and that the charters of the GOCCs did not authorize such designation.
Respondents’ Position
Respondents contended that EO 864 merely implemented the ex officio provision of EO 292, which derives from the CSC’s primary functions over personnel welfare. They argued GOCCs with original charters are exempt from direct presidential control, that ex officio service carries no additional compensation, and that absence of express charter prohibition meant no conflict.
Constitutional Interpretation of Dual-Office Prohibition
The Court reiterated that Article IX-A, Section 2 imposes an absolute ban on any other “office or employment” for constitutional-commission members. The broader Article IX-B, Section 7(2) allows other officials to hold multiple offices only if authorized by law or primary functions, but constitutional-commission members face a stricter prohibition that admits no exceptions except those expressly allowed in the Constitution.
Validity of EO 292’s Ex Officio Provision
Section 14 of EO 292 conditions ex officio board membership on entities whose functions affect government personnel welfare. The Court held that matters such as benefits and compensation are among the CSC’s primary functions; hence, the provision is a valid incident of the CSC Chairman’s duties. EO 292’s ex officio rule was upheld as constitutional.
Unconstitutionality of EO 864 and Board Designation
Despite EO 292’s general mandate, the specific designation of Duque to the boards of GSIS, PhilHealth, ECC, and HDMF by EO 864 was declared unconstitutional. The Court found that these GOCCs exercise broad corporate powers—beyond personnel matters—and are under the President’s executive control. Service on their boards exposed the CSC Chairman to presidential influence and violated the dual-office ban. Moreover, Duque received per diems for board participation, contradicting the principle that ex officio positions carry no extra compensation.
De Facto Officer Doctrine and Effects
Although Duque’s board membership was void ab in
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 161886)
Parties
- Petitioner: Dennis A. B. Funa, acting in his capacity as taxpayer, concerned citizen, and lawyer
- Respondents:
• Hon. Francisco T. Duque III, Chairman of the Civil Service Commission (CSC)
• The Chairman, Civil Service Commission generally
• Executive Secretary Leandro R. Mendoza, Office of the President
Jurisdiction and Procedural Antecedents
- Case: G.R. No. 191672, decided November 25, 2014, by the Supreme Court, En Banc
- Nature of action: Special civil action for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
- Relief sought: Declaration of unconstitutionality of Executive Order No. 864 and of Section 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), and nullification of Hon. Duque’s designation as ex officio member of various GOCC boards
Constitutional Provisions
- Section 1, Article IX-A, 1987 Constitution: Declares the CSC, COMELEC, and COA as “independent” constitutional commissions
- Section 2, Article IX-A: Prohibits members of constitutional commissions from holding any other office or employment during their tenure
- Section 7, Article IX-B: Provides that, unless otherwise allowed by law or the primary functions of his office, no appointive official may hold any other government office
Facts
- January 11, 2010: President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appointed Francisco T. Duque III as CSC Chairman; confirmed by the Commission on Appointments on February 3, 2010
- February 22, 2010: President Arroyo issued EO 864, mandating that the CSC Chairman sit ex officio on the boards of GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC, and HDMF
- April 8, 2010: Petitioner Funa filed petition challenging the constitutionality of EO 864, the relevant provision of EO 292, and Duque’s board memberships
Petitioner's Arguments
- EO 864 and EO 292 Section 14 violate Sections 1 and 2, Article IX-A by undermining the CSC’s independence and allowing dual office-holding
- The CSC is not part of the Executive Branch; board designations attach the CSC Chairman to Executive-controlled GOCCs, subjecting the CSC to presidential control
- EO 292 improperly expands the CSC’s personnel-related mandate to insurance, housing, and health matters
- Charter laws of GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC, and HDMF do not provide for ex officio membership of the CSC Chairman; an executive order cannot amend congressional charters
- Dual office-holding creates potential conflicts of interest and violates the constitutional prohibition on other offices or employment
Respondents' Arguments
- EO 864 and EO 292 preserve CSC independence because GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC, and HDMF GOCCs are exempt from executive control and not subject to presidential supervision like regular departments
- As ex officio member, Duque may sit without additio