Pageant Portion

Mario: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen! Welcome to the 2018 Ms. Civil Service Commission.
We have five smart, hardworking, and beautiful candidates from different branches, subdivisions,
instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned and controlled
corporations with original charters vying for the much-coveted title. They were the candidates who
successfully hurdled our pre-pageant besting over 50 candidates. To clarify ,as declared in Juco
vs. NLRC, the phrase “with original charters” means that the GOCCs refer to corporations
chartered by special law, as distinguished from corporations organized under the Corporation
Code. Furthermore, in NASECO vs. NLRC, the Court clarified that Civil Service does not include
government-owned or controlled corporations which are organized as subsidiaries of
government-owned or controlled corporations under the general corporation law.

Since some of our candidates are employed in GOCCs with special charters, then they are
covered under the Civil Service as opposed to employees of GOCCs organized under the
Corporation Code who are covered by the provisions of the Labor Code.

Before we introduce them, let me just give a brief background of the Commission.

The Civil Service Commission or CSC is the central personnel agency of the Government
designated to set standards and to enforce the laws and rules governing the selection, utilization,
training, and discipline of civil servants. The Commission is composed of a Chairman and two
commissioners appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments
for a term of seven years without reappointment and may be removed only by impeachment.

Ladies and gentlemen, without further ado, please join me in welcoming our five top contenders
of the night! (Pasok candidates)

Ms. Duty Free Philippines (DFP) - Tin

Ms. PAGCOR - Chels
Ms. NEA - Cha
Ms. SBMA - Krys
Ms. DPWH - Loti

Intro
Ms. DFP: I am Kristina Cabugao, representing Duty Free Philippines! When I am on leave, I’m
out exploring the world, but I am proud to say, it’s more fun in the Philippines!

Ms. PAGCOR: I am Chelsea Dauz, representing the Philippine Amusement and Gaming
Corporation or PAGCOR! I am a gamer at heart, but I will never play with your heart. In PAGCOR,
we believe in creating opportunities beyond gaming.

Ms. NEA: I am Charlotte Casinillo, representing the National Electrification Administration or NEA!
A proud probinsyana from Biliran, but I give life to the city life like how NEA energizes the
countryside and electrifies the future.

Ms. SBMA – I am Krystal Fetalvero representing the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority or SBMA!
My greatest skill is balancing life, work, and play, just like my Subic Bay!
Ms. DPWH: Good evening, everyone! I am Lotti Villaroman, representing the Department of
Public Works and Highways or DPWH! DPWH ensures the right project, right cost, right quality,
right on time, right people. Therefore, I am right and I shall win tonight! Thank you!

Pre-Q and A
1. Why did you join the pageant, Ms. DPWH? – I joined because I want to build, build, build my
resume. Thank you!
2. Are you a permanent employee, Ms. SBMA? – Yes, I am, because I met all the requirements
for the position to which I am being appointed, including the appropriate eligibility prescribed.
3. Ms. NEA, when did you take your civil service exam? – Actually, I did not take any exam,
because I am an accountant, and because by special law, the board and bar examinations
are considered civil service examinations for purposes of appointment to positions in the
career service.
4. Ms. PAGCOR, how about you? – I did not take a civil exam also since I graduated with
honors, and under the law, an appropriate civil service eligibility is also granted to summa cum
laude, magna cum laude, and cum laude graduates of four-year degree courses under certain
conditions.
5. Ms. Duty Free, I am aware that you are a permanent appointee. May we know how long
you’ve been in the service? – Yes, I was appointed just last January this year. However, I’m
still in probationary period of six months during which I will undergo a thorough character
investigation. This means that I may be dropped from the service for unsatisfactory conduct
or want of capacity. However, this still may be appealed to the Commission.

Mario: (Adlib, thanks, etc.) Ladies and gentlemen, I think they are ready for more challenging
questions from our judges.

Q&A
FIRST ROUND
1. How are positions in the civil service classified? (Ms. SBMA)

– Positions in the civil service are classified into the career service and the non-career service.
Career service is characterized by 1) By entrance based on merit and fitness to be determined
as far as practicable by competitive examinations, or based on highly technical qualifications, 2)
opportunity for advancement to higher career positions; and 3) security of tenure. Meanwhile,
non-career service is characterized by 1) entrance on bases other than those of usual tests of
merit and fitness utilized for the career service; and 2) tenure which is limited to a period specified
by law, or which is co-terminous with the of the appointing authority or subject to his pleasure, or
which is limited to the duration of a particular project for which purpose employment was made.

2. Distinguish between permanent and temporary appointments. (Ms. DPWH)

– Appointments in the Civil Service may be either permanent or temporary. A permanent

appointment shall be issued to a person who meets all the requirements for the position to which
he is being appointed, including the appropriate eligibility prescribed, in accordance with the
provisions of laws, rules, and standards promulgated in pursuance thereof. On the other hand, in
the absence of appropriate eligible and it becomes necessary in the public interest to fill a
vacancy, a temporary appointment shall be issued to a person who meets all the requirements
for the position to which he is being appointed except the appropriate civil service eligibility:
Provided, that such temporary appointment shall not exceed 12 months but the appointee may
be replaced sooner if a qualified civil service eligible becomes available.
3. In relation to the question asked by Judge No. 2, let’s say you are a temporary appointee
and during your appointment, you took the civil service exam and you passed the same, does
it mean that you automatically become a permanent appointee? (Ms. DFP)
– Maturan v Maglana

4. Is the requirement for competitive examinations absolute? (Ms. NEA)

 No, the requirement for competitive examinations are not absolute. The exceptions are
the policy-determining, primarily confidential, and highly technical positions. (Cite
definitions in page 83 of Cruz’s book)
Follow-up: Can the lack of confidence of the one making the appointment constitutes sufficient
and legitimate cause of removal for persons holding highly technical positions?
 No. In Corpus vs. Cuaderno, the Supreme Court held that it cannot rely on the so-called
loss of confidence as a reason for dismissal. The Constitution mandates that no public
officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause
as provided by law. The Constitutional safeguard requiring removal or suspension to be
"for cause as provided by law" at least demands that their dismissal for alleged "loss of
confidence" if at all allowed, be attended with prudence and deliberation adequate to show
that said ground exists.
It must be noted that the tenure of officials holding primarily confidential positions ends upon loss
of confidence, because their term of office lasts only as long as confidence in them endures; and
thus their cessation involves no removal. But the situation is different for those holding highly
technical posts, requiring special skills and qualifications. The Constitution clearly distinguished
the primarily confidential from the highly technical, and to apply the loss of confidence rule to the
latter incumbents is to ignore and erase the differentiation expressly made by our fundamental
charter.
5. Is a public officer who has been granted an executive clemency entitled to reinstatement to his
or her former position without need of a new appointment? (Ms. PAGCOR)
 It depends. In Monsanto vs. Factoran, the Supreme Court held that pardon granted after
conviction frees the individual from all the penalties and legal disabilities and restores him
to all his civil rights, but unless expressly grounded on the person's innocence, it cannot
bring back lost reputation for honesty, integrity and fair dealing. Pardon does not ipso facto
restore a convicted felon to public office necessarily relinquished or forfeited by reason of
the conviction although such pardon undoubtedly restores his eligibility for appointment to
that office.
 Meanwhile, in Garcia vs. COA, the Supreme Court held that petitioner’s innocence is the
primary reason behind the grant of executive clemency to him. The bestowal of executive
clemency on petitioner in effect completely obliterated the adverse effects of the
administrative decision which found him guilty of dishonesty and ordered his separation
from the service. This can be inferred from the executive clemency itself exculpating
petitioner from the administrative charge and thereby directing his reinstatement, which is
rendered automatic by the grant of the pardon. This signifies that petitioner need no longer
apply to be reinstated to his former employment; he is restored to his office ipso facto upon
the issuance of the executive clemency.
FINAL ROUND
6. Is preventive suspension pending investigation a penalty? (Ms. NEA)
 No. There are two kinds of preventive suspension of civil service employees who are
charged with offenses punishable by removal or suspension: (1) preventive suspension
pending investigation and (2) preventive suspension pending appeal if the penalty
imposed by the disciplining authority is suspension or dismissal and, after review, the
respondent is exonerated.
In Gloria vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court declared that preventive suspension pending
investigation is not a penalty. It is a measure intended to enable the disciplining authority to
investigate charges against respondent by preventing the latter from intimidating or in any way
influencing witnesses against him. If the investigation is not finished and a decision is not rendered
within that period, the suspension will be lifted and the respondent will automatically be reinstated.
If after investigation respondent is found innocent of the charges and is exonerated, he should be
reinstated.
Follow-up: Is an employee under preventive suspension during appeal entitled to reinstatement
with full pay if he wins the appeal?
 Yes. In the same case, it was held that though an employee is considered under
preventive suspension during the pendency of his appeal in the event he wins, his
suspension is unjustified because what the law authorizes is preventive suspension for a
period not exceeding 90 days. Beyond that period the suspension is illegal. Hence, the
employee concerned is entitled to reinstatement with full pay.
7. Is there a difference between an order to detail and reassignment? (Ms. PAGCOR)
 Yes. In the case of Republic vs. Pacheo, it was held that as opposed to an order to detail
which requires a movement from one agency to another and is immediately executory, a
reassignment which requires a movement within the same agency does not become
immediately effective.
8. As we all know, a promotion is generally made according to a merit promotion plan and a
performance evaluation system to be established and implemented by each department or
agency, subject to what is known as the next in rank rule. Can you explain this rule? (Ms. DFP)

ANS: Under this rule, the person next in rank shall be given preference in promotion when the
position immediately above his is vacated. However, the law also permits the vacancy to be filled
by transfer of present employees, reinstatement, re-employment, or appointment of persons with
the appropriate civil service eligibility. In such a case, the appointing authority is required to specify
the “special reason or reasons” for not appointing the officer next-in-rank.

Follow-up: So does that mean the concept of NIR import any mandatory or peremptory
requirement that the person NIR must be appointed to the vacancy?

ANS: No. The Supreme Court ruled in Pineda v. Claudio that in the event of a vacancy, the
officer next in rank must, as far as practicable and as the appointing authority sees fit in his best
judgment and estimation, be promoted, otherwise the vacancy may be filled either by transfer,
reinstatement, reemployment or certification — not necessarily in that order — and that it is only
in cases of promotion, where an employee other than the ranking one is appointed, is the
appointing power under duty to give "special reason or reasons" for his action to the Civil Service
Commissioner, as provided in Section 23, third paragraph, of the Civil Service Act. Thus, the
appointing authority has the discretion to fill the vacancy under the NIR rule or by any other
method authorized by law.

9. Q: Let us say that your employment contract provides that your employment is subject to the
condition that you shall not join or shall relinquish your membership in the employee’s
organization. Is this valid?
ANS: No. As held in the case of TUPAS v. NHC, the right to unionize or to form organizations is
now explicitly recognized and granted to employees in both the governmental and the private
sectors. The Bill of Rights provides that "the right of the people, including those employed in the
public and private sectors, to form unions, associations or societies for purposes not contrary to
law shall not be abridged."
Specifically with respect to government employees, the right to unionize is recognized in
Paragraph (5), Section 2, Article IX B which provides that "(t)he right to self-organization shall not
be denied to government employees. It was also clarified in this case that even employees of
GOCCs without original charters may avail themselves of the right to self-organization under the
Labor Code.
Follow-up: So we have already established that civil servants are now given the right to organize,
can they stage strikes especially if the employer fails to act on the demands of the employee’s
union?
ANS: No. In SSSEA v. CA, the Supreme Court explicitly declared that government employees
are prohibited from striking by express provision of Memorandum Circular No. 6 and as implied
in EO No. 180. The rationale behind this rule is that since the terms and conditions of government
employment are fixed by law, government workers cannot use the same weapons employed by
workers in the private sector to secure concessions from their employers.
Relations between private employers and their employees rest on an essentially voluntary basis.
Subject to the minimum requirements of wage laws and other labor and welfare legislation, the
terms and conditions of employment in the unionized private sector are settled through the
process of collective bargaining. In government employment, however, it is the legislature and,
where properly given delegated power, the administrative heads of government which fix the
terms and conditions of employment. And this is effected through statutes or administrative
circulars, rules and regulations, not through CBAs.