REVISED RULES ON THE CAREER EXECUTIVE SERVICE (CES) ELIGIBILITY

WHEREAS, Section 8 Paragraphs 1(c)
and 2, Chapter 2, Book V of Executive Order No. 292 expressly provides
that the “third level shall cover positions in the Career Executive
Service” and that “entrance to the third level shall be prescribed by
the Career Executive Service Board”;

WHEREAS, Paragraph 5 (a), Article
IV, Part III of the Integrated Reorganization Plan, as approved under PD
No. 1 provides that “a person who meets such managerial experience and
other requirements and passes such examinations, as may be prescribed by
the Board, shall be included in the register of career executive eligibles”;

WHEREAS, the Board issued Circular
No. 1 dated December 15, 1989 which states that “CES Eligibility shall
be given to any person who meets such managerial experience and other
requirements, and passes the examination prescribed by the Board”;

WHEREAS, the aforesaid circular provides  for
the following stages of examination for the conferment of CES
eligibility, namely: the Management Aptitude Test Battery; Assessment of
Managerial Capability and Competence; Validation of Performance
On-the-Job and a Final Interview by a Member of the CES Board;

WHEREAS, the Board issued
Resolution No. 366 dated September 11, 2001 which provides that “the
Final Interview Stage of the CES Eligibility Examination process shall
come before the Validation of On-The-Job Performance”;

WHEREAS, there is a need to
further revise the existing CES Eligibility Examination process to make
it more responsive and practicable, thus, fulfilling the Board’s mandate
which is to form a continuing pool of well-selected and development
oriented career administrators who shall provide competent and faithful
service in the CES;

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises
considered, the Board RESOLVES, as it is hereby RESOLVED, to adopt the
following Revised Rules on the Career Executive Service Eligibility:

ARTICLE I
Definition of Terms

SECTION 1.       Definition of Terms — For purposes of these rules the foregoing words and phrases shall have the following meanings:

1.1       Agency — refers to any bureau, office, commission, council, administration, board, institute, government owned or controlled corporation with original charter, and any other unit in the national government.

1.2       Applicant — refers to a person who has signified his/her intention in writing to apply for CES Eligibility.

1.3       Career Executive Service (CES)
— is a continuing pool of well-selected and development-oriented career
administrators belonging to the third level of the civil service who
shall provide competent and faithful service.

1.4       Career Executive Service Board (CESB) — is the governing body of the Career Executive Service, hereinafter referred to as the Board.

1.5       Career Executive Service Eligibility or CES Eligibility
— is the eligibility conferred to a person who passes the four-stage
CES Eligibility Examination process and meets the other requirements
prescribed by the Board.

1.6       Career Executive Service Officer or CESO
— refers to a Career Executive Service (CES) Eligible appointed by the
President to a CES rank upon the recommendation by the Board.

1.7       Career Executive Service (CES) Positions
— refer to the positions of Undersecretary, Assistant Secretary, Bureau
Director, Assistant Bureau Director, Regional Director, Assistant
Regional Director, Chief of Department Service and such other positions
of equivalent rank, as may be identified by the Board.

1.8       Department
— refers to any department in the executive branch of the government or
entity having the category of a department including independent
constitutional commissions and bodies.

1.9       Division Chief Level
— refers to a division chief position or its equivalent in the national
government or government-owned or controlled corporations as certified
by the personnel officer/administrative officer of the agency based on
the classification of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM)
and/or the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

1.10    Management Aptitude Test Battery Accreditation
— is a process by which an applicant who has taken and passed the MATB
administered by the Board as entrance or qualifying examination for masteral degrees, courses, and programs, shall, after the appropriate accreditation process, be exempted from the MATB.

1.11    Managerial Experience
— refers to experience obtained by a person performing the functions of
at least a division chief level position in the national government or
government-owned or controlled corporations, or its equivalent in the
private sector, including experience in an acting or Officer-in-Charge
(OIC) capacity.

ARTICLE II
Career Executive Service Eligibility

SECTION 1.       Conduct of CES Eligibility Examination and Conferment of CES Eligibility as a Mandate of the Board — The Board is a government agency mandated by law to conduct the CES Eligibility Examination and to confer CES Eligibility.

SECTION 2.       CES Eligibility as a Requirement for Assignment to a CES Position and Original and Promotional Appointment to a CES Rank — The CES Eligibility is an appropriate eligibility for assignment to positions in the CES.

CES Eligibility shall also be one
of the requirements for original appointment of a CES Eligible to CESO
Rank VI and the promotional appointment of a CESO to the next higher
rank both by the President.

No person shall be recommended by
the Board to the President for original or promotional appointment to
CES rank unless he/she has acquired the CES Eligibility conferred by the
Board.

SECTION 3.       Grounds for Invalidation of Application for CES Eligibility — An
applicant for CES Eligibility shall make a full disclosure to the Board
of any information relevant to his/her application for CES Eligibility.

When an applicant is found to have
intentionally made any false statement of material fact in the
application or employed any form of deception or fraud in connection
with his/her application for CES Eligibility, the Board shall invalidate
such application, without prejudice to the filing of appropriate
administrative and/or criminal case against the applicant concerned.

SECTION 4.       CES Eligibility Examination Not Equivalent to Other Government Examinations — For
purposes of assignment to CES positions or appointment to CES ranks,
all other government examinations administered by agencies mandated by
law to conduct government examinations shall not be equivalent to the
Career Executive Service Eligibility Examination conducted by the Board.

SECTION 5.       Non-Compliance with the CES Eligibility Examination Requirements —
The Board, in its discretion, reserves the right to discontinue the
processing of application for CES Eligibility of an applicant, who is
unable to comply with the requirements established in any of the stages
of the CES Eligibility Examination.

SECTION 6.       Additional Requirements for Conferment of CES Eligibility — An
applicant for CES Eligibility shall, in addition to the requirements
prescribed by the Board, be required to submit a self-certification
under oath stating that he/she has no pending administrative or criminal
case.

SECTION 7.       The CES Eligibility Examination Process — The four-stage CES Eligibility Examination process shall consist of the following stages:

1st stage — The Management Aptitude Test Battery (MATB);

2nd stage — The Assessment of Managerial Capability and Competence through the Assessment Center or simplify the Assessment Center;

3rd stage — The Board Interview;

4th stage — The Performance Validation On-the-Job

Successful completion of each stage is a pre-requisite to the succeeding stages of the CES Eligibility Examination process.

ARTICLE III
Management Aptitude Test Battery

SECTION 1.       Management Aptitude Test Battery
— The Management Aptitude Test Battery (MATB) is a paper-and-pencil
test given to applicants to determine their general intelligence and
knowledge of management principles.

SECTION 2.       Composition of the MATB — The MATB shall consist of three (3) sub-tests, namely:

Sub-Test I

1.      Error Recognition

2.      Reading Comprehension

3.      Information

Sub-Test II

1.      Data Interpretation

2.      Logical Reasoning

3.      Quantitative Reasoning

Sub-Test III

1.      Management Concepts and Problems

SECTION 3.       Conduct of the MATB
— The MATB shall be conducted by the Board through the Secretariat at
least once a year or as often as may be deemed necessary on such dates
as may be announced from time to time.

SECTION 4.       MATB Admission Requirements — An applicant for MATB must meet the following admission requirements:

4.1       He/she must be a Filipino Citizen of good moral character;

4.2       He/she must not have reached the compulsory retirement age of 65; and

4.3       He/she must be any of the following:

4.3.1 Any person, assigned or who acts as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of a CES position for at least six (6) months;

4.3.2 An
appointee or Officer-In-Charge (OIC) of a division chief position in
the government with at least three (3) years managerial experience
immediately preceding the filing of the MATB application;

4.3.3 Any
person appointed as permanent to a position outside the coverage of the
CES, with at least three (3) years managerial experience immediately
preceding the filing of the MATB application provided that the applicant
concerned meets the following conditions:

4.3.3  a) He/she occupies a position equivalent to or higher than a division chief level position in the government; and

4.3.3  b) He/she shall shoulder the Assessment Center cost.

4.3.4 Any person appointed to a non-career position including those holding a co-terminous
or contractual status of appointment in a department or agency of the
government, with at least three (3) years managerial experience, and has
served the government for the same period of time immediately preceding
the filing of the MATB application; provided that the applicant
concerned meets the following conditions:

4.3.4  a) He/she occupies a position equivalent to or  higher than a division chief level position in the government; and

4.3.4  b) He/she shall shoulder the Assessment Center cost;

SECTION 5.       Admission Requirements for Applicants from the Private Sector — An
applicant from the private sector shall be allowed to take the MATB,
provided that the following admission requirements are met:

5.1       He/she
must be an occupant of a managerial position pursuant to the provisions
of the Labor Code (Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended), and has at
least three (3) years managerial experience;

5.2       He/she
must express his/her request in writing to be allowed to take the MATB
and have it approved by the CESB Executive Director; and

5.3       He/she shall shoulder the cost of Assessment Center.

SECTION 6.       Application Form and Examination Fee — An
applicant for MATB shall be required to submit to the Secretariat
either personally or through mail a duly accomplished application form
including the supporting documents, if there are any, and an examination
fee not later than fifteen (15) days before the date of the
examination.

Application forms submitted beyond
the aforementioned deadline set shall be automatically considered in
the next MATB schedule provided that the applicant concerned shall be
informed of his/her examination schedule.

An applicant, who fails to submit
to the Secretariat the required supporting documents or examination fee
upon submission of the MATB application form, may be temporarily allowed
to apply in the MATB, provided that the said applicant submits such
documents or pays the said examination fee before or on the date of  scheduled examination.  No
applicant shall be allowed to take the MATB without submitting the
required supporting documents or payment of the required examination
fee.

SECTION 7.       Grounds for Disapproval of MATB Application — The MATB application shall be disapproved if the applicant:

7.1       has been dismissed from the service for cause;

7.2       has
been found guilty by final judgment of a crime involving moral
turpitude or other criminal offenses where the penalty imposed by the
court carries with it an accessory penalty of perpetual absolute
disqualification to hold public office; and

7.3       has been found guilty of offenses relative to or in connection with the conduct of any government examination.

SECTION 8.       Appeal on the Disapproval of MATB Application
— An applicant, whose MATB application has been disapproved, may appeal
to the Board in writing within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the
Secretariat’s decision disapproving his/her MATB application.

The decision of the Board en banc regarding the disapproval of a MATB application shall be final and executory, and is not subject to appeal.

SECTION 9.       MATB Rating — The
overall passing mark for MATB shall be at least eighty percent (80%)
which shall be valid for a maximum period of three (3) years from the
date of conduct of the said examination.  Failure on the part of the applicant to proceed to the next stage of the CES Eligibility Examination, which is the Assessment Center, within the said three (3) year period shall prevent him/her from continuing the examination process, unless he/she retakes and passes again the MATB.  An applicant shall be allowed to take the MATB only once a year subject to the rules provided in Section 10 of this article.

The Veterans Preference Rating shall not be applicable in determining the applicant’s MATB score.

For purposes of determining the applicant’s MATB rating, the following rules shall apply:

9.1       An
applicant who obtains a rating of at least eighty percent (80%) and
receives a total weighted score of at least forty-five percent (45%) in
each of the three (3) MATB sub-tests shall be allowed to proceed to the
next stage of the CES Eligibility Examination process, which is the Assessment Center.

9.2       An applicant who obtains a rating of at least eighty percent (80%)  in
the MATB but fails to meet the total weighted score of at least forty
five percent (45%) in one (1) of the three (3) sub-tests fails the MATB.  However,
the applicant concerned shall be allowed to retake and pass only the
said sub-test within one (1) year from the date of conduct of the said
MATB.  The Board shall allow an applicant to
retake the said sub-test only once, and the score obtained therein shall
be considered to be his/her final score.

9.3       An
applicant who fails to meet the forty five percent (45%) total weighted
score in two (2) of the three (3) MATB sub-tests fails the MATB
irrespective of the MATB rating received.

SECTION 10.    MATB Retake — An
applicant who receives a MATB rating of fifty percent (50%) and above
shall be allowed to retake the MATB within one (1) year reckoned from
the date of conduct of the said examination.

An applicant who receives a MATB
rating below fifty percent (50%) shall be allowed to retake the MATB
after one year (1) reckoned from the date of conduct of the said
examination.

An applicant who failed the MATB
three (3) times shall be disqualified from taking the said examination
until after five (5) years reckoned from the latest date of MATB taken.

SECTION 11.    Release of MATB Results — The results of the MATB shall be released by the Secretariat within thirty (30) days from the scheduled date of the examination.

The MATB results shall be officially announced by the Secretariat through the Board’s official publication.  Applicants shall, likewise, be officially notified of their respective MATB ratings.

SECTION 12.    Exemption from the MATB — An applicant, who took and passed the MATB administered by the Board as entrance or qualifying examination for masteral
degree, courses, and programs, shall, after the appropriate
accreditation process, be exempted from the MATB, provided that the
following conditions are met:

12.1    The applicant obtains a passing mark in the MATB as prescribed by the Board;

12.2    The three (3) year validity of the MATB has not expired;

12.3    The applicant meets the MATB admission requirements provided in Section 4 and Section 5 of this article.

Applicants, who are exempted from
the MATB as the first stage of the CES Eligibility Examination pursuant
to this provision, and are interested to acquire CES Eligibility, shall
be allowed to proceed to the second stage of the CES Eligibility
Examination process, which is the Assessment Center.

SECTION 13.    Requirements for MATB Accreditation — Applicants for MATB Accreditation shall submit to the Secretariat the following requirements:

13.1    A letter-request for MATB accreditation;

13.2    A
copy of the applicant’s appointment/assignment paper and service record
duly certified by the personnel/administrative officer of the
department, agency or office concerned.

ARTICLE IV
Assessment of Managerial Capability and Competence

SECTION 1.       Assessment of Managerial Capability and Competence Through the Assessment Center
— The Assessment of Managerial Capability and Competence through the
Assessment Center or Assessment Center (AC) is a series of simulation
exercises designed to measure the applicant’s managerial capability and
potential.

Unless otherwise decided by the Board, the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP) shall conduct the Assessment Center, in behalf of the Board.

SECTION 2.       Passing Mark — The passing mark in the Assessment Center shall be at least “Acceptable”

An applicant, who obtains a rating of at least “Acceptable” in the Assessment Center, shall proceed to the next stage of the CES Eligibility Examination process, which is the Board Interview.

SECTION 3.       No Exemption Policy — All applicants, irrespective of a position or circumstance, shall be required to undergo the Assessment Center.

SECTION 4.       Assessment Center Retake — An applicant shall be allowed to take the Assessment Center only three (3) times after which he/she shall be disqualified from continuing the examination process.

An applicant who takes and fails
the Assessment Center for the first time, shall be allowed to retake the
same only after one (1) year reckoned from the date of conduct of the
said Assessment Center.  If after a retake, the
said applicant receives a failing mark for the second time, he/she shall
be allowed another retake but only after one (1) year reckoned from the
date of the second Assessment Center retake.  An applicant, who fails the Assessment Center for the third time, shall no longer be allowed to continue with the examination process.

An applicant shall only be scheduled for a re-take upon payment of the Assessment Center Cost.

SECTION 5.       Assessment Center Cost — The following rules shall apply on the Assessment Center Cost:

5.1       The Board shall shoulder the cost of the Assessment Center of the following applicants:

5.1       The Board shall shoulder the cost of the Assessment Center of the following applicants:

5.1.1 A government official who is assigned to or acts as Officer-In-Charge of a CES position;

5.1.2 A government official who is appointed to or acts as Officer-In-Charge of a division chief position in the government.

The Board shall shoulder the Assessment Center cost of the above-stated applicants only once.  If an applicant fails  in
the Assessment Center on his/her first take and decides to retake it,
he/she shall be required to shoulder the cost of his/her subsequent
attempts.

5.2       Any of the following applicants shall be required to shoulder his/her Assessment Center cost:

5.2.1 A government official of an agency outside the coverage of the CES;

5.2.2 A government official appointed to a non-career position including those holding a co-terminous or contractual status of appointment in a department or agency of the government; and

5.2.3 An applicant from the private sector.

SECTION 6.       Effect of Failure to Appear on the Scheduled Date of the Assessment Center
— An applicant, who fails to appear on the scheduled dated of the
Assessment Center without justifiable reason, shall be allowed to
undergo the same on another date, provided, that he/she shall submit a
written confirmation of availability on the re-scheduled date of
Assessment Center, and only upon reimbursement of the cost of the
previously scheduled Assessment Center.

SECTION 7.       Duration of the CES Eligibility Examination Counted from the Date of Release of the Assessment Center Results — From the date of conduct of the last Assessment Center taken, an applicant shall be given three (3) years to complete the remaining stages of the CES Eligibility Examination process.  Failure
to comply with the three (3) year limitation provided in this provision
shall constitute an invalidation of the first two (2) stages already
completed by the applicant, namely: the MATB and the Assessment Center
and shall bar him/her from proceeding to the other stages of the said
examination process.

ARTICLE V
Board Interview

SECTION 1.       Board Interview
— The Board Interview is a process where a member of the Board or a
panel of Board members, through a formal interview, assesses and
evaluates the applicant’s managerial skills and competence based on the
Assessment Center results, leadership qualities, integrity, and a report
on his/her performance and office accomplishments.

SECTION 2.       Board Interviewer’s Recommendation — After an interview is conducted by a Board Interviewer, he/she may submit the following recommendations:

2.1       Recommend to Proceed to the Next Stage of the CES Eligibility Examination Process
— A Board Interviewer, based on the interview conducted, may recommend
that an applicant proceed to the Performance Validation Stage which is
the next stage of the CES Eligibility Examination upon
showing that the applicant concerned possesses adequate managerial
capabilities and potentials, leadership qualities, sufficient office
performance and accomplishments, and an unquestionable integrity.

The Board Interviewer shall make the necessary comments and observations, and indicate which particular area in the next stage should the assigned Validator focus on.

2.2       Recommend to Undergo a Panel Interview
— A Board Interviewer may recommend that an applicant be subjected to a
Panel Interview when there are doubts on the managerial capabilities
and potentials, leadership qualities, office accomplishments and
performance, and integrity of the applicant based on the interview
conducted.

2.3       Recommend Not to Proceed to the Next Stage of the CES Eligibility Examination Process
— A Board Interviewer may recommend that an applicant should not be
conferred a CES Eligibility or the application for CES Eligibility be
shelved or set aside because based on his/her evaluation the applicant
concerned does not possess the necessary qualification requirements to
become a CES Eligible.

The decision of the Board Interviewer shall be elevated to a Panel of Board Interviewers for appropriate action.

SECTION 3.       Panel Interview
— A Board Interviewer, who has doubts on the managerial capabilities
and potentials, leadership qualities, office accomplishments and
performance and integrity of an applicant, may recommend that an
applicant be subject to a Panel Interview.

There shall be a Panel of Board Interviewers which are
composed of three (3) Board Members appointed by the CESB Chairperson
primarily tasked to deliberate and decide on the issues submitted before
them for consideration.  The said Panel of Board Interviewers shall elect among themselves a Chairperson.

The majority of the members of the
Panel of Board of Interviewers shall decide within thirty (30) days
from receipt of the findings of the Board Interviewer whether to affirm
or reverse the decision of the Board Interviewer.

The decision of the Panel of Board
Interviewers shall be automatically submitted to the Board en banc for
review and deliberation.  The decision of the Board en banc shall be final and executory.  No request for reconsideration or appeal shall be entertained by the Board.

SECTION 4.       Failure or Refusal to Undergo or Comply with the Requirements of the Board Interview Stage — An
applicant shall be required to submit or comply with the requirements
prescribed by the Board in the Board Interview Stage within the maximum
period of one (1) month reckoned from the date of release of the Assessment Center results.  The
Board has the right to disqualify an applicant or discontinue, as the
case may be, the conduct of the Board Interview stage of any applicant
who fails or refuses to undergo or comply with the requirements in the
Board Interview Stage.

ARTICLE VI
Performance Validation on the Job

SECTION 1.       The Performance Validation On-the-Job or the Perfomance Validation Stage — The Performance Validation On-the-Job is a process where a Validator
assigned by the Board looks into the applicant’s personal
qualifications particularly his/her managerial capabilities and
potentials, leadership qualities, integrity, and the performance record
and accomplishments.  It shall be the fourth and final stage of the CES Eligibility Examination process.  There
are four (4) areas of personal qualifications and interest that are
looked into when Performance Validation Stage is conducted by a Validator.  These are:

1.1       The
managerial capability and potential of an applicant shall be determined
pursuant to the six (6) managerial dimensions, namely:

1.1.1 Management of Work —
the ability to plan and prioritize office activities, assign work
properly, set appropriate work standards, establish monitoring systems,
streamline office operations and make prompt and sound decisions;

1.1.2 Management of People —
the ability to promote the career and professional growth of
subordinates, observe fairness and impartiality, maintain discipline,
motivate staff for productivity, and give effective feedback on their
performance;

1.1.3 Management of Resources —
the ability to ensure proper disbursements of funds and the proper use
and maintenance of office equipment and other facilities;

1.1.4 Management of Linkages —
the ability to work effectively with other officials/units in the
department, other government agencies, local government units, political
representatives and non-government organizations towards the
accomplishment of office goals and objectives or the effective delivery
of service;

1.1.5 Management of Constraints — the ability to overcome office difficulties and problems; and

1.1.6 Innovativeness
— the ability to initiate and implement new or improve
policies/programs/projects/activities other than those already
identified and pursued by his/her office and take risks in program
implementation.

1.2       Leadership Qualities —
focuses on the applicant’s leadership style, his/her strengths and
weaknesses as a leader, which can be ascertained through citations of
office situations and community events in recent past during which
leadership qualities were demonstrated.

1.3       Performance Record/Office Accomplishments —
refers to the applicant’s significant accomplishments in the office
such as, but not limited to successful programs and projects initiated,
improvements made in systems and procedures, policy initiatives, and
other contributions personally made during the last year or two.

1.4       Integrity — refers to any report, or information which questions the applicant’s integrity.  This includes any data on administrative or criminal case/s filed against him/her.

SECTION 2.       Procedures in the Conduct of the Performance Validation Stage — The performance Validation stage involves three (3) steps, namely:

2.1       Entry Interview — the Validator
focuses on the applicant’s demonstration of his/her managerial
capabilities and potential, leadership qualities, performance and
accomplishments, and other personal qualifications through a
presentation of past incidents that would best demonstrate his/her
managerial and leadership qualities.

2.2       Confirmatory Interview — the Validator
interviews the applicant’s immediate superior, subordinates and peers
to confirm the claimed critical incidents that ably demonstrated his/her
managerial competence, leadership qualities, integrity and
accomplishment.  Other than confirming the
truthfulness of the applicant’s claims, the confirmatory interview also
aims to get other people’s assessment of the applicant’s actions in
response to a given situation and the result of his/her actions.  Interviews
may also be conducted with the applicant’s clients, resident ombudsman
and as far as practicable, civil society groups or members of the CES
organizations in case the need arises or when there are negative reports
on the applicant’s integrity.

SECTION 3.       Deferment of the Conduct of the Performance Validation Stage
— An applicant may request for the deferment of the conduct of the
Performance Validation stage before the scheduled date provided that
such request shall be made in writing containing therein the specific
reasons for such deferment and, provided further, that the three (3)
year limitation provided in Section 7, Article IV of this resolution is
observed. On the basis of such request, the Executive Director shall
determine whether there is a reasonable ground to defer the conduct of
the applicant’s Performance Validation Stage.

SECTION 4.       Contents of the Performance Validation Report — A Performance Validation Report prepared and submitted by the Validator
shall contain an evaluation of the applicant’s managerial capabilities
and competence, leadership qualities, performance record/office
accomplishments, integrity, and such other relevant information  including the Validator’s recommendation to the Board.

SECTION 5.       A Validator’s Recommendation — The Performance Validation Report of the Validator shall contain the following recommendations:

5.1       Recommend for Conferment of CES Eligibility — A Validator may recommend an applicant for conferment of CES Eligibility if he/she is found to possess adequate  managerial/leadership
skills and performance record/office accomplishments and found to have
no derogatory report on his/her integrity;

5.2       Recommend for Revalidation — A Validator
may recommend an applicant for a revalidation of his/her performance
on-the-job if the applicant concerned is found to possess inadequate
managerial/leadership skills or performance record/office
accomplishments or has a questionable integrity, the Board may require
that a revalidation of his/her performance on the job be conducted
within six (6) months to one (1) year reckoned from the time the Board
decided en banc to subject the applicant concerned to a revalidation.

5.3       Not to Recommend for Conferment of CES Eligibility — A Validator
may recommend that an applicant may not be recommended for conferment
of CES Eligibility if he/she is found to have poor managerial/leadership
skills, has shown mediocre performance or has a highly questionable
integrity.

SECTION 6.       Effect of the Validator’s Recommendation — The name of an applicant recommended by the Validator
for conferment of CES Eligibility shall be submitted to the Board en
banc for an issuance of an appropriate resolution conferring upon
him/her CES Eligibility.

Conversely, the case of an applicant, who was recommended by the Validator for a revalidation of his/her performance on-the-job or was not recommended by the Validator
for conferment of CES eligibility, as the case may be, shall be
automatically submitted to the Board en banc for deliberation and
appropriate action.

The decision of the Board en banc
to subject the applicant for a revalidation of his/her performance
on-the-job or not to confer upon him/her CES Eligibility shall be final
and executory.  No request for reconsideration or appeal shall be entertained by the Board.

SECTION 7.       Effect on Non-Conferment of CES Eligibility — A decision of the Board en banc affirming the decision of the Validator
not to recommend an applicant for conferment of CES Eligibility shall
result in the disqualification of the applicant concerned from
completing the CES Eligibility Examination process and be conferred a
CES Eligibility.

ARTICLE VII
Conferment of Career Executive Service Eligibility

SECTION 1.       Conferment of CES Eligibility by the Board — A CES Eligibility shall be conferred to any person who passes the four stage CES Eligibility Examination, and meets such other requirements as may be prescribed by the Board.

The CES Eligibility shall be
conferred by the Board through a formal resolution approved by majority
of its members in a regular or special meeting or by virtue of a
referendum.

Upon approval by the Board of the resolution, the applicant is considered a full-fledged CES Eligibles and his/her name shall be registered in the Board’s Roster of CES Eligibles and a corresponding certificate of CES Eligibility shall be issued in testimony of his/her newly acquired qualification.  The CES Eligibility conferred by the Board shall not prescribe.

SECTION 2.       Formal Notice of Conferment of CES Eligibility
— The Board shall formally inform the CES Eligible and his/her
Department Secretary or Head of Agency of his/her conferment of CES
Eligibility.

SECTION 3.       Effect of Pendency of an Administrative Case on Conferment of CES Eligibility — An applicant, who has a pending administrative case, shall be allowed to complete the CES Eligibility Examination process.  However,
an applicant, who is formally charged of a grave offense where the
imposable penalty ranges from six (6) months and one (1) day suspension
to dismissal from government service, shall not be conferred  a
CES Eligibility unless the applicant concerned has been cleared or
exonerated of the charges filed against him/her in the courts of law or
any quasi-judicial body, provided, however, that an applicant who is
formally charged of a less grave or light offenses where the imposable
penalty ranges from one (1) day to six (6) months suspension from
government service, shall be conferred a CES Eligibility by the Board.

For purposes of this resolution,
an applicant for CES Eligibility is considered to have a pending
administrative case when a formal charge has been issued against him/her
by an appropriate disciplining authority or, in the case of a complaint
filed by a private person, a prima facie case is found to exist by the
disciplining authority.

Being cleared or exonerated of
administrative charges under this resolution refers to the decision of a
quasi-judicial body to dismiss with finality a complaint filed against
the applicant concerned.

SECTION 4.       Effect of Pendency of a Criminal Case on Conferment of CES Eligibility
— An applicant, who has a pending criminal case filed against him/her
in any court, shall be allowed to complete the CES Eligibility
Examination process, provided, that no applicant shall be conferred a
CES Eligibility unless the complaint or information filed against
him/her has been dismissed by the court by final judgment.

For purposes of this resolution,
an applicant shall be considered to have a pending criminal case after a
complaint or information has been filed in court where the case is
assigned for trial in accordance with the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure, as amended dated December 1, 2000.

SECTION 5.       Effect of Finality of Judgment in an Administrative Case where the Penalty Involved is Dismissal from the Service
— The Board shall have the right to revoke the CES Eligibility of a
CESO or CES Eligible who has been found guilty by final judgment of an
administrative offense where the penalty involved is dismissal or
permanent separation from the service.

ARTICLE VIII
Separability, Repealing and Effectivity Clauses

SECTION 1.       Separability Clause — If
any section or part of this resolution shall be held to be invalid, the
remaining provisions shall be given full force and effect as completely
as if the part held invalid had not been included therein.

SECTION 2.       Repealing Clause — All
existing Career Executive Service Rules and Regulations, Circulars and
Memoranda inconsistent with this resolution are hereby repealed or
amended accordingly.

SECTION 3.       Effectivity — This
resolution shall take effect fifteen (15) days after publication in the
Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.

Adopted: 8 Oct. 2002