LYDIA O. CHUA, PETITIONER, VS. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, THE NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION, THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, RESPONDENTS.

Pursuant to the policy of streamlining and trimming the
bureaucracy, Republic Act No. 6683 was approved on 2 December 1988 providing
for benefits for early retirement and voluntary separation from the government
service as well as for involuntary separation due to reorganization. Deemed qualified to avail of its benefits
are those enumerated in Sec. 2 of the Act, as follows:

“Sec. 2. Coverage. – This Act shall cover all appointive
officials and employees of the National Government, including government-owned
or controlled corporations with original charters, as well as the personnel of
all local government units. The
benefits authorized under this Act shall apply to all regular, temporary,
casual and emergency employees, regardless of age, who have rendered at least a
total of two (2) consecutive years of government service as of the date of
separation. Uniformed personnel of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines including those of the PC-INP are excluded from
the coverage of this Act.”

Petitioner Lydia Chua believing that she is qualified to avail of
the benefits of the program, filed an applica­tion on 30 January 1989 with
respondent National Irrigation Administration (NIA) which, however, denied the
same; instead, she was offered separation benefits equivalent to one half (1/2)
month basic pay for every year of service commencing from 1980. A recourse by petitioner to the Civil
Service Commission yielded negative results.^[1] Her
letter for reconsideration dated 25 April 1989 pleaded thus:

x   x     x

“With due respect, I think the interpretation of the Honorable
Commissioner of RA 6683 does not conform with the beneficent purpose of the
law. The law merely requires that a
government employee whether regular, temporary, emergency, or casual, should
have two consecutive years of government service in order to be entitled to its
benefits. I more than meet the
requirement. Persons who are not
entitled are consultants, experts and contrac­tual(s). As to the budget needed, the law provides
that the Department of Budget and Management will shoulder a certain portion of
the benefits to be allotted to government corporations. Moreover, personnel of these NIA special
projects are entitled to the regular benefits, such (sic) leaves, compulsory
retirement and the like. There is no
reason why we should not be entitled to RA 6683.

x        x x”^[2]

Denying the plea for
reconsideration, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) emphasized:

“x       x          x

We regret to inform you that your request
cannot be granted. The provision of
Section 3.1 of Joint DBM-CSC Circular Letter No. 89-1 does not only require an
applicant to have two years of satisfactory service on the date of
separation/retirement but further requires said applicant to be on a casual,
emergency, temporary or regular employment status as of December 2, 1988, the
date of enactment of R.A. 6683. The law
does not contemplate contractual employees in the coverage.

Inasmuch as your employment as of December
31, 1988, the date of your separation from the service, is co-terminous with
the NIA project which is contractual in nature, this Commission shall sustain
its original decision.

x        x          x”^[3]

In view of such denial, petitioner is before this Court by way of
a special civil action for certiorari, insisting that she is entitled to
the benefits granted under Republic Act No. 6683. Her arguments:

“It is submitted that R.A. 6683, as well as Section 3.1 of the
Joint DBM-CSC Circular Letter No. 89-1 requires an applicant to be on a casual,
emergency, temporary or regular employment status. Likewise, the provisions of Section 23 (sic) of the Joint DBM-CSC
Circular Letter No. 88-1, imple­menting guidelines of R.A. No. 6683, provides
that:

‘2.3 Excluded from the benefits under R.A. No. 6683 are the
following:

a) Experts and Consultants hired by agencies
for a limited period to perform specific activities or services with a definite
expected output: i.e. membership in
Task Force, Part-Time, Consultant/Employees.

b) Uniformed personnel of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines including those of the Philippine Constabulary and Integrated
National Police (PC–INP).

c) Appointive officials and employees who
retire or elect to be separated from the service for optional retirement with
gratuity under R.A. No. 1616, 4968 or with pension under R.A. No. 186, as
amended by R.A. No. 6680 or P.D. No. 1146, as amended, or vice-versa.

d) Officials and employees who retired
voluntarily prior to the enactment of this law and have received the
corresponding benefits of that retirement/separation.

e) Officials and employees with pending cases
punishable by mandatory separation from the service under existing civil
service laws, rules and regulations; provided that if such officials and
employees apply in writing within the prescriptive period for the availment of
the benefits herein authorized, shall be allowed only if acquitted or cleared
of all charges and their application accepted and approved by the head of
office concerned.’

Based on the above exclusions, herein petitioner does not belong to
any one of them. Ms. Chua is as full
time employee of NIA entitled to all the regular benefits provided for by the
Civil Service Commission. She held a
permanent status as Personnel Assistant A, a position which belongs to the
Administrative Service. x x x If casuals
and emergency employees were given the benefit of R.A. 6683 with more reason
that this petitioner who was holding a permanent status as Personnel Assistant
A and has rendered almost 15 years of faithful, continuous service in the
government should be similarly rewarded by the beneficent (sic) purpose of the
law.”^[4]

The NIA and the Civil Service Commission reiterate in their
comment petitioner’s exclusion from the benefits of Republic Act No. 6683,
because:

1. Petitioner’s employment is co-terminous with the project per
appointment papers kept by the Administrative Service in the head office of NIA
(the service record was issued by the Watershed Management and Erosion Control
Project (WMECP), Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija). The project, funded by the World Bank, was completed as of 31 December
1988, after which petitioner’s position became functus officio.

2. Petitioner is not a regular and career employee of NIA – her
position is not included in its regular plantilla. She belongs to the non-career service (Sec. 6, P.D. No. 807)
which is inherently short-lived, temporary and transient; on the other hand,
retirement presupposes employment for a long period. The most that a non-career personnel can expect upon the expiration
of his employment is financial assistance. Petitioner is not even qualified to retire under the GSIS law.

3. Assuming arguendo that petitioner’s appointment is
permanent, security of tenure is available only for the term of office (i.e.
duration of project).

4. The objective of Republic Act No. 6683 is not really to grant separation or retirement benefits but
reorganization^[5]
to streamline government functions. The
application of the law must be made consistent with the purpose for which it
was enacted. Thus, as the expressed
purpose of the law is to reorganize the government, it will not have any
application to special projects such as the WMECP which exists only for a short
and definite period. This being the
nature of special projects, there is no
necessity for offering its personnel
early retirement benefits just to induce voluntary separation as a step to
reorganiza­tion. In fact, there is even
no need of reorganizing the WMECP considering its short and limited life-span.^[6]

5. The law applies only to employees of the national government,
government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters and local
government units.

Due to the impossibility of reconciling the conflicting
interpretations of the parties, the Court is called upon to define the
different classes of employees in the public sector (i.e. government civil
servants).

Who are regular employees? The Labor Code in Art. 280 (P.D. No. 492, as
amended) deems an employment regular where the employee has been engaged to
perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer. No
equivalent definition can be found in P.D. No. 807 (promulgated on 6 October
1975, which superseded the Civil Service Act of 1965 – R.A. No. 2260) or in the
Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292 Promulgated on 25 July
1987). The Early Retirement Law itself
(Rep. Act No. 6683) merely includes such class of employees (regular employees)
in its coverage, unmindful that no such specie is employed in the public
sector.

The appointment status of government employees in the career
service is classified as follows:

1. permanent – one issued to a person who has met the requirements
of the position to which appointment is made, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Act and
the Rules and Standards promulgated in pursuance thereof;^[7]

2. temporary – In the absence of appropriate eligibles 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 twelve months, but the appointee may be
replaced sooner if a qualified civil service eligible becomes available.^[8]

The Administrative Code of 1987 characterizes the Career Service
as:

“(1)   Open Career positions for appointment to
which prior qualification in an appropriate examination is required;

(2) Closed Career positions which are scientific, or highly technical in
nature; these include the faculty and academic staff of state colleges and
universities, and scientific and technical positions in scientific or research
institutions which shall establish and maintain their own merit systems;

(3) Positions in the Career Executive Service; namely, Undersecretary,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau Director, Assistant Bureau Director, Regional
Director, Assistant Regional Director, Chief of Department Service and other
officers of equivalent rank as may be identified by the Career Executive
Service Board, all of whom are appointed by the President.

(4) Career officers, other than those in the Career Executive Service, who
are appointed by the President, such as the Foreign Service Officers in the
Department of Foreign Affairs;

(5) Commission officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces which shall
maintain a separate merit system;

(6) Personnel of government-owned or controlled corporations, whether performing
governmental or proprietary functions, who do not fall under the non-career
service; and

(7) Permanent laborers, whether skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled.”^[9]

The Non–Career Service, on the other hand,
is characte­rized by:

“x x x (1) entrance on bases other than those of the 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 coterminous with
that 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.”

Included in the non–career service are:

1. elective officials and their personal or
confidential staff;

2. secretaries and other officials of Cabinet
rank who hold their positions at the pleasure of the President and their
personal confidential staff(s);

3. Chairman and Members of Commissions and
boards with fixed terms of office and their personal or confidential staff;

4. contractual personnel or those whose
employment in the government is in accordance with a special contract to
undertake a specific work or job requiring special or technical skills not
available in the employing agency, to be accomplished within a specific period,
which in no case shall exceed one year and performs or accomplishes the
specific work or job, under his own responsibility with a minimum of direction
and supervision from the hiring agency.

5. emergency and seasonal personnel.”^[10]

There is another type of
non-career employee:

“Casual – where and when employment is
not perma­nent but occasional, unpredictable, sporadic and brief in nature
(Caro v. Rilloroza, 102 Phil. 70; Manuel v. P.P. Gocheco Lumber Co., 96 Phil.
945)”

Consider petitioner’s record of service:

“Service with the government commenced on 2 December 1974
designated as a laborer holding emergency status with the NIA – Upper
Pampanga River Project, R & R Division.^[11] From
24 March 1975 to 31 August 1975, she was a
research aide with temporary status on the same project. On 1 September 1975 to 31 December 1976, she
was with the NIA-FES III, R & R Division, then on 1 January 1977 to 31 May
1980, she was with NIA – UPR IIS (Upper Pampanga River Integrated Irrigation
Systems) DRD. On 1 June 1980, she went
to NIA­-W.M.E.C.P. (Watershed Management & Erosion Control Project)
retaining the status of temporary employee. While with this project, her designation was changed to personnel
assistant on 5 November 1981, starting 9 July 1982, the status became permanent
until the completion of the project on 31 December 1988. The appointment paper^[12]
attached to the OSG’s comment lists her status as co-terminus with the
Project.”

The employment status of personnel hired under foreign – assisted
projects is considered co-terminous, that is, they are considered
employees for the duration of the project or until the completion or cessation
of said project (CSC Memorandum Circular No. 39, S. 1990, 27 June 1990).

Republic Act No. 6683 seeks to cover and benefits regular,
temporary, casual and emergency employees who have
rendered at least a total of two (2) consecutive years
of government service.

Resolution No. 87-104 of the CSC, 21 April 1987 provides:

“WHEREAS, pursuant to Executive Order No. 966 dated June 22,
1984, the Civil Service Commission is charged with the function of determining
credit­able services for retiring officers and employees of the national
government;

WHEREAS, Section 4 (b) of the same Executive Order No. 966 provides
that all previous services by an officer/employee pursuant to a duly approved
appointment to a position in the Civil Service are considered creditable
services, while Section 6 (a) thereof states that services rendered on contractual,
emergency or casual status are non-creditable services;

WHEREAS, there is a need to clarify the afore­said provisions
inasmuch as some contractual, emergency or casual employment are covered by
contracts or appointments duly approved by the Commission.

NOW, therefore, the Commission resolved that services rendered
on contractual, emergency or casual status, irrespective of the mode or manner
of payment therefor shall be considered as credit­able for retirement purposes
subject to the following conditions: (underscoring provided)

‘1. These services are supported by approved
appointments, official records and/or other competent evidence. Parties/agencies concerned shall submit the
necessary proof of said services;

2.   Said services are on full time basis and
rendered prior to June 22, 1984, the effectivity date of Executive Order No.
966; and

3.   The services for the three (3) years period
prior to retirement are continuous and fulfill the service requirement for
retirement.”‘

What substantial differences exist, if any, between casual, emergency, seasonal, project,
co-terminous or contractual personnel? All are tenurial employees with no fixed term, non-career, and
temporary. The 12 May 1989 CSC letter
of denial^[13]
characterized herein petitioner’s employment as co-terminous with the NIA
project which in turn was contractual in nature. The OSG says petitioner’s status is co-terminous
with the Project. CSC Memorandum Circular No. 11, series of 1991 (5 April 1991)
characterizes the status of a co-terminous
employee –

“(3) Co-terminous
status shall be issued to a person whose entrance in the service is
characterized by confidentia­lity by the appointing authority or that which is
subject to his pleasure or co-existent with his tenure.

The foregoing status (co-terminous) may be further classified into
the following:

‘a) co-terminous with the project – when
the appointment is co-existent with the duration of a particular project for
which purpose employment was made or subject to the availability of funds for
the same;

b) co-terminous with the appointing
authority – when appointment is co-existent
with the tenure of the appointing authority.

c) co-terminous with the incum­bent –
when appointment is co-existent with the appointee, in that after the
resignation, separation or termination of the services of the incumbent the
position shall be deemed automatically abolished; and

d) co-terminous with a specific period,
e.g. ‘co-terminous for a period of 3 years’ – the appointment is for a specific
period and upon expiration thereof, the position is deemed abolished.’

It is stressed, however, that in the last two classification (c)
and (d), what is termed co-terminous is the position, and not the
appointee-employee. Further, in (c) the
security of tenure of the appointee is guaranteed during his incumbency; in (d)
the security of tenure is limited to a specific period.”

A co-terminous employee is a non-career civil
servant, like casual and emergency employees. We see no solid reason why the latter are extended benefits
under the Early Retirement Law but the former are not. It will be noted that Rep. Act No. 6683
expressly extends its benefits for early retire­ment to regular, temporary,
casual and emergency employees. But specifically excluded from the benefits are uniformed personnel of
the AFP including those of the PC-INP. It can be argued that, expressio unius est exclusio
alterius. The legislature would
not have made a specific enumeration in a
statute had not the intention been to restrict its meaning and confine
its terms and benefits to those expressly mentioned^[14] or casus omissus pro omisso habendus est – A person, object or
thing omitted from an enumeration must be held to have been omitted
intentionally.^[15]
Yet adherence to these legal maxims can result in incongruities and in a
violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

The case of Fegurin, et al. v. NLRC, et al.,^[16]
comes to mind where, workers belonging to a work pool, hired and re-hired
continuously from one project to another were considered non-project-regular
and permanent employees.

Petitioner Lydia Chua was hired and re-hired in four (4)
successive projects during a span of fifteen (15) years. Although no proof of the existence of a work
pool can be assumed, her service record cannot be disregarded.

Art. III, Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution guarantees: “No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied
the equal protection of the laws.”

“x x x In Felwa vs. Salas, L-26511, Oct. 29, 1966, We ruled
that the equal protection clause applies only to persons or things identically
situated and does not bar a reasonable classifi­cation of the subject of
legislation, and a classification is reasonable where (1) it is based on
substantial distinctions which make real differences; (2) these are germane to
the purpose of the law; (3) the classification applies not only to present
conditions but also to future conditions which are substantially identical to
those of the present; (4) the classification applies only to those who belong
to the same class.”^[17]

Applying the criteria set forth above, the Early Retire­ment Law
would violate the equal protection clause were we to sustain respondents’
submission that the benefits of said law are to be denied a class of government
employees who are similarly situated as those covered by said law. The maxim of Expressio unius est
exclusio alterius should not be the applicable maxim in this case
but the doctrine of necessary implication which holds that:

“No statute can be enacted that can provide all the details
involved in its application. There is
always an omission that may not meet a particular situation. What is thought, at the time of enactment,
to be an all-embracing legislation may be inadequate to provide for the
unfolding events of the future. So-called
gaps in the law develop as the law is enforced. One of the rules of statutory construction used to fill in the
gap is the doctrine of necessary implication. The doctrine states that what is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that which
is expressed. Every statute is
understood, by implication, to contain all such provisions as may be necessary
to effectuate its object and purpose, or to make effective rights, powers,
privileges or jurisdiction which it grants, including all such collateral and
subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and logically inferred from its
terms. Ex necessitate legis. And every statutory grant of power, right or
privilege is deemed to include all incidental power, right or privilege. This is so because the greater includes the
lesser, expressed in the maxim, in eo plus sit, simper inest et minus.”^[18]

During the sponsorship speech of Congressman Dragon (re: Early Retirement Law), in response to
Congressman Dimaporo’s interpellation on coverage of state university
employees who are extended appointments for one (1) year, renewable for
two (2) or three (3) years,^[19] he
explained:

“This Bill covers only those who would like to go on early
retirement and voluntary separation. It
is irrespective of the actual status or nature of the appointment one received,
but if he opts to retire under this, then he is covered.”

It will be noted that, presently pending in Congress, is House
Bill No. 33399 (a proposal to extend the scope of the Early Retirement
Law). Its wording supports the
submission that Rep. Act No. 6683 indeed overlooked a qualified group of civil
servants, Sec. 3 of said House bill, on coverage of early retirement, would
provide:

“Sec. 3. Coverage. – It will cover all employees of the
national government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, as
well as the personnel of all local government units. The benefits authorized under this Act shall apply to all regular,
temporary, casual, emergency and contractual employees,
regardless of age, who have rendered at least a total of two (2) consecutive
years government service as of the date of separation. The term ‘contractual employees’ as used in
this Act does not include experts and consultants hired by agencies for a
limited period to perform specific activities or services with definite
expected output.

“Uniformed personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
including those of the PC-INP are excluded from the coverage of this Act.”
(emphasis supplied)

The objective of the Early Retirement or Voluntary Separation Law
is to trim the bureaucracy, hence, vacated positions are deemed abolished upon
early/voluntary retirement of their occupants. Will the inclusion of co-terminous personnel (like the
petitioner) defeat such objective? In
their case, upon termination of the project and separation of the project
personnel from the service, the term of employment is considered expired, the
office functus officio. Casual, temporary and contractual personnel serve for shorter periods,
and yet, they only have to establish two (2) years of continuous service to
qualify. This, incidentally, negates
the OSG’s argument that co-terminous or project employment is inherently short?lived,
temporary and transient, whereas, retirement presupposes employment for a long
period. Here, violation of the equal
protection clause of the Constitution becomes glaring because casuals are not
even in the plantilla, and yet, they are entitled to the benefits of early
retirement. How can the objective of
the Early Retirement Law of trimming the bureaucracy be achieved by granting
early retirement benefits to a group of employees (casuals) without plantilla
positions? There would, in such a case,
be no abolition of permanent positions or streamlining of functions; it would
merely be a removal of excess personnel; but the positions remain, and future
appointments can be made thereto.

Co-terminous or project personnel, on the other hand, who have
rendered years of continuous service should be included in the coverage of the Early Retirement Law, as long as they
file their application prior to the expiration of their term, and as long as
they comply with CSC regula­tions promulgated for such purpose. In this connection, Memorandum Circular No.
14, Series of 1990 (5 March 1990) implementing Rep. Act No. 6850,^[20]
requires, as a condition to qualify for the grant of eligibility, an aggregate
or total of seven (7) years of government service which need not be continuous,
in the career or non-career service, whether appointive, elective,
casual, emergency, seasonal, contractual or co–terminous,
including military and police service, as evaluated and confirmed by the Civil
Service Commission.^[21] A
similar regulation should be promulgated for the inclusion in Rep. Act No. 6683
of co-terminous personnel who survive the test of time. This would be in keeping with the coverage
of “all social legislations enacted to promote the physical and mental
well-being of public servants.”^[22]
After all, co-terminous personnel are also obligated to the
government for GSIS contributions, medicare and income tax payments, with the
general disadvantage of transience.

In fine, the Court believes, and so holds, that the denial by the
respondents NIA and CSC of petitioner’s application for early retirement
benefits under Rep. Act No. 6683 is unreasonable, unjustified, and oppressive,
as petitioner had filed an application for voluntary retirement within a
reasonable period and she is entitled to the benefits of said law. While the application was filed after
expiration of her term, we can give allowance for the fact that she originally
filed the application on her own without the assistance of counsel. In the interest of substantial justice, her
application must be granted; after all she served the government not only for
two (2) years – the minimum requirement under the law but for almost fifteen
(15) years in four (4) successive governmental projects.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.

Let this case be remanded to the CSC-NIA for a favor­able
disposition of petitioners application for early retirement benefits under Rep.
Act No. 6683, in accordance with the pronouncements in this decision.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras,
Feliciano, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, and Nocon, JJ.,
concur.

^[1]
Letter of Commissioner Samilo Borlongay, 17 March 1989.

^[2]
Annex “E”, Rollo, p. 13

^[3]
Annex “F”, Rollo, p. 14

^[4]
Rollo, pp. 24-25.

^[5]
AN ACT PROVIDING BENEFITS FOR EARLY RETIREMENT AND VOLUNTARY SEPARATION FROM
THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE, AS WELL AS INVOLUNTARY SEPARATION OF CIVIL SERVICE
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO VARIOUS EXECUTIVE ORDERS AUTHO­RIZING
GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION AFTER THE RATIFICATION OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

^[6]
See Joint DBM-CSC Circular Letter No. 88-1, 12 December 1988, Rollo, p.
61.

^[7]
Sec. 25, a and b, P.D. No. 807; see also CSC Memorandum Circular No. 11, S. of
1991, 5 April 1991.

^[8]
Ibid., also Perez v. City of San Carlos, G.R. No. L-48196-R, 11
July 1978; Ata v. Namocatcat, G.R. No. L-35703, 30 October 1972, 47 SCRA
320.

^[9]
Executive Order No. 292, Section 7, 83 O.G. No. 39, 75 (September 1987)

^[10]
Ibid, Section 9, p. 77

^[11]
Per Service Record, Rollo, p. 7.

^[12]
Rollo, p. 70.

^[13]
Page 3, this decision.

^[14]
See Agpalo, Ruben. Statutory
Construction, 1986 ed., p. 161.

^[15]
People v. Manantan, 115 Phil. 664

^[16]
G.R. No. 54083, 28 February 1983, 120 SCRA 910

^[17]
Ormoc Sugar Co. v. Treasurer of Ormoc City, L-23794, 17 February 1968

^[18]
Statutory Construction by Ruben E. Agpalo, 1986 ed., p. 118-119 citing In re
Dick, 38 Phil. 41 (1918); City of Manila v. Gomez, G.R. No. L-37251,
August 31, 1981, 107 SCRA 98; Escribano
v. Ovila, G.R. No. L-30375, September 12, 1978, 85 SCRA 245 (1978), also
Go Chico v. Martinez, 45 Phil. 256 (1923); Gatchalian v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. L-32560, October 22, 1970, 35 SCRA 435 (1970); People v. Uy Jui
Pio, 102 Phil. 679 (1957) and People v. Aquino, 83 Phil. 614 (1949).

^[19]
Deliberations House Bill No. 4942 – 8 March 1988, 6:30 p.m.

^[20]
An Act to Grant Civil Service Eligibility Under Certain Conditions to
Government Employees Under Provisional or Temporary Status Who have rendered a
Total of Seven (7) Years of Efficient Service and for other Purposes.

^[21]
Rule 1, Sec. 2(c) as amended by
Memorandum Circular No. 25, series of 1990, 21 May 1990

^[22]
See Joint CSC-DBM Circular No. 1, series of 1991, 27 June 1991.