REYNALDO R. SAN JUAN, PETITIONER, VS.CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT AND CECILIA ALMAJOSE, RESPONDENTS.

San Juan versus Civil Service Commission

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Reynaldo San Juan, the Governor of the Province of Rizal, against the Civil Service Commission, the Department of Budget and Management, and Cecilia Almajose. The Governor asks the Supreme Court to nullify two resolutions of the Civil Service Commission that upheld the appointment of Almajose as Provincial Budget Officer of Rizal. The case matters far beyond one vacant provincial post. It is the Supreme Court's strong statement that the power of a local chief executive to recommend the provincial budget officer is a real share in the appointing process, not an empty formality, and that administrative issuances which let a national department ignore that recommendation offend the constitutional policy on local autonomy.

Procedural History

The dispute began in the Department of Budget and Management. The Governor protested the appointment of Almajose to the Secretary. The Director of the Bureau of Legal and Legislative Affairs ruled that the protest was without merit, and the Secretary denied the Governor's motion for reconsideration. The Governor then brought his protest to the Civil Service Commission, which dismissed his appeal and upheld the appointment. The Commission later denied his motion for reconsideration. The Governor went directly to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari under the constitutional provision on the Commission's grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition.

Facts

On March 22, 1988, the position of Provincial Budget Officer of Rizal became vacant. The Governor placed Dalisay Santos, then Municipal Budget Officer of Taytay, as acting budget officer, and asked the regional director of the Department of Budget and Management to endorse her appointment. The regional director instead made a comparative study of the municipal budget officers of the province, including three nominees of the Governor, and recommended Almajose, who was the only Certified Public Accountant among the contenders.

On August 1, 1988, an Undersecretary of the Department signed Almajose's appointment papers on that recommendation. The Governor, unaware of this, wrote again to request the appointment of Santos. The regional director then informed the Governor that his nominees did not meet the minimum requirements under Local Budget Circular Number 31, and asked him to submit at least three other qualified nominees.

On November 2, 1988, the Governor protested the appointment. He argued that the Undersecretary had no legal authority to appoint the provincial budget officer, that Almajose lacked the required three years of work experience, and that under Executive Order Number 112 it is the Provincial Governor, not the regional director, who recommends the nominee. The Department rejected the protest, and the Civil Service Commission upheld the appointment, treating the Governor's recommendation as merely directory. Hence this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the Civil Service Commission erred in upholding the appointment of Almajose as Provincial Budget Officer of Rizal made by the Department's Undersecretary upon the recommendation of the regional director.
• Whether or not the power of the Provincial Governor to recommend the provincial budget officer under Executive Order Number 112 is mandatory, such that the appointing authority must choose only from the Governor's qualified nominees.
• Whether or not Section 6.0 of Local Budget Circular Number 31, which reserves to the Department the right to fill a vacancy when none of the local chief executive's nominees meets the requirements, is a valid exercise of administrative authority.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Executive Order Number 112 provides:

SECTION 1. All budget officers of provinces, cities and municipalities shall be appointed henceforth by the Minister of Budget and Management upon recommendation of the local chief executive concerned, subject to civil service law, rules and regulations, and they shall be placed under the administrative control and technical supervision of the Ministry of Budget and Management.

This is the provision whose phrase "upon recommendation of the local chief executive concerned" the Court construes as a genuine limitation on the appointing power.

Section 216, subparagraph (2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, the Local Government Code then in force, provides:

(2) No person shall be appointed provincial budget officer unless he is a citizen of the Philippines, of good moral character, a holder of a degree preferably in law, commerce, public administration or any related course from a recognized college or university, a first grade civil service eligibility or its equivalent, and has acquired at least five years experience in budgeting or in any related field.

These are the qualification standards against which the Governor's nominees must be measured, and which the appointing authority may not simply disregard.

Section 6.0 of Local Budget Circular Number 31 provides:

SEC 6.0 - The DBM reserves the right to fill up any existing vacancy where none of the nominees of the local chief executive meet the prescribed requirements.

The Court declares this reservation ultra vires, meaning beyond the authority of the administrative body that issued it.

Article II, Section 25 of the Constitution provides:

SEC. 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.

And Article X, Sections 2 and 3 provide:

SEC. 2. The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy.

SEC. 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum, allocate among the different local government units their powers, responsibilities, and resources, and provide for the qualifications, election, appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers and functions and duties of local officials, and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the local units.

These provisions supply the interpretive compass: where a law admits of two readings, one centralist and one autonomy-friendly, the Court must choose the latter.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Commission erred. The appointment was made upon the recommendation of the regional director, not of the Governor, and it was formalized before the Governor was even told that his nominee had been rejected. The Court found grave abuse of discretion, aggravated by the meaningless request that the Governor submit three more names after the appointment had already been signed.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Governor's power to recommend is not a mere directory formality. The appointing authority must appoint only from the list of qualified recommendees submitted by the Governor. If none is qualified, the Secretary must return the list, explain why no one meets the legal requirements, and ask for new recommendees. The Court reasoned that the provincial budget is prepared at the local level by officials who must live within its constraints, so the nomination and appointment process involves a sharing of power between the national and local levels. It drew an analogy to judicial appointments, where the President appoints only from the list submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council and cannot reject all the nominees and appoint someone else.

On the third issue, the Court struck down Section 6.0 of Local Budget Circular Number 31 as ultra vires. An administrative circular cannot reserve to the Department a power that the law has qualified by requiring the local chief executive's recommendation. The Court also reminded national officials that the President's power over local governments is only general supervision, not control.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, under Section 1 of Executive Order Number 112, the provincial budget officer is appointed by the Secretary of Budget and Management upon the recommendation of the local chief executive, and that recommendation is a mandatory part of the appointing process. Second, the appointing authority may choose only from among the qualified nominees of the local chief executive; if none qualifies, it must return the list with its reasons and ask for new nominees. Third, an administrative issuance such as Section 6.0 of Local Budget Circular Number 31 that reserves to the Department the right to fill the vacancy when no nominee qualifies is ultra vires and void. Fourth, in interpreting statutes touching local governments, the Court must resolve doubts in favor of local autonomy, consistent with Article II, Section 25 and Article X, Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution.

Disposition

The petition was granted. The resolutions of the Civil Service Commission were set aside, the appointment of Cecilia Almajose was nullified, and the Department of Budget and Management was ordered to appoint the Provincial Budget Officer of Rizal from among the qualified nominees submitted by the Provincial Governor.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: the local chief executive's recommendation of the provincial budget officer is mandatory, and the appointing authority may appoint only from his qualified nominees. Examiners use this case on local autonomy, on the limits of administrative circulars, and on the distinction between the President's power of control over the executive branch and mere general supervision over local governments.