G.R. No. 149036. April 2, 2002.
MA. J. ANGELINA G. MATIBAG, petitioner, vs. ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO, RESURRECCION Z. BORRA, FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., VELMA J. CINCO, and GIDEON C. DE GUZMAN in his capacity as Officer-In-Charge, Finance Services Department of the Commission on Elections, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ma. J. Angelina G. Matibag was appointed in a “Temporary” capacity as Director IV of the COMELEC’s Education and Information Department (EID). On March 22, 2001, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued ad interim appointments to Alfredo L. Benipayo as COMELEC Chairman, and Resurreccion Z. Borra and Florentino A. Tuason, Jr. as COMELEC Commissioners, for a term expiring on February 2, 2008. These appointments were submitted to the Commission on Appointments (CA) but were not acted upon. The President renewed these ad interim appointments on June 1, 2001, and again on June 8, 2001, after Congress adjourned. Benipayo, Borra, and Tuason took their oaths of office each time. As COMELEC Chairman, Benipayo reassigned petitioner from the EID to the Law Department and designated Velma J. Cinco as Officer-in-Charge of the EID. Petitioner questioned her reassignment and filed the instant petition challenging the constitutionality of the ad interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra, and Tuason, arguing they violate constitutional provisions on COMELEC independence and the prohibitions on temporary appointments and reappointments. She also assailed her removal and reassignment as illegal.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petition satisfies the requirements for judicial review.
2. Whether the assumption of office by Benipayo, Borra, and Tuason based on ad interim appointments amounts to a temporary appointment prohibited by the Constitution.
3. Assuming the first ad interim appointments were legal, whether the renewal of their ad interim appointments violates the constitutional prohibition on reappointment.
4. Whether Benipayo’s removal and reassignment of petitioner is illegal, done without COMELEC en banc approval.
5. Whether the Officer-in-Charge of the COMELEC Finance Services Department is acting in excess of jurisdiction by making disbursements in favor of Benipayo, Borra, Tuason, and Cinco.

RULING

1. Propriety of Judicial Review: The Court held the petition satisfies the requirements. Petitioner has locus standi as she sustained a direct injury from her reassignment, which was based on Benipayo’s authority as Chairman. The constitutionality of his appointment is thus the lis mota of the case. The constitutional issue was raised at the earliest opportunity in the pleadings.
2. Temporary Appointments: The Court ruled that ad interim appointments are permanent appointments. The assumption of office by Benipayo, Borra, and Tuason under ad interim appointments does not constitute temporary appointments prohibited by Section 1(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution. An ad interim appointment is permanent until disapproved by the CA or until the next adjournment of Congress. Their assumption of office was based on valid ad interim appointments.
3. Reappointments: The Court held that the renewal of the ad interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra, and Tuason did not violate the constitutional prohibition on reappointment. A reappointment presupposes a previous confirmed appointment. Since their ad interim appointments were never confirmed by the CA, they held no previous term. The renewals were mere repetitions of the first ad interim appointments, not reappointments. They are therefore not prohibited from holding office.
4. Reassignment of Petitioner: The Court found petitioner’s reassignment legal. The COMELEC Chairman, as Chief Executive Officer, has the authority to reassign personnel, as provided under COMELEC Resolution No. 3300, which allows transfer or reassignment during the election period when necessary. Petitioner’s reassignment was an exercise of this management prerogative.
5. Disbursements: The Court ruled that the Officer-in-Charge of the Finance Services Department is not acting in excess of jurisdiction. Since Benipayo, Borra, and Tuason are de jure officers, having been issued valid ad interim appointments, they are entitled to receive the salaries and emoluments of their offices. Therefore, the disbursements are lawful.