GR 150974; (June, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 150974, June 29, 2007
KAPISANAN NG MGA KAWANI NG ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER FE B. BARIN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS CARLOS R. ALINDADA, LETICIA V. IBAY, OLIVER B. BUTALID, and MARY ANNE B. COLAYCO, of the ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, respondent.
FACTS
Republic Act No. 9136 (EPIRA) abolished the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) and created the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC). Section 38 of the law provided that existing ERB personnel, if qualified, would be given preference in filling the new ERC plantilla, subject to civil service rules. The ERC Commissioners, upon assuming office, issued guidelines stating that Republic Act No. 6656 (the Security of Tenure Act in government reorganizations) would not directly apply, as the ERB was abolished, but that civil service rules would have suppletory application. The petitioner union, KERB, objected to this stance, asserting that the law merely renamed and expanded the ERB’s functions, and thus the security of tenure of its members under RA 6656 was impaired. KERB filed this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to declare Section 38 unconstitutional and to stop the ERC from filling its plantilla.
ISSUE
Whether Section 38 of RA 9136, abolishing the ERB and creating the ERC, is unconstitutional for impairing the security of tenure of the former ERB employees.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the constitutionality of Section 38. The legal logic is anchored on the distinction between a bona fide abolition of an office and a removal from office. Security of tenure is not a guarantee of perpetual employment but protects against removal without just cause. A valid abolition of an office, which results in the termination of the positions therein, is not a removal and thus does not impair security of tenure. The Court found the abolition of the ERB and creation of the ERC to be a legitimate reorganization in good faith. EPIRA fundamentally restructured the entire electric power industry and mandated the establishment of a “strong and purely independent regulatory body” with reconfigured and expanded functions. This substantive change in structure and mandate justified the abolition of the old agency. Consequently, the separation of ERB employees was a legal effect of a valid abolition, not an unconstitutional removal. The preference given to qualified ERB personnel in the new ERC plantilla was a privilege granted by law, not a vested right to automatic appointment.