G.R. No. 191672 November 25, 2014
DENNIS A. B. FUNA, Petitioner, vs. THE CHAIRMAN, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY LEANDRO R. MENDOZA, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Respondents.

FACTS

On January 11, 2010, Francisco T. Duque III was appointed Chairman of the Civil Service Commission (CSC). On February 22, 2010, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 864 (EO 864), designating the CSC Chairman as an Ex-Officio member of the Board of Trustees of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC), and Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF), and the Board of Directors of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHILHEALTH). This was pursuant to Section 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (The Administrative Code of 1987). Petitioner Dennis A.B. Funa, as a taxpayer and citizen, filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of EO 864 and the cited Administrative Code provision, as well as Duque’s designation. He argued that these violated Section 1 (independence of constitutional commissions) and Section 2 (prohibition against holding any other office or employment) of Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution . Petitioner contended that the designation compromised CSC independence by subjecting its Chairman to the President’s control through the attached GOCCs, unconstitutionally expanded the CSC’s role, and conflicted with the specific charters of the GOCCs. Respondents defended the designation, arguing it preserved CSC independence as the GOCCs are exempt from executive control, posed no conflict of interest, and that the constitutional prohibition does not cover ex officio positions without additional compensation, citing the Civil Liberties Union case.

ISSUE

Does the designation of the CSC Chairman as an ex officio member of the Boards of GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC, and HDMF impair the independence of the CSC and violate the constitutional prohibition against holding dual or multiple offices?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and declared EO 864 and Section 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V of EO 292 unconstitutional.
1. On the Independence of the CSC: The designation violated the constitutional independence of the CSC. The CSC is a constitutionally created independent commission. Allowing its Chairman to sit in the governing boards of GOCCs attached to the Executive Department places him under the President’s power of control over those corporations, thereby compromising the CSC’s independence. The Court emphasized that the constitutional safeguards for independence are rendered inutile if the Chairman can be placed under a department head’s control through such designations.
2. On the Prohibition Against Holding Any Other Office: The designation violated Section 2, Article IX-A of the Constitution, which absolutely prohibits members of constitutional commissions from holding any other office or employment during their tenure. The Court distinguished the stricter prohibition applicable to constitutional commission members from the more flexible rule for Cabinet members and other executive officials. For constitutional commission members, the prohibition is comprehensive and admits no exceptions; it applies regardless of whether the other office is in an ex officio capacity, with or without additional compensation. The Civil Liberties Union precedent, which allowed ex officio positions for executive officials, was held inapplicable to members of constitutional commissions.
3. On the Conflict with Specific GOCC Charters: The Court found that the specific charters of GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC, and HDMF explicitly list their respective board members. The CSC Chairman is not included in any of these lists. Therefore, EO 864 and the Administrative Code provision, in attempting to include the CSC Chairman, effectively amended these charters. This constitutes an encroachment by the Executive on the legislative power of Congress, violating the doctrine of separation of powers. A general law (EO 292) cannot amend a special law (the GOCC charters).
Consequently, the designation of Chairman Duque as an ex officio board member of the subject GOCCs was declared unconstitutional and void.