2. Powers, Functions, and Jurisdiction

CSC may not terminate the employment of a civil servant

The CSC may not terminate the employment of a civil servant. The CSC is not a co-manager or surrogate administrator of government offices and agencies. As the central personnel agency of the government, the CSC exercises powers under the Constitution and civil service laws, including appointment review, personnel administration, and disciplinary jurisdiction (1987 Constitution, Art. IX-B, Sec. 3). On its own, the Commission does not have the power to terminate employment or drop members from the rolls (UP and Torres v. CSC, G.R. No. 132860, April 3, 2001).

Salient Feature of the LGC of 1991

There is a devolution of certain national governmental powers to LGU, such as:

• Public works
• Social Welfare
• Construction of school buildings and facilities
• Health
• Agriculture and
• Tourism Functions
• Increase in national tax share for LGUs from 11% to 40% starting in 1994
• Increase in tax power

Enforce and administer

• All laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall. e.g., COMELEC can enjoin construction of public works within 45 days of an election.
• The COMELEC can take cognizance of any question on the conduct of plebiscite such as to correct or check what the Board of Canvassers erroneously or fraudulently did during the canvassing, verify or ascertain the results of the plebiscite either through pre-proclamation case or through revision of ballots. The power of the COMELEC to ascertain the results of the plebiscite is implicit in the power to enforce all laws relative to the conduct of plebiscite.
• COMELEC can take jurisdiction over cases involving party identity and leadership or controversy as to leadership in the party. Such jurisdiction is sourced from the general power of the Commission to administer laws and rules involving the conduct of election.
• There is no need for a special legislation for the authorization of the conduct of recall elections because it is deemed included in the constitutional function of COMELEC, hence, contemplated in its budget in the GAA (Goh v. Bayron, G.R. No. 212584, Nov. 25, 2014).

Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial and city officials.

Election contests in the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) are filed before the proper municipal or metropolitan trial court, subject to COMELEC appellate jurisdiction; they are not adjudicated by the DILG.

Exercise appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving:

• Elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction
• Elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction
• A petition for certiorari questioning an interlocutory order of a trial court in an electoral protest was within the appellate jurisdiction of the COMELEC. The Court recognizes the COMELEC’s appellate jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari against all acts or omissions of courts in election cases (Bulilis v. Nuez, G.R. No. 195953, Aug. 9, 2011).
• Petition for certiorari questioning the decision of COMELEC division is premature as there is a plain and speedy remedy before COMELEC En Banc (Villarosa v. Festin, G.R. No. 212953, Aug. 5, 2014). Petitioner went immediately to SC before filing in the COMELEC en banc
• Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the COMELEC contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable.
• Exception: A final COMELEC en banc decision may be challenged before the SC EN BANC by a petition for certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction under Article IX-A Section 7—not by an appeal on questions of law.

Issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

Contempt powers

COMELEC can exercise this power only in relation to its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial functions. It CANNOT exercise this in connection with its purely executive or ministerial functions.

If it is a pre-proclamation controversy, the COMELEC exercises quasi-judicial or administrative powers.

Its jurisdiction over ‘contests’ (after proclamation) is in exercise of its judicial functions.

Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections, including determination of the number and location of polling places, appointment of election officials and inspectors, and registration of voters. These petitions are cognizable by the Regular Courts (MTC).

Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the Government, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.

• This power is NOT limited to the election period.
• Applies to both criminal and administrative cases.

Register political parties, organizations, or coalitions, accredit citizens’ arms of the Commission on Elections.

• Political parties, etc. must present their platform or program of government.
• There should be sufficient publication.
• Groups that cannot be registered:
• Religious denominations/sects
• Those that seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means
• Those that refuse to uphold and adhere to the Constitution
• Those supported by any foreign government e.g. receipt of financial contributions related to elections

File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting elections frauds, offenses and malpractices.

COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute cases for violations of election laws.

COMELEC can deputize prosecutors for this purpose. The actions of the prosecutors are the actions of the COMELEC.

COMELEC can conduct preliminary investigations on election cases falling within its jurisdiction.

Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize election spending, including limitation of places where propaganda materials shall be posted, and to prevent and penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractices, and nuisance candidacies.

Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or employee it has deputized, or the imposition of any other disciplinary action, for violation or disregard of, or disobedience to its directive, order, or decision.

Submit to the President and the Congress a comprehensive report on the conduct of each election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or recall (PHIL. CONST. art. IX-C, § 2).

The vote requirement for a valid COMELEC en Banc resolution is a majority of the votes of all members, or 4 votes. If the six members are evenly divided, the Commission on Elections should rehear the case (Sevilla v. COMELEC, G.R. 203833, March 19, 2013).

Complete Discretion afforded to COA

COA is generally accorded complete discretion in the exercise of its constitutional duty and responsibility to examine and audit expenditures of public funds. Only in instances when COA acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction shall the Court interfere. Thus, COA can disallow TESDA from paying a healthcare allowance to their employees. (TESDA v. COA, G.R. No. 196418, Feb. 10, 2015)

Jurisdiction

• Of the Commission in General: No law shall be passed exempting any entity of the Government or its subsidiaries in any guise whatever, or any investment of public funds, from the jurisdiction of the COA (PHIL. CONST. art. IX-D, § 3)
• Over GOCCs: The Constitution vests in the COA audit jurisdiction over ‘government owned and controlled corporations with original charters, as well as government owned or controlled corporations without original charters’. COA has audit jurisdiction over covered GOCCs whether or not they have original charters. Whether an audit is conducted before or after a transaction is not determined solely by the presence of an original charter; the constitutional audit provisions and applicable COA rules govern. The determining factor of COA’s audit jurisdiction is government ownership or control of the corporation.
• Over LGUs: LGUs, through granted local fiscal autonomy are still within the audit jurisdiction of the COA (Veloso v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 193677, Sept. 6, 2011).

Jurisdiction of each Constitutional Commission