ELIGIBILITY AND QUALIFICATIONS Definition Eligibility, which is the term usually used in reference to the Civil Service Law,

, refers to the endowment / requirement / accomplishment that fits one for a public office. Qualification generally refers to the endowment / act which a person must do before he can occupy a public office. Power to Prescribe Qualifications GENERAL RULE: Congress is empowered to prescribe the qualifications for holding public office, subject to the following restrictions: Congress cannot exceed its constitutional powers;

Shall be administered in such manner as to continually provide incentives to officers and employees towards professional growth and foster the career system in the government service (ibid); agencies to establish, administer and maintain the qualification standards on a continuing basis as an incentive to career advancement. (Sec. 7, Rule IV, Omnibus Rules) Their establishment, administration, and maintenance shall be the responsibility of the department / agency, with the assistance and approval of the CSC and in consultation with the Wage and Position Classification Office (ibid); assistance to departments and agencies in the development of their qualification standards. (Sec. 5, Rule IV, Omnibus Rules) Shall be established for all positions in the 1st and 2nd levels (Sec. 1, Rule IV, Omnibus Rules); Political Qualifications for an Office

Congress cannot impose conditions of eligibility inconsistent with constitutional provisions; The qualification must be germane to the position ("reasonable relation" rule); Congress cannot prescribe qualifications so detailed as to practically amount to making an appointment. (Legislative appointments are unconstitutional and therefore void for being a usurpation of executive power.); Where the Constitution establishes specific eligibility requirements for a particular constitutional office, the constitutional criteria are exclusive, and Congress cannot add to them exceptif the Constitution expressly or impliedly gives the power to set qualifications Qualification Standards and Requirements under the Civil Service Law Qualification Standards: Express the minimum requirements for a class of positions in terms of education , training and experience, civil service eligibility, physical fitness, and other qualities required for successful performance. (Sec. 22, Book V, EO 292) which shall include education, experience, training, civil service eligibility, and physical characteristics and personality traitsrequired by the job. (Sec. 2, Rule IV, Omnibus Rules) With respect to a particular position, such qualification standards shall serve as the basis for the determination by the appointing authority of the degree of qualifications of an officer or employee (ibid); Shall be used as basis for civil service examinations for positions in the career service, as guides in appointment and other personnel actions, in the adjudication of protested appointments, in determining training needs, and as aid in the inspection and audit of the agencies' personnel work programs (ibid); Property Qualifications In the cases of Maquera v. Borra and Aurea v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court struck down R.A. 4421 which required candidates for national, provincial, city and municipal offices to post a surety bond equivalent to the one-year salary or emoluments of the position to which he is a candidate, which shall be forfeited in favor of the govt. concerned if the candidate fails to obtain at least 10% of the votes cast. The Supreme Court held that property qualifications are inconsistent with the nature and essence of the Republican system ordained in our Constitution and the principle of social justice underlying the same. The Court reasoned out that: "Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them, and this, in turn, implies necessarily that the right to vote and to be voted shall not be dependent upon the wealth of the individual concerned. Social justice presupposes equal opportunity for all, rich and poor alike, and that, accordingly, no person shall, by reason of poverty, be denied the chance to be elected to public office." Aliens not eligible to public office This is self-explanatory. GENERAL RULE: for public office. Political qualifications are not required

Exceptions: (1) Membership in the electoral tribunals of either the House of Representatives or Senate (Art. VI, Sec. 17, 1987 Const.); (2) Party-list representation; (3) Commission on Appointments; (4) Vacancies in the Sanggunian (Sec. 45, Local Government Code)

Effect of removal of qualifications during the term Q: What happens if the qualification is lost which the officer is holding office? A: The officer must be terminated. Effect of pardon upon the disqualification to hold public office GENERAL RULE: A pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office. (Art. 36, Revised Penal Code) Exceptions: (1) Where such right to hold public office is expressly restored by the terms of the pardon (Art. 36, RPC); (2) When a person is granted pardon because he did not commit the offense imputed to him (Garcia v. Chairman, COA) Rules governing effects of pardon: (1) A public official who has been convicted of a crime but has been pardoned must secure a reappointment before he / she can reassume his / her former position. (Monsanto v. Factoran) Note: Acquittal is the only ground for automatic reinstatement of a public officer to his / her former position. (2) Pardon does not exempt the culprit from payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him / her by the sentence. (Art. 36, par. 2, RPC) (3) A convicted public official who has been pardoned is not entitled to backpay and other emoluments due to him during the period of his suspension pendente lite. (Monsanto v. Factoran) Discretion of appointing official Discretion, if not plenary, at least sufficient, should thus be granted to those entrusted with the responsibility of administering the officers concerned, primarily the department heads. They are in the most favorable position to determine who can best fulfill the functions of the office thus vacated. Unless, therefore, the law speaks in the most mandatory and peremptory tone, considering all the circumstances, there should be, as there has been, full recognition of the wide scope of such discretionary authority. (Reyes v. Abeleda) Appointment is an essentially discretionary power and must be performed by the officer in which it is vested according to this best lights, the only condition being that the appointee should possess the qualifications required by law. (Lapinid v. CSC) The only function of the CSC is to review the appointment in the light of the requirements of the Civil Service Law, and when it finds the appointee to be qualified and all other legal requirements have been otherwise satisfied, it has no choice but to attest to the appointment. It cannot order the replacement of the appointee simply because it considers another employee to be better qualified. (Lapinid v. CSC) To hold that the Civil Service Law requires that any vacancy be filled by promotion, transfer, reinstatement, reemployment, or certification in that order would be tantamount to legislative appointment which is repugnant to the Constitution. The requirement under the Civil Service Law that the appointing power set forth the reason for failing to appoint the officer next in rank applies only in cases of promotion and not in cases where the appointing power chooses to fill the vacancy by transfer, reinstatement, reemployment or certification, not necessarily in that order. (Pineda v. Claudio) The CSC is not empowered to change the nature of the appointment extended by the appointing officer, its authority being limited to approving or reviewing the appointment in the light of the requirements of the Civil Service Law. When the appointee is qualified and all the legal requirements are satisfied, the CSC has no choice but to attest to the appointment. (Luego v. CSC) Appointment is a political question.

Where the palpable excess of authority or abuse of discretion in refusing to issue promotional appointment would lead to manifest injustice, mandamus will lie to compel the appointing authority to issue said appointments. (Gesolgon v. Lacson) ASSUMPTION AND TERM OR TENURE OF OFFICE Qualification to Office Appointment and Qualification to Office Distinguished Appointment and qualification to office are separate and distinct things. Appointment is the act of being designated to a public office by the appointing authority. Qualification is the act of signifying one's acceptance of the appointive position. This generally consists of the taking / subscribing / filing of an official oath, and in certain cases, of the giving of an official bond, as required by law. (Mechem) No one can be compelled to accept an appointment. Lacson v. Romero The appointment to a government post involves several steps: (1) the President nominates; (b) the Commission on Appointments confirms the appointment; and (c) the appointee accepts the appointment by his assumption of office. The first 2 steps are mere offers to the post but the last step rests solely with the appointee who may or may not accept the appointment. Borromeo v. Mariano A judge may not be made a judge of another district without his consent. Appointment and qualification to office are separate and distinct things. Appointment is the sole act of the appointee. There is no power which can compel a man to accept the office

Eligibility and Qualification: Who may prescribe qualifications? 1. Constitution 2. Congress: a. Limitations (4) i. Congress cannot impose qualification inconsistent with constitutional provisions ii. Qualification must be germane to the position (reasonable relation rule) iii. Cannot prescribe qualification so detailed as to amount to making an appointing in usurpation of executive power iv. Cannot prescribe qualification in additional to those exclusively by the constitution v. Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drugs: In this amended dangerous drugs law there is already a requirement of random drug testing on the following persons: o Private Sector Employees o Public Employees o Students (Secondary and Tertiary) o Pubic officials SC dealt which this issue: o Private and Public Sector Employeesrandom drug testing is constitutional because there is little privacy and when they accepted the job the subject themselves to the conditions as stated in the employment contract o Elective Officers- Unconstitutional because it is the constitution which provides for the eligibility and qualifications of such officials. Thus, the adding of the mandatory testing means that it another requirement for such official before they can run for public office. Congress cannot pass law which the constitution has exclusively set forth. When should you possess the qualifications? (Congress may inadvertently or willfully will not provide the TIME on when you should possess the qualifications) Frivaldo vs. Comelec- Fivaldo won in the last three elections. In all cases you got Frivaldo saying that he won but not being able to sit because of his citizenship. What made this third election different? Because in the previous two elections when he ran he remained not a citizen or not repatriated but on the third time youve got him applying for repatriation and getting it granted on the day of the proclamation but the question is assuming that he did acquire citizenship, but he was not yet a citizen at the day of the application. And if you look at the Local Government Code which states that you have to be a citizen without providing for the reckoning point He applied for repatriation on August 17,1994 What happened to the application? it was only granted June 30, 1995;

SC ruled that: you should be a citizen at the day of the proclamation. The purpose of the citizenship qualification is none other than to ensure that no alien, i.e., no person owing allegiance to another nation, shall govern our people and our country or a unit of territory thereof. Now, an official begins to govern or to discharge his functions only upon his proclamation and on the day the law mandates his term of office to begin. Since Frivaldo reassumed his citizenship on June 30, 1995 -- the very day he took the term of office of governor (and other elective officials) began -- he was therefore already qualified to be proclaimed, to hold such office and to discharge the functions and responsibilities thereof as of said date. In short, at that time, he was already qualified to govern his native Sorsogon.

So if you have a client who wants to know the reckoning point for a particular qualification when none is provided by law, what steps will you take? Look at the intention and the reason of the qualification (This is exactly what the court did) read the words used by the provisions and its related provisions o Like in the present provision when they said that it is a qualification of an ELECTIVE official meaning that you need to possess these qualifications when you have already been elected. o Look, in the related provision it says that you need to be a voter (on the day of the election; as provided) So now, how do you become a voter during the election and a citizen during the proclamation? Thus! SC said to erase of all doubt, the date of the citizenship should retroact to the date of the application (settles the issue on when he became a Filipino citizenship) Requirement for CIVIL SERVANTS (where to get?)no t clear in the transcriptions where to get. Manquera vs. Borra The candidate is required to post a surety bond equivalent to one year salary for the position you are seeking. Also, if you are declared the winner then the bond will be returned to you but you do not have 10 percent of the total vote then the bond shall be forfeited in favor of the government. (REASON: to discourage nuisance candidates) SC HELD: Unconstitutional because it is against social justice and the fact that we are a republican state wherein authority resides among the people and the fact that you are requiring a bond from the candidates you are actually depriving them of the right to represent the people

LESSON: when you prescribe qualifications you need to be very careful that you dont go against the very principles stated in the constitution.

SJS said: you cant add to the exclusive list stated in the constitution and on top of that you cannot prescribe qualification that go against the principles enshrined in the constitution like REPUBLICANISM and SOCIAL JUSTICE Qualifications usually prescribed a) President (Sec. 2, Art. VI, Constitution) Vice President (Sec. 3, Art. VII, Constitution)

Natural-born citizen 35 years old at time of appointment CPA with >10 year of auditing experience or Bar member engaged in practice of law for at least 10 years Not have been candidates for elective position in elections immediately preceding appointment

Natural-born citizen 40 years old on day of election resident of the Philippines for at least 10 yrs immediately preceding election day b) Senator (Sec. 3, Art. VI, Constitution) Natural-born citizen 35 years old on day of election able to read and write registered voter resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding election day c) Congressmen (Sec. 6, Art. VI, Constitution)

Natural-born citizen 25 years old on day of election able to read and write registered voter in district in which he shall be elected resident thereof for not less than one year immediately preceding election day d) Supreme Court Justice

Natural born citizen at least 40 years old 15 years or more a judge or engaged in law practice of proven CIPI (competence, integrity, probity and independence) e) Civil Service Commissioners (Sec. 1 [1], Art. IXB. Constitution) Natural-born citizen 35 years old at time of appointment proven capacity for public administration not a candidate for any elective position in elections immediately preceding appointment f) COMELEC Comm. (Sec. 1[1], Art. IXC)

Natural-born citizen 35 years old at time of appointment college degree holder not a candidate for elective position in election immediately preceding appointment chairman and majority should be members of the bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years (See Cayetano v. Monsod) g) COA Commissioners