Matibag vs Benipayo

GR No. 149036  

Facts: Matibag was appointed as an Acting Director of EID and was reappointed twice for the same position in a temporary capacity. PGMA appointed Benipayo as COMELEC Chairman for a seven year term; such appointment was renewed thrice by PGMA, the least once during the pendency of the case due to the failure of COA to act upon the confirmation.

Benipayo issued a memo reassigning Matibag to the Law Department to which the latter requested for reconsideration but was denied. Matibag filed the instant petition questioning Benipayo’s appointment and his right to remain in office claiming that the ad interim appointment violates the constitutional provision on the independence of COMELEC, the prohibition on temporary appointments and reappointments of its Chairman and members. Matibag questions the validity of her reassignment claiming that Benipayo has no authority to remove and reassign her; Matibag further argued that only the COMELEC, acting as a collegial body, can authorize such reassignment under sec 261 (h) of OEC.

Issues: W/N the contention of Matibag is correct.

Ruling: While the Constitution mandates that the COMELEC “shall be independent”, this provision should be harmonized with the President’s power to extend ad interim appointments. To hold that the independence of the COMELEC requires the COA to first confirm ad interim appointees before the appointees can assume office will negate the President’s power to make ad interim appointments. This is contrary to the rule on statutory construction to give meaning and effect to every provision of the law. It will also run counter to the clear intent of the framers of the Constitution. Also, when an ad interim appointment (of the Chairman COMELEC) is not confirmed (as it was by-passed, or that there was not ample time for the COA to pass upon the same), another ad interim appointment may be extended to the appointee without violating the Constitution.

SC ruled that Benipayo is the de jure COMELEC Chairman, and consequently he has full authority to exercise all the powers of that office for so long as his ad interim appointment remains effective. Such power includes the Make temporary assignments, rotate and transfer personnel in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Law. Contrary to Matibag;ss allegation the COMELEC did in fact issue COMELEC Resolution No. 3300 exempting the COMELEC from Section 261 (h) of the Omnibus Election Code. COMELEC Resolution does not require that every transfer or reassignment of COMELEC personnel should carry the concurrence of the COMELEC as a collegial body. To require such concurrence will render the resolution meaningless since the COMELEC en banc will have to approve every personnel transfer or reassignment, making the resolution utterly useless. It should be interpreted for what it is, an approval to effect transfers and reassignments of personnel, without need of securing a second approval from the COMELEC en banc to actually implement such transfer or reassignment.

The contention of Matibag is not correct, her petition was dismissed by the court.