Magarro, Lorraine B.

BSED 3F

CASE NO. B20

I. Introduction

“Appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and
fitness to be determined, as far as practicable, and, except to positions which are
policy-determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical, by competitive
examination.”

II. Facts of the Case

Division superintendent Boyet recommended through channels the appointment

of his wife Puring as his assistant superintendent and his daughter Tekla as principal
in his division. The appointments were approved. Concerned teachers protested
against the appointments on the following grounds: it is illegal, nepotistic, immoral, it
is demoralizing to the rank-and-file, and it is leadership by bad example. However
they do not question the competence and qualifications of the appointees.

III. Issue Involved

Are the appointments valid?

IV. Decision

No, the appointments were not valid. Book V, Title I(A), Chapter 8, Section 59 of
Executive Order No. 292, also known as the Administrative Code of 1987, prohibits
nepotic appointments or those made in favor of a relative of the appointing or
recommending authority. The word “relative” under the said Code refers to those
related within the third degree of consanguinity (relationship by blood) or affinity
(relationship by marriage) such as spouse (1st degree), children (1st degree), sibling
(2nd degree), nephew and niece (3rd degree), and uncle and aunt (3rd degree). The
Civil Service Commission said that nepotism is a form of corruption or abuse of
authority that violates Article IX(B), Section 2(2) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
which states, “Appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit
and fitness to be determined, as far as practicable, and, except to positions which are
policy-determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical, by competitive
examination.” Here, the appointment of the wife and the daughter of Boyet is a clear
manifestation of the violation of the prohibition under the Administrative Code of
1987. In addition, none on the facts stated above have mentioned that the appointed
employees are teachers, which gives rise to the question of competency and
qualification of the appointed. Appointments in the civil service should be based on
 merit and fitness to ensure a competent and professional workforce. There are rules
and qualification standards that must be considered when choosing to appoint people
in government such as positions mentioned in the case above. Hence, the
appointments were not valid.

V. Implication

VI. Glossary

 Superintendent- an education executive or administrator

 Nepotism-the practice among those with power or influence of favoring
relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs.

VII. References

https://www.lawphil.net/executive/execord/eo1987/eo_292_1987.html
http://web.csc.gov.ph/new-updates/1167-csc-reminds-incoming-
gov%E2%80%99t-officials-avoid-nepotism.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintendent
https://www.google.com.ph/search?q=nepotism&rlz=1C1CHBD_enPH758PH758
&oq=nepotis&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0j69i60l2j0l2.5952j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=U
TF-8