February 9, 2006 · Posted in: Governance
Mike Luz: ‘CSC ruling weakens civil service’
EDUCATION Undersecretary for finance Juan Miguel Luz expressed disappointment over a recent ruling of the Civil Service Commission upholding Malacanang’s order transferring him to the Department of Labor and Employment.
In a three-page statement, Luz said, “The Commission abdicated its jurisdiction over civil service cases to a political authority and hence, undermined its standing as an institution. Where now is its moral authority to act on civil service cases when it recognizes that CESOs (career executive service officers) serve only ‘at the pleasure of the president’?”
He added, “Instead of building a professional culture within the bureaucracy, this decision has only served to weaken the civil service and laid it at the foot of traditional politics.”
Luz had appealed his transfer to the CSC, saying it was the result of his refusal to perform an “illegal” act: He would not accept three postdated checks the Palace issued to Zambales Rep. Antonio Diaz’s scholarship program at the height of the House justice committee hearings on the impeachment complaint against President Arroyo.
Last Feb. 1, the CSC, specifically Commissioners Cesar Buenaflor and J. Waldemar Valmores, declared Luz’s reassignment as a "management prerogative exercised by the President" in the best interest of public service. CSC Chair Karina Constantino-David dissented.
Luz is currently on official leave. His three-page statement follows:
THE CSC DECISION: HELPING UNDERMINE THE INSTITUTION IT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY-MANDATED TO UPHOLD
The appeal I filed before the Civil Service Commission was intended to challenge two phrases the Office of the President has used recklessly in my case and those of other career executive service officers: “you serve at the pleasure of the President” and “in the exigency of the service.”
The facts of the case are simple:
- The Office of the President (OP) asked the Department of Education (DepED) to move a President Social Fund (PSF) grant through the department in a questionable transaction to a congressman. I initially objected but eventually complied subject to certain conditions the grantee (the congressman) had to abide by. (He never did.)
- The OP then asked DepED to move more PSF funds to the same congressman in what was a prohibited (and therefore illegal) transaction (i.e. the use of post-dated cheques). In this instance, I refused and returned the cheques to Malacanang on September 9, 2005 (a Friday).
- On first working day after, the OP tried to terminate me as undersecretary since “I serve at the pleasure of the president”. The CSC Chair informed Malacanang that I was a career executive service officer (CESO) and could not be terminated without cause as per the law.
- Not able to terminate me, the OP then informed me of my transfer from DepED (which has a shortage of undersecretaries) to a department (DOLE) which had no opening for undersecretary “in the exigency of the service”.
- I filed my appeal before the CSC to contest the transfer and went on official leave from the DepED (as per CSC rules).
The argument of the appeal was straightforward: For refusing to undertake a prohibited (and therefore illegal) transaction, I was being punished by the Office of the President for insubordination. The transfer was tantamount to “constructive dismissal”; a move intended to force a resignation by placing myself in a no-win or untenable situation.
I would ask the two CSC commissioners who decided that my case had no merit and who ruled in favor of Malacanang this question: If a superior asked you to perform an illegal act at the risk of losing your job for insubordination, what would you choose to do?
I suspect the CSC majority decision reflects what the two commissioners would have decided to do if they were in my situation: Do the illegal act to keep your job and be quiet about it. (Note: Only CSC Chairperson Karina Constantino David stood by the principles of professionalism and ethics in dissenting from the majority decision to dismiss the case in favor of the Office of the President.)
What the Civil Service Commission ruling on my case now tells every civil servant is that:
- The President has complete jurisdiction and authority over every career executive service officer (CESO) throughout the bureaucracy (and there are over 7000 government managers who are CESOs);
- That the principle of neutrality of the civil service irrespective of the political leadership is a myth; and,
- Because of the above, every civil servant now better not displease the political leadership because the latter has carte blanche over the former.
From here on, every presidential appointee below that of a cabinet secretary now “serves at the president’s pleasure”. In past, this phrase was properly restricted only to cabinet secretaries who rightly do not enjoy any security of tenure since they are the “alter egos” of the president in the assigned sectors (i.e. departments). Cabinet secretaries are “political appointees”. To make every presidential appointee now a “political appointee” as well – and every CESO is a presidential appointee by qualification – is to extend politics down throughout the bureaucracy and subject to whatever the president’s thinking might be.
For the Department of Education, this has major implications. Every schools division and assistant division superintendent (numbering over five hundred) are presidential appointees and as such, must qualify for and attain CESO rank. But during elections, every superintendent is also the chief electoral officer in their respective city or province deputized by COMELEC. If “instructions” from the top are not followed, what then?
This appeal before the CSC was not about my own personal situation. I have worked in the private sector and had a very comfortable existence there prior to being invited to serve as undersecretary in the Department of Education (and having been found qualified by the president’s own search committee despite the later finding that I was “unqualified” after I refused to carry out the prohibited act.) I can and will eventually go back to the private sector and take up any of the many offers made, so this is not an issue about holding on to a position in the Department of Education.
Rather, the appeal was made on the basis of principle which I expected to be upheld by the CSC: That doing the right thing, whether in government or the private sector, is not the basis for termination nor constructive dismissal.
I am therefore disappointed by the CSC ruling for two reasons.
First, the Commission abdicated its jurisdiction over civil service cases to a political authority and hence, undermined its standing as an institution. Where now is its moral authority to act on civil service cases when it recognizes that CESOs serve only “at the pleasure of the president”?
Second, instead of building a professional culture within the bureaucracy, this decision has only served to weaken the civil service and laid it at the foot of traditional politics.
In effect, the bureaucracy, which is the basis for good governance in all of the best-performing countries worldwide (but sadly not ours), has been undermined by a short-sighted CSC ruling (e.g. the dismissal of the case for “lack of jurisdiction”). Ironically, this CSC ruling now serves to weaken the civil service, the institution it was constitutionally mandated to protect and promote.
16 Responses to Mike Luz: ‘CSC ruling weakens civil service’
indio_lawless
February 9th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
Yvonne, was there a motion for reconsideration (MR) made to the CSC or an appeal to a higher tribunal ?
If in the negative, then Mr. Luz should direct his counsel to concentrate on their appeal. Who knows, Justice may smile on their way with Art on the helm.
I just find it amusing that even the Management Perogative Principle, a Labor Code semantics, worms its way now in CSC’s terminology. Assuming, it holds water, was bad faith not so evident when Malacanang opted to exercise the so-called management perogative on Mr. Luz?
Bad faith, as now it seems, is well ignored primarily because of political stinkeness pervaiding even in the Commission itself.
rcherrera
February 9th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
What else can we expect from this padrino government of the Arroyo administration..even the Civil Service Commission has already been afflicted by this disease called palakasan system.
How can we expect some justice when even our own President does not want to know the truth behind what really happened in the elections?
mukilteo
February 9th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
people need to flex their muscles to get rid of our corrupt president. it needs to be done even if it means sacrificing our lives to assure that the furure of the country will survive for the younger generation. If not, all politicians who are in power will only advance their own selfish agenda.
There are enough honest people in the country who cares for the country and the citizenry.
Yvonne Chua
February 9th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
indio_lawless,
Luz’s lawyers said they will elevate the case to the Court of Appeals.
lokalokang matino
February 9th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
What do we expect from an ILLEGAL PRESIDENT?
Anything she does is illegal. All government institutions has been compromised already. What are we waiting for?
This country is going nowhere as long as gloria remains in power.
The Filipino people shoould now THINK,THINK,THINK and ACT DECISIVELY. That woman should be taught an unforgettable lesson so that no one shall ever attempt to immitate.
gloria’s arrogance is beyond compare. SHE MUST GO, INDEED!!!
rego
February 9th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Among the many issues being thrown on the President, this one I believe is the most serious , most believable, the strongest and the most promising for the non partisan citizens, especially the civil servants, to relate with and for the tipping point to really happen. It is a non political/non partisan issue and purely a prima facie evidence of abuse of power, extreme case of corruption and one that has and will have the most negative impact on one of the most imporatnt system of the nation ( the civil service). And most of all, all the paper trail are there and there is a very very credible witness!
Mr Luz is doing it just soooooo right! File a case against the president in a proper venue without so much funfare, grandstanding and exagerrations that characterizes all the issues being trumpeted by opposition. And best of all, he did not let the opposition bungled his case! Unlike the opposition and their partisan followers, he is definitely not turning off the non partisan people that may eventually come out to support him.
Another very good thing , is that he is using all the systems and processes that are currently in place. Filing a case in civil service commision and when it did not rule in his favor, file an appeal in Court of Appeals. And Im sure if the Court of Appeals will reject is appeal , he will go to the Supreme Court. And all his actions aremoving just so well. It seems to me that all the move is being plan and strategize so well.
Rather than concentrating so much on the very controversial and complicated Garci Tape (that is very difficult to pin down the people involve in the tape ) I d rather concentrate more on this case. Why? all the solid evidence are already there. The paper trail in form of issued checks and Im Mr Luz has the copy of the memo. Ther is no more truth that needs to be uncovered so unlike the Garci tape and any other scandal. The witnesses are there and is non in hiding. You dont even need to look out for additional witnesses, Mr Luz , being a very credible person is more than enough to convict the president of wrong doing.
I really really pray that the non partisan people out there will rally around this issue. And really help to put a stop all the evils this sorrund this issue. I know we are the silent majority and we are just waiting for the right case towards the government. I know we hate to be identified by negative aura and images of the opposition and we dont want be used by opposition and Gloria haters. I know tha we are real power that can save our country right now.
We have the right issue already, and the time for us to strike is has come!!!!!
tongue in, anew
February 10th, 2006 at 7:02 am
Sorry to disappoint you Rego. What non-partisan issue are you speaking of? First, isn’t Mike Luz and Namfrel/Makati Business Club’s Sec. Gen. Bill Luz siblings? For sure, Mike Luz would not have taken the collision course with the Mighty Mite in Malacañang had brother Bill not joioned the loud calls for the b__ch to resign on that eventful Friday.
Further, Mike Luz was a protege of another GMA nemesis, Cory whose appointment of Luz many saw as returning the favor to Bill’s “invaluable help” during the snap elections.
Moreover, Mike Luz himself pointed this out: “That the principle of neutrality of the civil service irrespective of the political leadership is a myth.” Gloria’s transactional leadership has reduced government to a puppet show wherein all characters sway to where the puppet master’s strings are drawn. The mere fact that Diaz is getting scholarship funds, in the middle of the schoolyear, in a scheme with all the trimmings of money-laundering, and done right after Diaz and the Doña’s other collusionists in the house of representathieves have murdered the impeachment complaint, all point to partisan politics.
Hey, don’t get turned off yet.
You also said his actions are moving so well. Not to dampen your spirits, but my driver, Mang Erning, estimates that with our kind of justice, Mike Luz will probably get his in 2010. hehehe. Well, you can’t impeach Gloria then, can you? What more when the case you will impeach her with is illegal dismissal or unfair labor practice, eew! And you say all the other scandals are nothing?
Your sweeping theory about Luz’ credibility as enough to convict Gloria is yet wishful thinking. But I do wish you luck when you say you are the silent majority. People who live in New York (as you claim you do) are not the silent majority. The real majority have been vocal on all issues not just this one. Go ahead, strike now, if you feel your time has come. And when you need our help, you can “use” us.
Really, it’s very difficult to discern where you stand, my friend.
baycas
February 11th, 2006 at 5:16 am
hate to generalize…Philippine politics is transactional* and there is always a someone who is buyable* – lest we forget that gloria is the epitome of patronage politics (exceeding jdv by miles now).
hate more to say that even the non-partisans are already “politicized”…the likes of chairperson karina are fast dwindling.
hate even more to add that our justice system CAN also be “politicized!”
*exact words uttered by the dick with b_lls at the senate
lokalokang matino
February 11th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Its very clear than sunlight, most actions of the woman who claims to be president are gross violations of the RULE-OF-LAW and the Constitution itself. Name it, she’s done illegal appointments, illegal transfer, illegal discbursements, illegal use of government resources and machineries, illegal contracts, illegal executive orders.
Her arrogance knows no bounds, simply because she always get away with anything she does, I dont know if it is out of LUCK or simply because GOOD guys allow her to get away with it.
Everyone wants her out of office, but cant even agree on by what means. Constitutional or EXtra-Constitutional?
We tried the constitutional path, but what happened? The impeachment process was bastardized, the head count of trapo-ist
congressmen over-powered the reformist congressmen. The devils must be laughing and cheering in the halls of congress up to this very moment. In fact they’re not leaving yet till the CHA-CHA begins and end
victoriously.
EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL means therefore is the last and final option. And it has to happen immediately,before the illegal acting president shall be able to pull yet another thrick on us. BY THE WAY, why do we allow all these to happen? That power- lust- mad- little- woman should be put where she really belong – IN JAIL – for gross violations of the consstitution!!!!
jr_lad
February 11th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
tongue,
dahil magpapaikot-ikot lang kayo. you see he didn’t know that mike is a brother of bill.
it;s very clear the guy is not reading as he is claiming he was kaya huwag ng patulan.
“his actions is moving just so well”? no further comment except to say that your driver tongue is a smart guy.
rego
February 12th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Thanks tongue!
baycas
February 13th, 2006 at 3:34 am
from inq7.net:
…But one hears no hue and cry over an equally tragic occurrence, which could have more serious, negative, long-run implications for the country: the near-death blow dealt to an institution that is key to our efforts to achieve good governance. The blow was dealt, ironically, by two of the three heads of the institution itself — our Civil Service — namely, Commissioners J. Waldemar V. Valmores and Cesar D. Buenaflor. The Civil Service Commission (CSC), under our present Constitution, is “the central personnel agency of the Philippine government” mandated to “establish a career service characterized by, and adopt measures to promote, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness and courtesy in the public service.”
Commissioner Valmores retired on Feb. 1, six days after the near-death blow was dealt, so it was practically his last official act. Commissioner Buenaflor was appointed to the CSC in 2004, together with commissioners of other independent agencies, like the Commission on Audit and the Commission on Elections (to which Virgilio Garcillano happened to be the appointee). It is a reflection of the low regard with which the CSC is held by the Commission on Appointments that almost two years after his appointment, Buenaflor has not been confirmed. Not only that, the Commission on Appointments has not held any hearing on him. There was one scheduled at one time, but it was cancelled.
The blow on the Civil Service was not a physical one, of course. It was in the form of a decision (with a very powerful and scathing dissenting opinion from the third member of the CSC, Chair Karina C. David) on the case of Juan Miguel Luz.
…Luz brought his appeal to the CSC. Which then decided, with a vote of two to one, that (1) the CSC had no jurisdiction over the case-that fell under the jurisdiction of the Office of the President, and after that, of the Court of Appeals; and (2) even if the CSC had jurisdiction, it would still have decided against Luz because he had no tenure, because he was not qualified to be undersecretary, and because his reassignment was in order since it was being done in the interest of public service.
Chair David’s dissenting opinion figuratively cut their arguments to ribbons, citing chapter and verse the reasons why the CSC has jurisdiction over Luz’s appeal, why Luz has security of tenure, and detailing why his reassignment to the Department of Labor and Employment is tainted with bad faith (suppression of evidence; attempt to terminate immediately after Luz’s refusal to follow an illegal order) and not done in the interest of public service (the DepED is undermanned, the labor department has its full complement).
But David is in the minority. And the message that goes out to every civil servant, loud and clear, is that they must obey what the OP and the political leadership say, no matter how illegal, under pain of dismissal or transfer, from which there is no recourse.
Goodbye to the integrity and political neutrality of the civil servant. Goodbye to good governance.
—–
…winnie whines late in the game…good governance said goodbye a long time ago.
naykika
February 13th, 2006 at 10:31 am
in my feedback to her above column I stated: “you can’t bid goodbye to somehow that was never there”. hope governanace is listening.
jr_lad
February 13th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
goodbye to good governance and welcome back, winnie!
tongue in, anew
February 13th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
haha, jr_lad. (2x)
Yvonne Chua
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Letter to the editor from Annie Enriquez-Geron, general secretary of Public Services Labor Independent Confederation (PSLINK):