Ad interim appointments to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) are permanent appointments that take effect immediately upon qualification and are not considered temporary or acting appointments prohibited by Article IX-C, Section 1(2) of the Constitution; furthermore, the renewal of such ad interim appointments when by-passed by the Commission on Appointments does not violate the constitutional prohibition on reappointment, as this prohibition applies only to appointees who have been previously confirmed by the Commission on Appointments and have served a term or part thereof.

The case arose following changes in the leadership of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Petitioner Ma. J. Angelina G. Matibag, who held a temporary appointment as Director IV of the COMELEC's Education and Information Department (EID), was reassigned to the Law Department by newly appointed ad interim COMELEC Chairman Alfredo L. Benipayo. This reassignment, coupled with the ad interim appointments and their subsequent renewals for Chairman Benipayo and Commissioners Borra and Tuason by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, prompted Matibag to challenge the constitutionality and legality of these appointments and her reassignment, citing concerns over COMELEC's independence and alleged violations of constitutional prohibitions.

• Petitioner Ma. J. Angelina G. Matibag was appointed "Acting Director IV" of the COMELEC's Education and Information Department (EID) on February 2, 1999, and subsequently received renewed appointments in a "Temporary" capacity on February 15, 2000, and February 15, 2001.
• On March 22, 2001, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appointed, ad interim, Alfredo L. Benipayo as COMELEC Chairman, and Resurreccion Z. Borra and Florentino A. Tuason, Jr. as COMELEC Commissioners, each for a seven-year term expiring on February 2, 2008. They took their oaths and assumed office.
• Their ad interim appointments were submitted to the Commission on Appointments (CA) on May 22, 2001, but the CA did not act on them.
• On June 1, 2001, President Arroyo renewed their ad interim appointments; they took their oaths again. These were transmitted to the CA on June 5, 2001.
• Congress adjourned before the CA could act, so on June 8, 2001, President Arroyo again renewed the ad interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra, and Tuason. They took their oaths anew.
• On April 11, 2001, Chairman Benipayo reassigned petitioner Matibag from Director IV of EID to the Law Department and designated Velma J. Cinco as Officer-in-Charge of EID.
• Matibag requested reconsideration of her reassignment, citing a prohibition on transfers during an election period, but Benipayo denied it, citing COMELEC Resolution No. 3300 which allowed personnel movements when necessary.
• Matibag appealed the denial to the COMELEC en banc and filed an administrative/criminal complaint against Benipayo.
• While her complaint was pending, Matibag filed the instant petition with the Supreme Court on August 3, 2001.
• On September 6, 2001, President Arroyo once again renewed the ad interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra, and Tuason.

• The ad interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra, and Tuason are temporary appointments prohibited by Section 1(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution, which states "In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity."
• The renewal of the ad interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra, and Tuason after being by-passed by the Commission on Appointments violates the constitutional prohibition on reappointment under Section 1(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution.
• Chairman Benipayo's removal of petitioner from her position as Director IV of EID and her reassignment to the Law Department is illegal and without authority, as it was done without the approval of the COMELEC as a collegial body and without her consent, amounting to removal without due process.
• The Officer-in-Charge of the COMELEC's Finance Services Department is acting in excess of jurisdiction by making disbursements for salaries and emoluments to Benipayo, Borra, Tuason, and Cinco.
• The ad interim appointments violate the constitutional provisions on the independence of the COMELEC.

• The petition fails to satisfy all four requisites for the exercise of judicial review in constitutional cases, specifically alleging lack of personal and substantial interest, failure to raise the issue at the earliest opportunity, and the constitutional issue not being the lis mota.
• An ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment, not a temporary one, taking effect immediately and remaining effective until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or the next adjournment of Congress.
• The renewal of ad interim appointments of by-passed appointees is a well-settled practice and does not constitute reappointment prohibited by the Constitution, as the prohibition applies to those whose appointments were previously confirmed.
• Chairman Benipayo, as the de jure COMELEC Chairman, has the authority under the Revised Administrative Code to make temporary assignments, rotate, and transfer personnel without needing COMELEC en banc approval.
• Petitioner held her Director IV position in an acting or temporary capacity and lacked the necessary CES eligibility, thus not enjoying security of tenure.
• Petitioner's reassignment did not violate Section 261(h) of the Omnibus Election Code because COMELEC Resolution No. 3300 authorized such transfers during the election period.
• The disbursements made by the Finance Services Department Officer-in-Charge are legal as Benipayo, Borra, Tuason, and Cinco validly hold their positions.

• Whether or not the instant petition satisfies all the requirements before the Court may exercise its power of judicial review in constitutional cases.
• Whether or not the assumption of office by Benipayo, Borra, and Tuason on the basis of the ad interim appointments issued by the President amounts to a temporary appointment prohibited by Section 1(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution.
• Assuming the first ad interim appointments are legal, whether or not the renewal of their ad interim appointments and subsequent assumption of office violate the prohibition on reappointment under Section 1(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution.
• Whether or not Benipayo's removal of petitioner from her position as Director IV of the EID and her reassignment to the Law Department is illegal and without authority, having been done without the approval of the COMELEC as a collegial body.
• Whether or not the Officer-in-Charge of the COMELEC's Finance Services Department, in continuing to make disbursements in favor of Benipayo, Borra, Tuason, and Cinco, is acting in excess of jurisdiction.

• The Court found that all requisites for judicial review were present: petitioner had locus standi due to her reassignment by Benipayo, whose authority was being questioned; the constitutional issue was raised at the earliest opportunity (in the petition before the Supreme Court); and the constitutionality of the appointments was the lis mota of the case. Public interest also warranted resolution.
• The ad interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra, and Tuason are not temporary appointments prohibited by the Constitution. An ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment that takes effect immediately and remains effective until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress. It is distinct from an "acting" appointment.
• The renewal of the ad interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra, and Tuason after being by-passed by the Commission on Appointments does not violate the constitutional prohibition on reappointment. This prohibition applies to individuals who have been previously appointed by the President and confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. A by-passed appointment is not a completed term, and renewal is permissible until the Commission on Appointments acts or the term expires.
• Chairman Benipayo's reassignment of petitioner was legal and within his authority. As de jure COMELEC Chairman, he is empowered by the Revised Administrative Code to transfer or reassign personnel. Petitioner held her position in a temporary/acting capacity and lacked CES eligibility, thus not enjoying security of tenure. COMELEC Resolution No. 3300 authorized personnel transfers during the election period, and the Chairman could implement this without en banc approval for each transfer.
• The disbursements made to Benipayo, Borra, Tuason, and Cinco were legal, as they were validly holding their respective offices. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

• Judicial Review (Requisites for Constitutional Cases) — For the Court to exercise its power of judicial review, there must be: (1) an actual and appropriate controversy; (2) a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional issue; (3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the constitutional issue is the lis mota of the case. The Court found all requisites present, noting petitioner's direct injury from reassignment hinged on the legality of Benipayo's appointment, making the constitutional question the lis mota.
• Ad Interim Appointment — An appointment made by the President during the recess of Congress, which takes effect immediately and remains effective until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress. The Court affirmed that ad interim appointments are permanent in nature, not temporary or acting, and thus not violative of Article IX-C, Section 1(2) of the Constitution. Respondents Benipayo, Borra, and Tuason's appointments were deemed valid under this doctrine.
• Prohibition on Temporary or Acting Appointments (COMELEC) — Article IX-C, Section 1(2) of the Constitution states: "In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity." The Court held that ad interim appointments are not covered by this prohibition as they are permanent, unlike acting appointments which are revocable at will and undermine the independence of the COMELEC.
• Prohibition on Reappointment (COMELEC) — Article IX-C, Section 1(2) of the Constitution provides that COMELEC Chairman and Commissioners shall be appointed for a term of seven years "without reappointment." The Court clarified this applies to appointees who have been confirmed by the Commission on Appointments and have served their term or a part thereof. It does not apply to ad interim appointees who are merely by-passed (not disapproved) by the Commission on Appointments, and whose appointments can be renewed for the same fixed term.
• Power of COMELEC Chairman as Chief Executive Officer — Section 7(4), Chapter 2, Subtitle C, Book V of the Revised Administrative Code vests the COMELEC Chairman with the power to "Make temporary assignments, rotate and transfer personnel in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Law." The Court upheld Chairman Benipayo's authority to reassign petitioner Matibag based on this provision, without needing en banc approval for each specific reassignment, especially since COMELEC Resolution No. 3300 already authorized such transfers during the election period.
• Security of Tenure (Civil Service) — Officers or employees in the civil service shall not be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law. However, this applies to permanent appointees who possess the required qualifications. The Court noted petitioner held her Director IV position in an acting/temporary capacity and lacked CES eligibility, thus she did not enjoy security of tenure in that specific position, making her reassignment permissible.
• Lis Mota — The rule that courts will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record if the case can be disposed of on some other ground. In this case, the Court found the constitutionality of the appointments to be the very lis mota, as the legality of petitioner's reassignment depended on the validity of Benipayo's appointment as Chairman.

• "An ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment because it takes effect immediately and can no longer be withdrawn by the President once the appointee has qualified into office. The fact that it is subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments does not alter its permanent character."
• "Thus, the term 'ad interim appointment', as used in letters of appointment signed by the President, means a permanent appointment made by the President in the meantime that Congress is in recess. It does not mean a temporary appointment that can be withdrawn or revoked at any time."
• "A by-passed ad interim appointment can be revived by a new ad interim appointment because there is no final disapproval under Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution, and such new appointment will not result in the appointee serving beyond the fixed term of seven years."
• "The phrase 'without reappointment' applies only to one who has been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, whether or not such person completes his term of office."
• "The Chairman, as the Chief Executive of the COMELEC, is expressly empowered on his own authority to transfer or reassign COMELEC personnel in accordance with the Civil Service Law. In the exercise of this power, the Chairman is not required by law to secure the approval of the COMELEC en banc."

• Summers vs. Ozaeta — Cited to establish that an ad interim appointment is permanent in nature and its subjection to confirmation does not alter its permanent character; it is distinguishable from an "acting" appointment which is merely temporary.
• Pacete vs. Secretary of the Commission on Appointments — Referenced for its elaboration on the nature of an ad interim appointment, stating it takes effect at once, the appointee can immediately qualify and perform functions, and his title to office is complete until disapproval or next adjournment of Congress.
• Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila vs. Intermediate Appellate Court — Used to explain that "ad interim" denotes the manner of appointment (made while the appointing body, e.g., Board of Regents or Congress, is unable to act/in recess) rather than the temporary nature of the appointment itself in the context of Philippine law.
• Marohombsar vs. Court of Appeals — Reiterated that an ad interim appointment is not descriptive of the nature (temporary or acting) but the manner of appointment, and that such appointments are permanent until disapproved.
• Brillantes vs. Yorac — Distinguished from the current case; in Brillantes, the designation of an Associate Commissioner as "Acting Chairperson" was struck down as unconstitutional because an acting designation is temporary and revocable at will, undermining COMELEC's independence, unlike the permanent ad interim appointments in the present case.
• Nacionalista Party vs. Bautista — Cited as an early case (under the 1935 Constitution) that declared unconstitutional the designation of the Solicitor General as an acting member of COMELEC, emphasizing the need for permanent Commissioners to ensure independence.
• Guevara vs. Inocentes — Justice Concepcion's concurring opinion was cited to explain that by-passed ad interim appointees can be reappointed because the termination of their appointment upon adjournment is not due to disapproval but allows the President to make new ad interim appointments or reappointments to prevent disruption of services.
• Gaminde vs. Commission on Appointments — Referenced as the ruling that prompted the vacancies in COMELEC by clarifying the counting of terms of office for constitutional officers from the date of ratification of the Constitution (February 2, 1987).
• Secretary of Justice Serafin Cuevas vs. Atty. Josefina G. Bacal (citing Achacoso v. Macaraig) — Used to support the ruling that petitioner Matibag, lacking the rank/eligibility for Director IV, held the position in a temporary/acting capacity and thus could not claim security of tenure for that specific position.

• Constitution, Article IX-C, Section 1(2) — This provision on the appointment, term, and prohibitions (no reappointment, no temporary/acting capacity) for COMELEC Chairman and Commissioners was central to the case. The Court interpreted "ad interim" appointments as not falling under "temporary or acting" and "reappointment" as applying only after confirmation.
• Constitution, Article VII, Section 16, paragraph 2 — This provision grants the President power to make appointments during the recess of Congress (ad interim appointments), effective until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress. It was the basis for the validity of the President's ad interim appointments of the COMELEC officials.
• Constitution, Article IX-A, Section 1 — States that Constitutional Commissions, including COMELEC, "shall be independent." Petitioner argued ad interim appointments undermined this, but the Court harmonized this with the President's power to make ad interim appointments.
• Constitution, Article IX-B, Section 2(3) — "No officer or employee in the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law." The Court applied this in relation to petitioner's lack of security of tenure due to her temporary appointment status and lack of eligibility.
• Revised Administrative Code, Book V, Subtitle C, Chapter 2, Section 7(4) — Empowers the COMELEC Chairman, as Chief Executive Officer, to "Make temporary assignments, rotate and transfer personnel in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Law." This was the legal basis for Chairman Benipayo's authority to reassign petitioner.
• Omnibus Election Code, Section 261(h) — Prohibits the transfer of officers and employees in the civil service during the election period except upon prior approval of the Commission. The Court found no violation as COMELEC Resolution No. 3300 granted such approval for necessary transfers.
• Rules of the Commission on Appointments, Section 17 — States that unacted nominations or appointments returned to the President may be considered again if new nominations or appointments are made. This supported the legality of renewing by-passed ad interim appointments.