Re: Request for Guidance/Clarification on Section 7, Rule III of RA No. 10154

The requirement for retiring government employees to secure a clearance of pendency/non-pendency of administrative cases from the CSC, the Office of the President, or the Office of the Ombudsman does not apply to retiring Judiciary employees, because administrative supervision over court personnel is exclusively vested in the Supreme Court under Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution; however, a clearance requirement pertaining to criminal cases may be imposed by the appropriate government agency on retiring court personnel, as criminal matters fall outside the Judiciary's administrative supervision.

Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer of the Office of Administrative Services of the Supreme Court, issued a memorandum dated September 18, 2013 requesting guidance on whether Section 7, Rule III of the IRR of Republic Act No. 10154 applies to employees of the Judiciary. RA 10154 is an act requiring all concerned government agencies to ensure the early release of the retirement pay, pensions, gratuities, and other benefits of retiring government employees, with a declared state policy of ensuring the timely and expeditious release of such benefits. Section 7 of the IRR requires retiring employees to seek a clearance of pendency/non-pendency of administrative cases from their employer agency, the CSC, the Office of the Ombudsman, or, for presidential appointees, the Office of the President. The request for guidance arose because Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, creating a potential conflict between the statutory clearance requirement and the Court's constitutional prerogative.

On September 18, 2013, Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer of the Office of Administrative Services of the Supreme Court, issued a memorandum addressed to the Court requesting guidance and clarification on the applicability to the Judiciary of Section 7, Rule III of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 10154. The provision in question requires retiring government employees to seek a clearance of pendency/non-pendency of administrative cases from, among others, the Civil Service Commission, the Office of the Ombudsman, or, in the case of presidential appointees, the Office of the President.

The request arose against the backdrop of Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which exclusively vests in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. As an adjunct to this constitutional power, the Court oversees court personnel's compliance with all laws, takes proper administrative action against them for any violation, and maintains custody of records pertaining to administrative cases of retiring court personnel. The potential conflict between the statutory clearance requirement and the Court's constitutional prerogative of administrative supervision prompted the request for guidance.

The Court resolved the matter by ruling that the subject provision should not be made to apply to employees of the Judiciary, as doing so would disregard the Court's constitutionally-enshrined power of administrative supervision over its personnel. The Court further noted that retiring court personnel are already required to secure a prior clearance of pendency/non-pendency of administrative cases from the Court itself, rendering the CSC clearance superfluous and contrary to RA 10154's declared policy of ensuring the timely and expeditious release of retirement benefits.

• Applicability of CSC Clearance Requirement: Whether Section 7, Rule III of the IRR of RA 10154, which requires retiring government employees to secure a clearance of pendency/non-pendency of administrative cases from the CSC, applies to retiring employees of the Judiciary.
• Applicability of OP and Ombudsman Clearance for Administrative Cases: Whether clearances from the Office of the President or the Office of the Ombudsman for administrative cases should apply to retiring court personnel.
• Clearance for Criminal Cases: Whether a clearance requirement pertaining to criminal cases may be imposed on retiring court personnel by the appropriate government agency.

• Applicability of CSC Clearance Requirement: No. The CSC clearance requirement is inapplicable to retiring Judiciary employees, as it would disregard the Court's exclusive constitutional power of administrative supervision over court personnel under Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
• Applicability of OP and Ombudsman Clearance for Administrative Cases: No. The same constitutional principles dictate that clearances from the Office of the President or the Office of the Ombudsman for administrative cases should not apply to retiring court personnel, as administrative supervision of court personnel falls within the exclusive province of the Judiciary.
• Clearance for Criminal Cases: Yes. A clearance requirement pertaining to criminal cases may be imposed by the appropriate government agency, such as the Office of the Ombudsman, on retiring court personnel, as criminal matters fall beyond the ambit of the Judiciary's power of administrative supervision.

• Applicability of CSC Clearance Requirement: Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. As an adjunct to this power, the Court oversees court personnel's compliance with all laws, takes proper administrative action against them for any violation, and maintains custody of records pertaining to administrative cases of retiring court personnel. Requiring retiring court personnel to secure a clearance from the CSC would intrude upon this exclusive constitutional prerogative. Moreover, retiring court personnel already secure a prior clearance of pendency/non-pendency of administrative cases from the Court itself, making the CSC clearance superfluous and non-expeditious — contrary to RA 10154's declared state policy of ensuring the timely and expeditious release of retirement benefits.

• Applicability of OP and Ombudsman Clearance for Administrative Cases: The same principles governing the CSC clearance apply. Even though some court personnel are presidential appointees (e.g., Supreme Court Justices), the administrative supervision of court personnel and all affairs related thereto fall within the exclusive province of the Judiciary. Requiring clearance from the Office of the President or the Office of the Ombudsman for administrative cases would likewise disregard the Court's constitutional power.

• Clearance for Criminal Cases: The Constitution accords the Judiciary administrative supervision only over its personnel; it does not extend to criminal matters. A clearance requirement pertaining to criminal cases is therefore a matter beyond the ambit of the Judiciary's power of administrative supervision and may be imposed by the appropriate government agency, such as the Office of the Ombudsman, whose authority to investigate and prosecute offenses committed by public officers and employees is founded in Sections 15 and 11 of RA 6770. The Ombudsman's power to investigate and prosecute is plenary and unqualified, pertaining to any act or omission of any public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.

• Constitutional Power of Administrative Supervision over the Judiciary — Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. This power encompasses oversight of court personnel's compliance with all laws, the taking of proper administrative action against them for any violation, and the custody of records pertaining to administrative cases of retiring court personnel. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that requiring retiring Judiciary employees to secure administrative case clearances from external bodies such as the CSC, the Office of the President, or the Office of the Ombudsman would infringe upon this exclusive constitutional prerogative. The doctrine does not, however, extend to criminal cases, which fall outside the scope of administrative supervision and within the investigative and prosecutorial authority of the Ombudsman.

• "As such, the Court rules that the subject provision – which requires retiring government employees to secure a prior clearance of pendency/non-pendency of administrative case/s from, among others, the CSC – should not be made to apply to employees of the Judiciary. To deem it otherwise would disregard the Court's constitutionally-enshrined power of administrative supervision over its personnel." — This passage states the ratio decidendi: the CSC clearance requirement is inapplicable to Judiciary employees because it would undermine the Court's exclusive constitutional power of administrative supervision over court personnel.

• "Verily, the administrative supervision of court personnel and all affairs related thereto fall within the exclusive province of the Judiciary." — This formulation establishes the breadth of the Court's exclusive supervisory authority, extending to all affairs related to court personnel, including the clearance process for retiring employees.

• "As such, a clearance requirement which pertains to criminal cases may be imposed by the appropriate government agency, i.e., the Office of the Ombudsman, on retiring court personnel as it is a matter beyond the ambit of the Judiciary's power of administrative supervision." — This passage delineates the limit of the Court's administrative supervision, clarifying that criminal case clearances remain within the authority of external agencies such as the Ombudsman.

• Maceda vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 102781, April 22, 1993, 221 SCRA 464 — Cited for the proposition that Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. This precedent underpins the Court's ruling that external agency clearance requirements for administrative cases cannot apply to Judiciary employees.

• Ampong vs. Civil Service Commission, CSC-Regional Office No. 11, G.R. No. 167916, August 26, 2008, 563 SCRA 293 — Cited as citing Maceda vs. Vasquez on the same constitutional principle of the Court's exclusive administrative supervision over courts and court personnel.

• Uy vs. Sandiganbayan, 407 Phil. 154 (2001) — Cited for the proposition that the Ombudsman's authority to investigate and prosecute offenses committed by public officers and employees, founded in Sections 15 and 11 of RA 6770, is plenary and unqualified, pertaining to any act or omission of any public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. This supports the Court's distinction allowing criminal case clearances to be imposed by the Ombudsman on retiring court personnel.

• Section 6, Article VIII, 1987 Philippine Constitution — Provides that the Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. This provision was the constitutional basis for ruling that the CSC, Office of the President, and Office of the Ombudsman clearance requirements for administrative cases are inapplicable to retiring Judiciary employees, as such requirements would infringe upon the Court's exclusive supervisory power.
• Section 7, Rule III, IRR of Republic Act No. 10154 — Requires retiring employees to seek a clearance of pendency/non-pendency of administrative cases from their employer agency, the CSC, the Office of the Ombudsman, or, for presidential appointees, the Office of the President. This provision was declared inapplicable to retiring employees of the Judiciary insofar as administrative cases are concerned.
• Section 1, Republic Act No. 10154 — Declares the state policy of ensuring the timely and expeditious release of retirement pay, pensions, gratuities, and other benefits of all retiring government employees. The Court invoked this policy to note that the CSC clearance would be superfluous and non-expeditious for retiring court personnel who already secure clearance from the Court.
• Sections 15 and 11, Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) — Vest the Ombudsman with the power to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of any public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. These provisions support the Court's ruling that a clearance requirement pertaining to criminal cases may be imposed by the Ombudsman on retiring court personnel, as criminal matters fall beyond the Judiciary's administrative supervision.

Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Del Castillo, Abad, Perez, Reyes, and Leonen, JJ. concur. Bersamin, Villarama, Jr., and Mendoza, JJ. on leave.