G.R. No. 176707 - ARLIN B. OBIASCA, [1], VS. JEANE O. BASALLOTE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly be considered inoperative . [28] The dissent refuses to recognize the amendment of Section 9(h) of PD 807 by EO 292 but rather finds the requirement of submission of appointments within 30 days not inconsistent with the authority of the CSC to take appropriate action on all appointments and other personnel matters. However, the intention to amend by deletion is unmistakable not only in the operational meaning of EO 292 but in its legislative history as well. PD 807 and EO 292 are not inconsistent insofar as they require CSC action on appointments to the civil service. This is evident from the recognition accorded by EO 292, specifically under Section 12 (14) and (15) thereof, to the involvement of the CSC in all personnel actions and programs of the government. However, while a restrictive period of 30 days within which appointments must be submitted to the CSC is imposed under the last sentence of Section 9(h) of PD 807, none was adopted by Section 12 (14) and (15) of EO 292. Rather, provisions subsequent to Section 12 merely state that the CSC (and its liaison staff in various departments and agencies) shall periodically monitor, inspect and audit personnel actions. [29] Moreover, under Section 9(h) of PD 807, appointments not submitted within 30 days to the CSC become ineffective, no such specific adverse effect is contemplated under Section 12 (14) and (15) of EO 292. Certainly, the two provisions are materially inconsistent with each other. And to insist on reconciling them by restoring the restrictive period and punitive effect of Section 9(h) of PD 807, which EO 292 deliberately discarded, would be to rewrite the law by mere judicial interpretation. [30] Not even the historical development of civil service laws can justify the retention of such restrictive provisions. Public Law No. 5, [31] the law formally establishing a civil service system, merely directed that all heads of offices notify the Philippine Civil Service Board "in writing without delay of all appointments x x x made in the classified service." [32] The Revised Administrative Code of 1917 was even less stringent as approval by the Director of the Civil Service of appointments of temporary and emergency employees was required only when practicable. Finally, Republic Act (RA) 2260 [33] imposed no period within which appointments were attested to by local government treasurers to whom the CSC delegated its authority to act on personnel actions but provided that if within 180 days after receipt of said appointments, the CSC shall not have made any correction or revision, then such appointments shall be deemed to have been properly made. Consequently, it was only under PD 807 that submission of appointments for approval by the CSC was subjected to a 30-day period. That, however, has been lifted and abandoned by EO 292. There being no requirement in EO 292 that appointments should be submitted to the CSC for attestation within 30 days from issuance, it is doubtful by w