FACTS:

On February 2, 1999, the COMELEC en banc appointed Ma. J. Angelina G. Matibag (the petitioner) as "Acting Director IV" of the EID. Her appointment was renewed in a "Temporary" capacity on February 15, 2000, by then Chairperson Harriet O. Demetriou, and again on February 15, 2001, by Commissioner Rufino S.B. Javier. On March 22, 2001, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appointed Alfredo L. Benipayo as COMELEC Chairman, and Resurreccion Z. Borra and Florentino A. Tuason, Jr. as COMELEC Commissioners, each for a term of seven years expiring on February 2, 2008. All three took their oaths of office and began their roles. However, their ad interim appointments were not acted upon by the Commission on Appointments before Congress adjourned, prompting President Arroyo to renew these appointments on June 1, 2001, and again on June 8, 2001. Benipayo, as COMELEC Chairman, issued a Memorandum on April 11, 2001, designating Velma J. Cinco as Officer-in-Charge of the EID and reassigning Matibag to the Law Department. Commissioner Mehol K. Sadain objected to Matibag's reassignment, citing a lack of consultation as required. Matibag requested reconsideration on April 16, 2001, citing prohibitions on transfers during the election period, but her request was denied. She appealed to the COMELEC en banc and also filed administrative and criminal complaints against Benipayo, alleging violations of election and civil service laws. While her complaint was pending, Matibag filed the instant petition, questioning the constitutionality of the appointments of Benipayo, Borra, and Tuason, and her reassignment. Additionally, she challenged the designation of Cinco and the legality of disbursements made to Benipayo, Borra, and Tuason as salaries and other emoluments. President Arroyo renewed the ad interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra, and Tuason again on September 6, 2001.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the instant petition satisfies all the requirements before this Court may exercise its power of judicial review in constitutional cases.

2. 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.

3. Assuming that the first ad interim appointments and the first assumption of office by Benipayo, Borra and Tuason are legal, whether or not the renewal of their ad interim appointments and subsequent assumption of office to the same positions violate the prohibition on reappointment under Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the Constitution.

4. 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.

5. 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.

RULING:

1. The petition satisfies the requirements for judicial review.

   • The Court ruled that the petitioner has a personal and material stake in the constitutional issue, satisfying the requirement of locus standi. The petition questioned the constitutionality of the ad interim appointments at the earliest opportunity before a competent body, the Supreme Court. Therefore, the constitutional issue is the lis mota of the case.

2. Ad interim appointments are not temporary appointments prohibited by the Constitution.

   • The Court held that an ad interim appointment is permanent in nature. Although subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, it remains effective until disapproved or until the next adjournment of Congress, and thus does not constitute a temporary or acting appointment prohibited by Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the Constitution.

3. Renewal of ad interim appointments does not violate the prohibition on reappointments.

   • The Court clarified that the prohibition on reappointments applies to those previously confirmed appointments, not to by-passed ad interim appointments. Renewals of ad interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra, and Tuason do not violate the Constitution as their appointments and terms do not exceed the seven-year limit.

4. Benipayo's authority to reassign petitioner is legal.

   • The Court ruled that Benipayo, as the de jure COMELEC Chairman, had the authority to transfer or reassign personnel under the Revised Administrative Code. The COMELEC Chair’s reassignment did not require approval of the COMELEC en banc and did not violate the Civil Service Law or Section 261 (h) of the Omnibus Election Code.

5. Disbursements to respondents were legal.

   • The Court held that the Officer-in-Charge of the Finance Services Department did not act in excess of jurisdiction in paying the salaries and other emoluments of Benipayo, Borra, Tuason, and Cinco.

PRINCIPLES:

1. Judicial Review Requirements For a petition to be considered, it must meet the requirements of an actual and appropriate controversy, personal and substantial interest, earliest opportunity for raising the issue, and that the constitutional issue is the lis mota.

2. Ad Interim Appointments These are permanent and not temporary appointments, effective until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress.

3. Prohibition on Reappointments This provision applies to those whose previous appointments have been confirmed. By-passed ad interim appointments can be renewed.

4. Authority of COMELEC Chairman The Chairman, as Chief Executive Officer, has the power to make temporary assignments, rotate and transfer personnel within the COMELEC without requiring approval from the COMELEC en banc.

5. Legality of Financial Disbursements Disbursement of salaries and emoluments to properly appointed and assumed officers is legal and within the jurisdiction of the responsible department officer.