SC rules on CHR nepotism case

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld a ruling by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) that the daughter of a Commission on Human Rights (CHR) commissioner cannot serve in the same agency as her father because it would violate the government’s rule against nepotism.

In a five-page April 23 decision penned by Associate Justice Roberto Abad, the SC’s Third Division ruled that Maricelle Cortes’ 2008 appointment as Information Officer 5 at the CHR by the commission acting as a whole is covered by the prohibition on nepotism because her father is CHR commissioner Eligio Mallari.

“Mallari’s abstention from voting did not cure the nepotistic character of the appointment because the evil sought to be avoided by the prohibition still exists. His mere presence during the deliberation for the appointment… created an impression of influence and cast doubt on the impartiality and neutrality of the commission en banc,” the SC said.

Mallari is no longer with the CHR, while it is unclear whether Cortes is still with the same agency.

The SC ruling also reversed the decisions by the Court of Appeals (CA) favoring Cortes over the CSC.

According to court records, the CHR issued a resolution on Feb. 19, 2008 approving Cortes’ appointment, but with Mallari abstaining from voting and requesting the CHR to render an opinion on the legality of her appointment.

The CHR’s then legal division chief, Efraim Lamorena, issued a memorandum on March 31, 2008, stating that Cortes’ appointment was not covered by the rule on nepotism because the appointing authority, the commission has a personality distinct and separate from its members.

However, then CHR chair Purificacion Valera Quisumbing sent Cortes a letter on the same day instructing her not to assume her position because her appointment was not yet complete.

CHR-National Capital Region director Velda Cornelio, who conducted an investigation, told Quisumbing that Cortes’ appointment was not valid because it was covered by the rule on nepotism under Section 9 of the Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions.

Cornelio said Mallari is considered an appointing authority with respect to his daughter even if he is a mere member of the commission. 

Cortes appealed Cornelio’s ruling but her plea was denied on Sept. 30, 2008. She filed a petition for review on Nov. 24, 2008 before the CSC, which denied her plea on March 2, 2010 and her motion for reconsideration on July 12, 2010.

In a letter dated Aug. 10, 2010, CHR commissioner and officer-in-charge Ma. Victoria Cardona terminated Cortes’ services effective Aug. 4, 2010.

On Aug. 16, 2010, Cortes filed a petition for review with the CA and asked for a temporary restraining order. The CA nullified the CSC’s two rulings and ordered that Cortes be reinstated.

When the appellate court denied the CSC’s motion for reconsideration in 2012, the CSC elevated the case to the SC.