Letter to a Lawyer

Dear Attorney,

Good evening! May I kindly seek your clarification regarding the tenure and nature of appointment of appointive officials in local government units (LGUs)?

Specifically, the Local Government Code of the Philippines states that the positions of the Legal Officer, the Administrator, and the Information Officer are coterminous with the appointing authority. However, it appears that the Code is silent or less explicit about the tenure of other appointive officials.

Does this mean that all other appointive officials are also coterminous by implication, or could their tenure differ based on other laws or regulations? I hope you can provide guidance on this matter, as well as a thorough explanation of the legal framework governing this concern.

Thank you so much for your time and expertise.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Citizen

Coterminous Nature of Appointive Officials in Local Government Units: A Detailed Legal Analysis

The tenure of appointive officials in local government units (LGUs) in the Philippines is a complex subject governed primarily by the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160), supplemented by applicable civil service laws, regulations, and jurisprudence. The question of whether all appointive officials are coterminous with the appointing authority requires a careful examination of statutory provisions, administrative guidelines, and legal precedents.

Legal Framework

1. The Local Government Code of 1991
The Local Government Code (LGC) categorizes local government officials into elective and appointive positions. While elective officials are directly chosen by the people and have fixed terms, the tenure of appointive officials is determined by statutory provisions, appointment orders, or administrative issuances.

Specifically, the LGC identifies certain appointive positions as coterminous with the appointing authority. Section 478 (Local Government Operations Officer), Section 480 (Administrator), and Section 481 (Legal Officer) explicitly state that these positions are coterminous. For example, the Local Government Code states:

Administrator (Section 480): "The term of the administrator is coterminous with that of the appointing authority."
Legal Officer (Section 481): "The term of the legal officer shall be coterminous with that of the appointing authority."
Information Officer (Section 486): "The term of office of the information officer shall be coterminous with that of the appointing authority."

The explicit inclusion of these roles clarifies their coterminous nature.

2. Civil Service Commission (CSC) Rules
Beyond the LGC, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) provides additional classifications for appointive positions, which include:

Career Service: Appointees in career service positions enjoy security of tenure and are typically not coterminous unless otherwise specified.
Non-Career Service: Appointees in non-career positions may be coterminous with the appointing authority or based on project or contractual terms.

The Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource Actions (ORAOHRA) issued by the CSC categorizes appointments as:

Coterminous with the Appointing Authority
Coterminous with a Specific Project
Coterminous with a Specific Function
Contractual

The nature of the appointment must be explicitly stated in the appointment document.

3. Jurisprudence and Legal Interpretation
The Supreme Court has clarified the tenure of appointive officials in several cases. For instance:

In Achacoso v. Macaraig (1991), the Court underscored the rule that appointive positions may either be permanent or coterminous, depending on the terms of appointment.
In Paredes v. Executive Secretary (2005), the Court reiterated that coterminous appointments automatically terminate upon the cessation of the appointing authority's term.

4. Legal Silence and Presumption
For positions not explicitly described as coterminous in the LGC, the presumption is that their tenure depends on the terms of appointment and the applicable civil service rules. If the appointing authority issues an appointment order stating that the position is coterminous, it becomes legally binding.

Implications and Analysis

1. Are All Appointive Officials Coterminous by Default?
No, not all appointive officials are coterminous with the appointing authority. The default presumption under the civil service laws is that appointive positions are permanent unless explicitly stated otherwise in law, appointment orders, or rules.

For example, technical or career service positions such as engineers, health officers, or agricultural officers may be permanent appointments unless the terms explicitly specify coterminous status.

2. Significance of Coterminous Appointments
Coterminous appointments are inherently tied to the authority or entity that created the position. Common scenarios include:

Political appointments where continuity of trust and confidence is crucial.
Project-based or time-limited functions tied to specific government initiatives.

3. Risks and Legal Challenges
Issues may arise if the terms of appointment are ambiguous. Inconsistent use of appointment classifications can lead to disputes, particularly when appointees challenge termination after a change in administration.

4. Best Practices for LGUs and Appointive Officials
To mitigate disputes:

LGUs should ensure that appointment orders explicitly state the tenure and nature of the position.
Appointees should seek clarification on the terms of their appointment to avoid uncertainty.

Conclusion

The tenure of appointive officials in LGUs is governed by the interplay of the Local Government Code, civil service rules, and jurisprudence. While the LGC explicitly identifies certain officials as coterminous, it does not universally apply this rule to all appointive positions. Instead, the nature of each position depends on the terms of appointment and applicable laws.

To determine whether a specific appointive position is coterminous, one must examine the appointment order, statutory provisions, and CSC rules. Legal clarity in these areas promotes accountability, professionalism, and effective governance in local government units.