Abolition of office must be in good faith
A valid order of abolition must not only come from a legitimate body, it must also be made in good faith. An abolition is made in good faith when it is not made for political or personal reasons, or when it does not circumvent the constitutional security of tenure of civil service employees. Abolition of an office may be brought about by reasons of economy, or to remove redundancy of functions, or a clear and explicit constitutional mandate for such termination of employment. Where one office is abolished and replaced with another office vested with similar functions, the abolition is a legal nullity. When there is a void abolition, the incumbent is deemed to have never ceased holding office.
The Supreme Court has also held that, other than the aforestated reasons of
economy, making the bureaucracy more efficient is also indicative of the
exercise of good faith in, and a valid purpose for, the abolition of an
office.
In one case, the Supreme Court ruled that the purpose for the abolition of the
ATO is clearly manifested in Section 2 of R.A. No. 9497:
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. – It is hereby declared the policy of the State to provide safe and efficient air transport and regulatory services in the Philippines by providing for the creation of a civil aviation authority with jurisdiction over the restructuring of the civil aviation system, the promotion, development and regulation of the technical, operational, safety, and aviation security functions under the civil aviation authority. (Emphasis supplied)
It cannot be disregarded that in January 2008, before the enactment of R.A.
No. 9497, the Philippines was again downgraded by the FAA to a Category 2
status because of air safety regulations, practices and personnel which fell
below the ICAO’s standards. Hence, it is but reasonable to state that the
purpose for the abolition of the ATO, as posited by petitioner itself, was “to
create a much more effective Agency in order to address the problems that go
along with the fast emerging developments in the field of the
globally-competitive aviation industry.”
On the other hand,
circumstances evidencing bad faith are enumerated in Section 2 of R.A. No.
6656 which provides:
SEC. 2. No officer or employee in the career service shall be removed except for a valid cause and after due notice and hearing. A valid cause for removal exists when, pursuant to a bona fide reorganization, a position has been abolished or rendered redundant or there is a need to merge, divide, or consolidate positions in order to meet the exigencies of the service, or other lawful causes allowed by the Civil Service Law. The existence of any or some of the following circumstances may be considered as evidence of bad faith in the removals made as a result of reorganization, giving rise to a claim for reinstatement or reappointment by an aggrieved party:
Petitioner posits that abolition of an office cannot have the effect of
removing an officer holding it if the office is restored under another name.
However, the Supreme Court found no bad faith in the abolition of the ATO as
the latter was not simply restored in another name in the person of the
CAAP.
ATO was merely a sectoral office of the Department of
Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and as such acted within the
supervision of the latter and budgeted under it. As Section 2 of E.O. No.
125-A, series of 1987 deleted Section 12 of E.O. No. 125, series of 1987 which
delineated the functions of the former BAT, we rely on R.A. No. 776 in citing
the functions of the CAA which were succeeded by the ATO through the powers
and duties of the CAA Administrator.