No, its not what you’re thinking. The one on your mind right now might be the most popular meaning of the word intercourse but it also means communication or dealings with people. This case is all about the appointment or reappointment of a retired personnel in the same position she retired from.
CSC vs. Javier
Nita Javier was an employee of the GSIS for a long time and in 2001 she opted to retire from the service a little more than one year before her 65th birthday. She was the corporate secretary when she retired from service. In 2002, when she was already 64 years old, she was rehired by GSIS as its Corporate Secretary. The GSIS Board classified her position as confidential in nature and to serve at the pleasure of the Board. The Civil Service Commission, upon reviewing Javier’s appointment, declared the same to be invalid and the resolution of the Board declaring her position as confidential was meant to circumvent the provisions of the CSC rules. According to the CSC, the move of GSIS cannot be allowed because Javier’s appointment would make her occupy a government position beyond the age of 65 which is prohibited. The GSIS also made the appointment without any order or memorandum from the CSC declaring the position as confidential. The case went to the Court of Appeals which reversed the decision of the CSC and made a declaration that Javier’s position is indeed confidential. The CSC then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court on the issues of whether the Court can make a determination as to the nature of the position and ultimately whether Javier’s appointment is valid.
The Appointment is Valid
The Supreme Court said: “Jurisprudence establishes that the Court is not bound by the classification of positions in the civil service made by the legislative or executive branches, or even by a constitutional body like the petitioner. The Court is expected to make its own determination as to the nature of a particular position, such as whether it is a primarily confidential position or not, without being bound by prior classifications made by other bodies. The findings of the other branches of government are merely considered initial and not conclusive to the Court.” (G.R. No. 173264, 22 February 2008) Thus, the CSC does not have the exclusive power to make the classification of positions. Now on the whether the position is confidential or not, the Court stated that “it still stands that a position is primarily confidential when by the nature of the functions of the office there exists close intimacy between the appointee and appointing power which insures freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings of betrayals of personal trust or confidential matters of state.”
The position being a confidential one, Javier’s appointment is valid. The SC went on to say: “The responsibilities of the corporate secretary are not merely clerical or routinary in nature. The work involves constant exposure to sensitive policy matters and confidential deliberations that are not always open to the public, as unscrupulous persons may use them to harm the corporation. Board members must have the highest confidence in the secretary to ensure that their honest sentiments are always and fully expressed, in the interest of the corporation.” The CSC then was wrong in declaring the appointment of Javier as invalid. The position being confidential and not a career service, the GSIS was correct. Javier can then validly occupy her position even beyond the age of 65 and to serve at the pleasure of the Board.
