Practice question
Tomas holds a permanent career executive position. In an administrative case before the President, stipulated to be the competent disciplining authority, Tomas receives notice and a meaningful opportunity to answer. A finding of a statutory disciplinary offense is supported by the required evidence, and the penalty of removal is stipulated to be authorized and proportionate. Tomas argues that career security makes him absolutely irremovable even under these facts. Which response is best?
- His argument fails: career security protects against unlawful removal but does not bar authorized discipline for established legal cause after due process
- He is correct because all career positions are held for life regardless of misconduct
- He is correct because only criminal convictions can ever constitute administrative cause
- His argument fails solely because every presidential appointee serves at pleasure
- He is correct because notice itself deprives the authority of jurisdiction
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article IX-B, Section 2(3), civil-service protection against suspension or removal without legal cause: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/3/353
- Executive Order No. 292, Administrative Code of 1987, Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 7, Section 46(a), legal cause and due process: https://lawphil.net/executive/execord/eo1987/eo_292_1987.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.