The drama and dangers of courtesy resignations

ON Sept. 17, 2004, then Civil Service Commission (CSC) chairman Karina Constantino-David issued Circular 1 which enforced Resolution 549 passed by the Career Executive Service Board (CESB) dated Aug. 10, 2004. The resolution reiterated CSC Resolution 011782 that took effect on Dec. 6, 2001.

In that Circular 1, the CSC defined resignation as legally referring to the act of giving up or the act of an employee declining his/ her office and renouncing the further right to use it. Resignation has two prerequisites. There should be a clear intent to relinquish or surrender one’s position, and this is perfected by a concomitant act of relinquishment. The CESB cited in Resolution 549 the ruling by the Supreme Court in Ortiz v. Comelec (GR 78957, June 28, 1988) when it decreed that “a courtesy resignation cannot properly be interpreted as resignation in the legal sense for it is not necessarily a reflection of a public official’s intention to surrender his position.”

The CSC posited that what is construed as courtesy resignation presupposes the existence of force, coercion, duress or undue influence. The reason why the CSC issued the policy directive was because of several complaints from employees who were asked to tender courtesy resignations, and the numerous allegations that this amounted to forced resignation and illegal termination. David was even quoted as describing the practice as “anathema to the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure.” Circular 1 deemed as null and void any official order or directive that required the tendering of courtesy resignation.

It should be made clear that the above CSC policy applied only to rank-and-file civil service employees, and not to presidential appointees. On Aug. 22, 2016, President Rodrigo Duterte, through then executive secretary Salvador Medialdia, issued Memorandum Circular 4 directing all presidential appointees to tender courtesy resignations. Exempted from the order were newly appointed Cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries and assistant secretaries; officials in state universities and colleges, and in government-owned and -controlled corporations; officials in the judiciary; officials in constitutional agencies; and career officials as defined by the Civil Service laws, rules and regulations. Officials from the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police were not included in the exemptions, and would be subjected to a separate procedure.

Courtesy resignations became an issue recently when Interior and Local Government Secretary Benjamin Abalos Jr. directed PNP officers with the rank of full colonel and general to tender courtesy resignations as part of the government’s attempt to clean up the ranks of the police of those involved in drugs, whether in the drug trade or as users, or both. The CSC, in a statement published on Jan. 10, 2023, declared that these officers were presidential appointees, hence their appointment to the government service is not attested to by the CSC and outside the purview of the CSC and its disciplinary jurisdiction.

Thus, there is no legal impediment in Abalos’ move, and the series of policy issuances by the CSC would not be applicable. However, being legal is totally different from being rational. It is instructive to take note of what the court said in GR 78957 when it ruled that “[a] stringent interpretation of courtesy resignations must therefore be observed, particularly in cases involving constitutional officials like the petitioner whose removal from office entails an impeachment proceeding. For even if working for the government is regarded as no more than a privilege, discharge for disloyalty or for doubt about loyalty may involve such legal rights as those in reputation and eligibility for other employment.”

Asking for a mass courtesy resignation, when premised on the possible commission of an offense that can even amount to a criminal act, such as involvement in drug-related activities, is already casting a cloud of suspicion on anyone, and is in fact a patent violation of the due process rights of these officials. The court correctly cautioned us to be circumspect in using courtesy resignations, in that generically it may somewhat have erosive effects on people’s reputation. What happened to the PNP officials is even worse, since courtesy the resignations demanded were predicated on the possible commission of a crime.

Some would say that if one is innocent, then there is nothing to fear. But this is easier said for people who are not the ones asked to tender their resignation, and whose professional lives will now be put on temporary hold pending an investigation. The mere act of being investigated already casts a pall of suspicion.

It behooves us to ask why Abalos should resort to this kind of drama, and in the process risk demoralizing the ranks. In the face of grumblings in military ranks emanating from career-related gripes, the government should have been extra careful not to further fuel discontent among members of another uniformed branch.

The more prudent way would have been to gather evidence against those suspected to be involved in drug-related activities. And if Abalos wants to widen the scope, he could very well have ordered a wider coverage for the investigations. It would have been easier to file administrative and criminal cases when evidence rose to the level of probable cause, in which the suspected officers would then be placed under preventive suspension.

What is even problematic when top-ranked police officials are asked to tender courtesy resignations, is the implication on the operations of the PNP, specifically as to whether those who resigned still have the legal authority of their offices.

It is odd that an organization like the PNP, whose main job is to gather evidence in relation to the commission of a criminal activity, would be unable to produce enough evidence against their own people to warrant the filing of cases. There is something wrong when in lieu of good investigative work and intelligence gathering prior to the filing of cases, what we have instead is the drama of courtesy resignations prior to an honest investigation.