One-Year Ban on Appointments for Losing Candidates: Understanding the Restrictions

The Constitution and the Local Government Code prohibit losing candidates from being appointed to any government office within one year after the election. A recent Supreme Court ruling clarifies that this ban applies broadly—even to contractual engagements that do not require an oath of office.

In Macalino v. Commission on Audit (G.R. No. 253199, November 14, 2023), the Court En Banc affirmed the disallowance of salaries paid to a losing vice mayoralty candidate who was hired as a Legal Officer II under a contract of service less than a year after his electoral defeat. The ruling reinforces the strict application of the one-year prohibition and holds the recipient solidarily liable for the disallowed amount.

The Facts of the Case

Raul F. Macalino ran for vice mayor of San Fernando City, Pampanga, in the May 2013 elections and lost. On July 1, 2013—less than two months later—the Municipal Government of Mexico, Pampanga, engaged him under a contract of service as Legal Officer II, with a monthly salary of PHP 26,125.00.

The Commission on Audit (COA) disallowed the payment of PHP 149,015.00 representing Macalino's wages and Personnel Economic Relief Assistance (PERA) from July to December 2013. COA ruled that the payment violated the constitutional and statutory prohibition on appointing losing candidates within one year of an election. Macalino appealed, arguing that his engagement was merely a contract of service, not a government appointment, and that he did not take an oath of office.

The Legal Prohibition

Article IX-B, Section 6 of the Constitution states:

No candidate who has lost in any election shall, within one year after such election, be appointed to any office in the Government or any government-owned or controlled corporations or in any of their subsidiaries.

The Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160) provides the same prohibition, with a narrow exception for losing candidates in barangay elections.

The Court applied the plain-meaning rule (verba legis), holding that the language of these provisions is clear and unambiguous. Where the law does not distinguish, the courts should not distinguish. The prohibition applies to all losing candidates regardless of the position, the nature of the appointment, or the place where the appointment was made.

Contract of Service Does Not Escape the Ban

Macalino argued that his engagement under a contract of service—which did not require an oath of office—fell outside the scope of "appointment" under the Constitution. The Court rejected this argument as contrary to the clear mandate of the law.

The Court noted that Macalino's functions under the contract were essentially the same as those of a regular plantilla Legal Officer of a local government unit. The contract itself certified that the duties pertained to a vacant regular plantilla position. This meant the hiring also violated the Civil Service Commission's policy prohibiting the hiring of personnel to perform functions pertaining to vacant regular plantilla positions under contracts of service.

The Court likewise rejected Macalino's claim that he was merely a consultant. His duties—formulating measures for the Sanggunian, developing legal services plans, and performing related legal services as directed—went beyond the advisory role of a consultant.

No Recovery Under Quantum Meruit

The Court applied the guidelines from Torreta v. Commission on Audit (G.R. No. 242925, November 10, 2020) on the return of disallowed amounts. Under these rules, approving and certifying officers who acted in good faith are not civilly liable, while those who acted with bad faith or gross negligence are solidarily liable with recipients.

Macalino argued that he should be allowed to recover under the principle of quantum meruit—that is, the reasonable value of services actually rendered. The Court refused, emphasizing that quantum meruit was never intended to sanction manifest violations of the Constitution or clear public policy. As a lawyer, Macalino was presumed to know the law. The contracting parties were skirting the constitutional prohibition by using a contractual engagement in lieu of a government appointment.

Quoting the principle that "equity follows the law," the Court held that allowing recovery under a constitutionally infirm contract would effectively sanction a breach of the fundamental law. Macalino was ordered to return the full disallowed amount of PHP 149,015.00, solidarily with the approving and certifying officers.

Practical Takeaways

• The one-year ban is absolute. A losing candidate cannot be appointed to any government position—whether permanent, temporary, contractual, or job order—within one year after the election where he or she lost.
• The ban applies nationwide. It does not matter if the appointment is in a different city or municipality from where the candidate ran and lost.
• Contractual engagements are not exempt. Hiring a losing candidate under a contract of service or as a "consultant" to perform regular government functions will not escape the constitutional prohibition.
• Lawyers cannot claim ignorance. Members of the bar are presumed to know the law, and courts will not apply equitable remedies like quantum meruit to aid those who knowingly circumvent constitutional prohibitions.
• Local governments must exercise caution. Officials who approve appointments of losing candidates within the prohibited period risk personal civil liability for the disallowed amounts.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.