The Supreme Court (SC) was asked to declare void and unconstitutional a Civil Service Commission (CSC) circular that prohibits government personnel from engaging in partisan political activities for the 2025 mid-term elections.

Challenged in a petition was CSC Memorandum Circular No. 03-2025, an amplification of the Commission on Election (Comelec)-CSC Joint Circular 001-2016.

The petition was filed on Friday, April 25, by former Bayan Muna congressman Ferdinand R. Gaite, and Santiago Dasmarinas, president of the Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees (Courage).

They also asked the SC to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) that would stop immediately the enforcement of the challenged circulars.

Named respondents were the CSC and the Comelec.

The campaign period for both national and local candidates will end on May 10 or two days before the May 12, 2025 elections.

Under the joint 2016 Comelec-CSC circular, the prohibited activities of government personnel are:

“Forming organizations, associations, clubs, committees, or other groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign for or against a candidate/party.

“Holding political caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades, or other similar assemblies for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign for or against a candidate/party.

“Making speeches, announcements, commentaries or holding interviews for or against the election of any candidate/party for public office; d. Publishing, displaying, or distributing campaign literature or materials designed to support or oppose the election of any candidate/party.

“Directly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges, or support for or against a candidate/party.

“Being a delegate to any political convention, or a member of any political committee or directorate, or an officer of any political club or other similar political organizations.

“Receiving any contributions for political purposes, either directly or indirectly.

“Becoming publicly identified with the success or failure of any candidate/s or party or parties. 

“Wearing of t-shirts or pins, caps, or any other similar election paraphernalia bearing the names of the candidates or political party except as authorized by the Commission on Elections.

“Being a watcher for a political party or candidate during the election.

“Consistent presence in political rallies, caucuses of, and continuous companionship with certain political candidates and/or political parties in said political activities, causing the employee to be closely identified with such candidate and/or political party/

“Giving personal, financial, or other monetary contribution, supplies, equipment, and materials for the benefit of a candidate and/or political party.

“Utilizing government resources such as personnel, including job orders or contract of service hires, time, and properties for political purposes.

At the same time, the joint circular stated that social media functions such as “liking,” “comment,” “sharing,” “re-posting,” or following a candidate’s or party’s account are considered as “partisan political activity” if these are resorted to as means to solicit support for or against a candidate or party during the campaign period.

It also stated: “The prohibited activities may be committed not only during but also outside office hours for the duration of the campaign period. It may also be committed even outside office premises.”

The prohibitions in the circular apply even when government personnel are on leave of absence.

Violation of the provisions of the joint circular is punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense and dismissal from the service for the second offense. 

In their petition, the SC was told that “while the assailed issuances mention the 1987 Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, the Administrative Code, and the Local Government Code, the assailed acts deemed by the CSC and the Comelec to be included within the scope of partisan political activity exceeds the constitutional and statutory guidelines they seek to implement.”

They pointed out that the 1987 Constitution “only prohibited civil servants from engaging in partisan political activity, which is, as defined by the Omnibus Election Code, only those activities which are ‘designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to a public office.’” But, they said, “the assailed activities already encroach upon protected rights and are ultra vires (beyond the powers).

The petitioners also told the SC:

“The Omnibus Election Code, the Administrative Code, and the Local Government Code, expressly stated that public expressions or opinions on issues in an election, are not partisan political activity and thus allowed of civil servants. 

“The Administrative Code, and the Local Government Code further expressly allowed the mention of names of candidate/s the civil servant support/s.

“This shows that although there is a prohibition against partisan political activities for civil service employees, it did not remove their freedom of speech even during election period.

“On one hand, social media functions such as liking, comment, sharing, re-posting, or following a candidate’s or party’s account, as described by the Supreme Court in Disini vs. Executive Secretary ‘are essentially knee-jerk sentiments of readers who may think little or haphazardly of their response to the original posting.’

“On the other, assuming that the act of subscribing to accounts/pages of candidates, even the acts of liking, sharing, comment, etc., are deliberate on the part of the user and not merely haphazard, such act is protected speech considering that the Administrative Code and the Local Government Code expressly allow mentioning the name/s of candidate/s whom the civil servant support/s. 

“The act of subscribing to accounts/pages of candidates, even the acts of liking, sharing, comment, are ways of ‘mentioning’ to the public the preferred candidates of the civil servant.

“The regulation violates the right to information, as it infringes upon the right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern under Article III, Section 7, of the 1987 Constitution.

“All told, there is chilling effect on the part of government employees resulting from these vague and overbroad provisions.

“Government employees are silenced out of fear of possible sanctions.

“The penalties for the violation of the 2025 CSC Circular and the Comelec-CSC Joint Circular are serious and grave, as it involves dismissal from service, perpetual disqualification from holding public office or taking the civil service examinations, and imprisonment.”