Keeping up with the Times: The New and Improved Civil Service Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service

by: Atty. Miguel Generoso S. Valencia and Antonio Sebastian O. Rosales | October 3, 2025

Government employees, branches, agencies and Government-owned and controlled corporations in Civil Service assume a pivotal role in the delivery of essential government assistance and operations to constituents around the country. Having assumed such vital roles in our country, keeping said individuals and entities responsible and accountable to the Filipino people, is undoubtedly of primordial importance. Regrettably, while this may be the goal, it is not always our reality. A complex administrative culture where the noble principle of "public office is a public trust," as enshrined in our Constitution, often clashes with the frustrating reality of slow-moving papers and the persistent specter of the "palakasan" system. 

How, then, do we ensure this trust is not just a high-minded ideal but a lived reality? The Civil Service Commission (“CSC” or “Commission”) is the primary institution tasked with this monumental challenge, and its rules of procedure are the tools it uses to ensure fairness, discipline, and integrity. With the release of the 2025 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (“2025 RACCS”), the Commission is not just updating a manual; it is making a bold statement about the future of governance, while embracing the shift towards speedier and more efficient administration of justice, through the synthesis of recent legislation, landmark Supreme Court cases and recent CSC policies. This new framework aims to untangle procedural knots and utilize technological advancements to make it more responsive to the demand for speedy, fair and judicious disposition of cases.

Material improvements introduced by the 2025 RACCS include: 1) Integration of Recent Legislation, Landmark Cases and recent CSC policies; 2) Digital Improvements; 3) Structural Reformation and Governance Controls Leading to More Efficient Docket Management.[1]         

Integration of Recent Legislation, Landmark Cases and CSC Policies

To keep up with the times and the shift to speedy and efficient disposition of cases, the 2025 RACCS has made it a point to integrate existing laws such as Republic Act No. 11032, Ease of Doing Business Act and Efficient Government Service Delivery Act of 2018 (“RA 11032”), as well as Republic Act No.  9285 (“RA 9285”), the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004.

The 2025 RACCS now explicitly states that the CSC and its regional offices exercise original jurisdiction over complaints against government employees for violations of special laws, such as RA 11032.[2] Notably, RA 11032 provides for strict timelines that government officers and employees must abide by in delivering access to government services to the public – evidently placing further importance on the prevention of delay.[3] 

The 2025 RACCS has likewise integrated the conduct of mediation proceedings in accordance with RA 9285. If the offense alleged in the Complaint may be the subject of settlement, and the person complained of opts for a settlement, the disciplining authority or its authorized representative shall assign the case to a mediation officer within the agency who shall issue an order requiring the appearance of the parties to a conference.[4] The mediation proceedings shall observe the provisions of RA 9285, specifically under Chapter 2 thereof.[5] 

In addition to the aforementioned laws, the 2025 RACCS has aptly synthesized recent rulings by the Supreme Court in the cases of BIR v. Gan-Lim,[6] Gatchalian v. Urrutia,[7] and Flores-Concepcion v. Castañeda.[8] In said cases, the highest court of the land: 1) elucidated on the doctrine of implication – empowering certain public officials such as mayors, to discipline erring subordinate officials through means such as suspension;[9] 2) stated that the act of suspension as a preventive measure, following the service of a formal charge, is merely part and parcel of the investigation process, and is not in the nature of a penalty;[10] 3) instructed that the Court’s disciplinary powers must always be read alongside the guarantee of any respondent’s fundamental rights.[11] 

As seen in the above cases, the 2025 RACCS also refines the rules on preventive suspension, clarifying its nature as a precautionary measure rather than a penalty.[12] The new rules establish a stringent two-pronged test for its issuance: first, the charge must involve a grave offense punishable by dismissal (such as serious dishonesty or grave misconduct), and second, the respondent must be in a position to exert undue influence on witnesses or tamper with evidence.[13] By explicitly enumerating circumstances that constitute "undue influence," the rules provide a clearer, more objective standard for disciplining authorities, thereby minimizing the potential for this powerful tool to be used arbitrarily. Furthermore, the introduction of reassignment to another unit as an alternative to preventive suspension offers a less disruptive yet equally effective means of preserving the integrity of an investigation.[14] This demonstrates a more nuanced understanding of administrative discipline.

All in all, the above doctrines shall serve as additional accountability mechanisms while simultaneously safeguarding any respondent government employee’s fundamental rights. 

Another area worth emphasizing in the 2025 RACCS is its comprehensive and robust framework for handling sexual harassment cases. The new rules go far beyond the previous regulations by directly integrating the principles and definitions found in Republic Act No. 11313, the “Safe Spaces Act”, and the Revised Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases[15] The 2025 RACCS recognizes sexual harassment not only in the traditional workplace context but also in streets, public spaces, and online.[16] This expansion recognizes that a public servant’s misconduct is not confined to the four walls of their office and that accountability extends to all spheres of their interaction with the public. The rules mandate the creation of a Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI) in every government agency, empowering it as the primary mechanism for investigating these cases.[17] To prevent conflicts of interest and ensure impartiality, the CSC is granted jurisdiction if, among other reasons, the agency has no CODI, or the disciplining authority is the one being complained of, or if there is an unreasonable delay in the agency’s investigation.[18] This provides a crucial check and balance.             

Digital Improvements

As an acknowledgement of the realities of the modern world, the 2025 RACCS embraces technology and introduces mechanisms to make docket management more efficient. The rules formally sanction the use of virtual hearings when in-person clarificatory meetings, pre-hearing conferences, or hearings are not possible due to national emergencies or unforeseen events,[19] expressly integrating the Adoption of Virtual Hearing in the Civil Service Commission and its Regional Offices,[20] a necessary adaptation learned from the challenges of recent global events. Pleadings and notices may also be filed or served by electronic mail where allowed, subject to the applicable electronic filing rules. These changes positions the CSC to handle cases more flexibly as well as minimizes scheduling and logistical challenges.

Structural Reformation and Governance Controls Leading to More Efficient Docket Management

In parallel with the move towards a digital-first approach, the CSC also introduced reforms to promote speedier disposition of cases, thereby keeping justice accessible to every 'Juan' in the civil service.

Another significant innovation is the delegation of authority to the Assistant Commissioner for Legal to dismiss cases based on specific technical grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction or mootness.[21] This administrative filtering mechanism will allow the Commission to focus its adjudicatory resources on more substantive and complex cases, contributing to a speedier administration of justice and better utilizing the CSC’s time and resources.

The CSC has likewise coursed the investigation of CSC officials and employees, both in the central office and the regional offices, except the CSC Chairperson and 2 Commissioners, through the Internal Affairs Board, a new mechanism built to optimize the management of the CSC’s docket.

The CSC appears to strike a balance by ensuring that while frivolous delays are prevented, the respondent’s right to answer the charges comprehensively remains intact. The rules also formalized pre-hearing conferences, making it a mandatory step to facilitate the stipulation of facts, simplification of issues, and identification of evidence.[22] This structured approach, borrowed from judicial proceedings, aims to make the formal investigation process more focused and efficient, preventing rambling inquiries and allowing the hearing officer to focus on the core issues of the case.

The 2025 RACCS likewise introduces a more humanistic and rehabilitative approach to administrative justice. It institutionalized mediation and settlement for certain light offenses that are purely personal in nature, such as borrowing money from subordinates or willful failure to pay just debts.[23] While strictly limited in scope to prevent the compromise of public interest, this provision acknowledges that not all administrative infractions warrant the full force of a formal investigation.

With greater emphasis placed on the timely performance of one’s duties, the adoption of digital procedures and the creation of internal bodies to streamline the management of the CSC’s docket, the 2025 RACCS undoubtedly has made the speedy and efficient disposition of cases a glaring priority.

Conclusion

The 2025 RACCS is more than a document; it is a direct response to the persistent and highly publicized challenges plaguing our civil service. Take, for example, the Ombudsman's recent preventive suspension of 16 officials and employees from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) over alleged "ghost" flood control projects in Bulacan.[24] Recalling the news reports of erring law enforcement officials involved in misconduct, the necessity for clearer rules on preventive suspension and due process becomes painfully obvious. The 2025 RACCS’s strengthened rules on grave misconduct and preventive suspension are designed to decisively address such high-level irregularities. These rules are not abstract legal theories, they are the government’s updated arsenal meant to fortify accountability in the ongoing battle for integrity. The real measure of success, however, lies not in the written rules but in how these rules are wielded by disciplining authorities and how vigilantly the public, armed with this new knowledge, demands their enforcement. The 2025 RACCS charts a clear course towards a civil service that is not only efficient and disciplined but also fundamentally just, fair, and humane, aspiring to finally make the constitutional promise of public trust, a tangible reality for all Filipinos.

[1] Republic of the Philippines Civil Service Commission, CSC Revises Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, available at https://www.csc.gov.ph/csc-revises-rules-on-administrative-cases-in-the-civil-service#:~:text=Published:%2024%20July%202025,integration%20of%20laws%20such%20 as: (last accessed September 24, 2025).

[2] 2025 CSC RACCS, Rule 2, sec. 7(A)(1)(d) and Rule 2, sec. (8)(A)(1)(b). 

[3] Republic Act No. 11032, sec. 9.

[4] 2025 CSC RACCS, Rule 11, sec. 76.

[5] Republic Act No. 9285, sec. 7-17.

[6] BIR v. Gan-Lim, G.R. No. 254939, March 3, 2021 [Per J. Rosario, Second Division].

[7] Gatchalian v. Urrutia, G.R. No. 223595, March 16, 2022 [Per J. Hernando, Second Division].

[8] Concepcion v. Judge Castañeda, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2438, September 2, 2020 [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].

[9] Gatchalian v. Urrutia, G.R. No. 223595, March 16, 2022 [Per J. Hernando, Second Division].

[10] BIR v. Gan-Lim, G.R. No. 254939, March 3, 2021 [Per J. Rosario, Second Division].

[11] Concepcion v. Judge Castañeda, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2438, September 2, 2020 [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].

[12] 2025 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Rule 7, Sec. 32.

[13] 2025 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Rule 7, Sec. 34

[14] 2025 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Rule 7, Sec. 36.

[15] CSC Memorandum Circular No. 11, s, 2021

[16] 2025 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Rule 10, Sec. 64.

[17] 2025 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Rule 3, Sec. 16.

[18] 2025 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Rule 3, Sec. 18.

[19] 2025 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Rule 8, Sec. 52.

[20] CSC Resolution No. 2100420 dated 2 June 2021

[21] 2025 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Rule 9, Sec. 59.

[22] 2025 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Rule 8, Sec. 42.

[23] 2025 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Rule 11, Sec. 75.

[24] Ombudsman issues preventive suspension against 16 DPWH personnel, Office of the Ombudsman, September 19, 2025, available at https://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/ombudsman-issues-preventive-suspension-against-16-dpwh-personnel/ (last accessed September 25, 2025).

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Firm or any of its partners. This article shall not be construed as official legal advice from the Firm. 

Atty. Miguel Generoso S. Valencia is a lawyer who earned his Bachelor of Arts in Economics, with a Minor in Japanese Studies, and his Juris Doctor degree from Ateneo de Manila University.

Antonio Sebastian O. Rosales is a paralegal who earned his Bachelor of Science in Legal Management from De La Salle University. He is currently pursuing his Juris Doctor degree at the University of Santo Tomas.

For further inquiries, please contact counsel@dargonlawfirm.com or call (02) 8426-1837.