The Commission subsequently adopted and promul¬gated rules intended to carry the law into effect, known as the Revised Civil Service Rules. Those rules were published in the supplement to Vol. 58, No. 49 of the Official Gazette, dated December 3, 1962.
Section 5, Rule VI of those Revised Civil Service Rules provided that:
"SEC. 5. No person shall be appointed or reinstated in the service if he is already 57 years old, unless the President of the Philippines, President of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives, or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as the case may be, determines that he possesses special qualifications and his services are needed."
It is worthy of note, however, that the statute itself (RA 2260) contained no provision prohibiting appointment or reinstatement in the Government service of any person who was already 57 years old, or otherwise requiring that some limitation as regards to age be placed on employment in the Government service. This prohibition was purely a creation of the Civil Service Commission.
x x xIn any event, the provision on 57-year old persons in the Revised Civil Service Rules (under said RA 2260) cannot be accorded validity. As already pointed out, it is entirely a creation of the Civil Service Commission, having no basis in the law itself which it was meant to implement. It cannot be related to or connected with any specific provision of the law which it is meant to carry into effect, such as a requirement, for instance, that age should be reckoned as a factor in the employment or reinstatement of an individual, or a direction that there be a determination of some point in a person's life at which he becomes unemployable, or employable only under specific conditions. It was therefore an unauthorized act of legislation on the part of the Civil Service Commission. It cannot be justified as a valid exercise of its function of promulgating rules and regulations for that function, to repeat, may legitimately be exercised only for the purpose of carrying the provisions of the law into effect; and since there is no prohibition or restriction on the employment of 57-year old persons in the statute -- or any provision respecting age as a factor in employment -- there was nothing to carry into effect through an implementing rule on the matter.
The power vested in the Civil Service Commission was to implement the law or put it into effect, not to add to it; to carry the law into effect or execution, not to supply perceived omissions in it. "By its administrative regulations, of course, the law itself can not be extended; said regulations 'cannot amend an act of Congress.'" (Teoxon v. Members of the Board of Administrators, Philippine Veterans Administration, 33 SCRA 585, 589 , citing Santos v. Estenzo, 109 Phil. 419 ; see also, Animos v. Philippine Veterans Affairs Office, 174 SCRA 214, 223-224  in turn citing Teoxon).
[ G.R. Nos. 92646-47, October 04, 1991 ]
AUGUSTO TOLEDO, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENTS.