Why this topic matters

Personnel movements in local government units (LGUs)—especially reassignments, details, and transfers—can be weaponized to influence elections: moving “unfriendly” employees away from sensitive posts, packing field offices, disrupting local service delivery, or exerting pressure on government workers. Philippine election law and civil service rules therefore treat certain personnel actions as highly sensitive around elections, and impose special restrictions—most notably during the election period, but also with practical and legal risks for actions taken immediately before that period.

This article explains the full framework: what is prohibited, when restrictions start to bite, how the COMELEC approval regime works, how civil service protections apply, what liabilities attach, and how LGUs can remain compliant.

1) Core legal framework

A. COMELEC constitutional authority

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) is constitutionally empowered to enforce and administer election laws and to deputize government agencies and instrumentalities for election-related functions. This constitutional position is the reason COMELEC can impose binding restrictions on government personnel actions in connection with elections, and treat violations as election offenses when anchored on election law and duly-issued COMELEC rules.

B. Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881)

The Omnibus Election Code (OEC) enumerates prohibited acts that constitute election offenses. Two are commonly implicated in LGU HR actions:

Ban on appointments and personnel actions during the election period (commonly implemented through COMELEC resolutions for each election). The OEC contains a specific prohibition on certain personnel actions (especially appointments/promotions/creation of positions/salary increases) within the election period, except when allowed by COMELEC.
Prohibition on transfer of officers and employees in the civil service during the election period without COMELEC approval (commonly cited as the OEC’s “transfer ban”). While the statute uses the term “transfer,” COMELEC rules for each election typically treat related movements—transfer, detail, and reassignment—as covered personnel movements requiring COMELEC authority within the regulated period.

Key point: Even if an LGU labels an action as “reassignment,” what matters is the substance—movement that changes assignment/station/duties in a way that fits the regulated personnel movement under election rules.

C. Civil Service rules (CSC) and the Local Government Code (RA 7160)

LGU employees are part of the civil service. That means:

They enjoy security of tenure.
HR actions must follow CSC rules defining and regulating reassignment, detail, transfer, designation, secondment, and related actions.
The Local Government Code recognizes local chief executives’ authority over LGU personnel administration, but that authority is not absolute and remains subject to civil service law and election law.

Bottom line: LGUs must satisfy two compliance tracks at once:

Civil service legality (proper HR action under CSC rules and due process), and
Election-law legality (COMELEC restrictions and approval, when applicable).

2) Terminology that decides whether a move is restricted

In practice, disputes arise because different personnel actions sound similar. A working understanding:

A. Reassignment

Generally understood in civil service practice as movement of an employee from one organizational unit, duty set, or place of assignment to another within the same agency/LGU, typically without reduction in rank, status, or salary, and often issued to meet service needs.

Civil service red flags: A “reassignment” becomes legally vulnerable if it is effectively:

a demotion (in rank, pay, or status),
a disciplinary measure in disguise (punitive transfer),
an action that violates security of tenure, or
unreasonable (e.g., impossibly distant assignment without justification) in a way that appears oppressive.

B. Detail

Usually a temporary assignment to another unit/office (sometimes even another agency) while the employee retains the plantilla item in the mother unit.

C. Transfer

Typically movement from one agency to another, or a personnel action that involves a change of appointing authority and/or plantilla placement (depending on context). In election law usage, “transfer” is sometimes used broadly to include movements of station/assignment that can affect election integrity.

D. Why labels don’t save you

If an LGU calls a move a “reassignment” but it effectively relocates staff to alter political control, disrupt election-related functions, or change the staffing of sensitive offices, COMELEC and oversight bodies may treat it as a regulated personnel movement.

3) The election period and the “before election period” problem

A. What is the election period?

Under election law concepts, the election period is commonly described as a window that begins a set number of days before election day and ends after election day, but the operative dates for each election are formally declared by COMELEC through a resolution.

B. General rule: The strict bans apply during the election period

The classic, bright-line restrictions—especially those requiring COMELEC approval—attach during the election period (or any other regulated period COMELEC formally declares for that election).

C. So what about reassignments before the election period starts?

This is where LGUs often misstep. Even before the formal election period:

Civil service limits already apply (no punitive/illegal reassignment; respect security of tenure).
A reassignment that is clearly election-motivated may expose officials to other liabilities (e.g., coercion of subordinates, abuse of authority, graft-related theories depending on facts, or administrative charges).
COMELEC can scrutinize “eve-of-election-period” actions—especially mass movements or movements affecting election-sensitive posts—where the timing suggests circumvention.

Practical reality: If an LGU executes sweeping reassignments days or weeks before the election period to “beat the ban,” it may still face legal challenges:

administrative cases before CSC/Office of the Ombudsman,
complaints to COMELEC alleging circumvention, electioneering using government machinery, or other election offenses depending on the conduct,
injunction/temporary relief in proper proceedings where available.

Risk principle: The closer the personnel action is to the declared election period—and the more it affects politically sensitive or election-adjacent functions—the higher the risk that authorities will treat it as suspect.

4) What exactly is prohibited or restricted (as typically implemented)

While the precise scope is set out in COMELEC resolutions for each election, the regulated universe commonly includes:

A. Personnel movements requiring COMELEC approval during the regulated period

Commonly covered:

Transfers
Reassignments
Details
Sometimes related actions that effectively change control, station, or functional assignment (depending on the specific COMELEC issuance)

B. Related election-period HR prohibitions often enforced together

Even though your focus is reassignment, LGU HR offices must also watch:

appointments of new employees
promotions
creation of new positions
salary increases
other personnel actions that can be used for patronage or political reward

These often travel as a package in COMELEC “personnel action ban” regimes.

5) Exceptions: When can a reassignment be allowed?

A. The basic exception mechanism: COMELEC authority

During the regulated period, a covered reassignment/detail/transfer is typically allowed only if:

it fits within an exception recognized in the controlling COMELEC issuance, and/or
COMELEC grants prior authority upon request showing necessity.

B. Typical grounds used to justify approval (conceptually)

While the exact phrasing can differ by election, approvals are commonly sought for:

exigency of the service (critical service delivery disruption if not moved)
public safety or disaster response needs
health/medical considerations
administrative necessity that is not election-related and is documented
cases where the move is part of a longstanding, routine, and neutral personnel program (e.g., genuine rotation policy) and not timed to influence elections

C. What is rarely defensible

“We want to reshuffle” without documented necessity
“Loss of trust and confidence” applied to rank-and-file staff (generally not a rank-and-file HR concept)
politically charged rationales
large-scale movements of personnel in field units without operational justification

6) Compliance mechanics: How LGUs should do this correctly

A. Before the election period (higher scrutiny as it approaches)

Even if COMELEC approval is not yet required, best practice is to treat near-election movements as “regulated-risk actions”:

Document the service necessity
- Written justification tied to objective service needs (not personalities/politics).
Keep the reassignment within lawful CSC parameters
- No reduction in rank/status/salary.
- No disguised discipline.
- Reasonable geographic/functional assignment.
Avoid mass movements
- Large-scale reshuffles close to elections are inherently suspicious.
Avoid reassigning election-adjacent personnel
- Those handling permits, payroll, procurement, peace-and-order coordination, or who are commonly deputized/relied upon for election support create additional risk when moved.

B. During the election period (the strict track)

Identify if the action is covered
- If it is a transfer/detail/reassignment that changes station or assignment materially, presume coverage unless clearly excluded.
Secure prior COMELEC authority
- Do not implement first and “seek approval later.”
Maintain CSC legality
- COMELEC authority does not cure a reassignment that is illegal under civil service rules.
Issue the personnel order only when allowed
- Keep complete paper trail: request, justification, approvals, and implementation documents.

7) Consequences of violating the restrictions

A. Election offense exposure

Unauthorized covered personnel movements during the regulated period may be treated as an election offense, exposing responsible officials and participating parties to criminal prosecution and accessory penalties under election law.

Who can be liable:

the official who ordered/approved the reassignment
officials who implemented it knowing it lacked authority
potentially others who induced or benefited from the unlawful act, depending on facts

B. Administrative liability

Separate from election offense prosecution:

CSC administrative cases (grave abuse of authority, oppression, conduct prejudicial to the service, etc.)
Ombudsman cases (for public officers; depending on facts, may include grave misconduct or other administrative offenses)
Potential civil liability in exceptional cases where damages can be shown (fact-dependent)

C. Invalidity and corrective orders

An unlawful election-period personnel movement can be:

treated as void or without legal effect for implementation purposes, and/or
corrected by orders requiring restoration to previous assignment, especially where rights are violated.

8) Employee remedies and LGU defenses

A. Remedies for affected employees

Depending on the nature of the action and timing:

Administrative appeal/complaint under CSC processes for illegal reassignment or constructive demotion
COMELEC complaint if the action violates election-period restrictions or appears designed to influence elections
Ombudsman complaint for abuse of authority or oppressive conduct
Internal grievance mechanisms (where applicable)

B. Common LGU defenses (and what they require to succeed)

Exigency of service: must be supported by objective, contemporaneous records.
Neutral operational reorganization: must show it’s real, not a pretext.
No diminution / no punitive intent: must match the realities of the assignment and working conditions.
Good faith: may help in administrative contexts, but election offenses are commonly treated strictly; reliance on counsel or HR advice is not a guaranteed shield.

9) Practical guidance: High-risk scenarios LGUs should avoid

Scenario 1: “Beat the ban” reshuffles right before the election period

A sweeping reassignment issued shortly before the election period, especially if it targets employees perceived to be aligned with political opponents, is a classic red flag.

Why risky: It can look like circumvention and political coercion, and may also be illegal as a punitive reassignment.

Scenario 2: Reassigning staff who handle politically sensitive functions

Moving personnel in offices like:

permits/licensing,
treasury/revenue collection,
procurement,
HR/payroll,
barangay coordination,
peace and order, close to elections attracts scrutiny.

Scenario 3: “Reassignment” to a role with no meaningful duties

This resembles constructive dismissal/harassment and is vulnerable even outside election contexts.

Scenario 4: Reassignments that impose unreasonable hardship

Sudden distant postings without logistical support, childcare considerations ignored, or assignments designed to force resignation are hallmarks of oppressive reassignment.

10) Key takeaways

The strictest restrictions on reassignment/detail/transfer generally attach during the election period as declared by COMELEC, commonly requiring prior COMELEC authority for covered movements.
Before the election period, LGUs still face serious constraints: CSC legality, security of tenure, and heightened scrutiny for actions that appear election-motivated or designed to circumvent impending bans.
Compliance requires dual legality: COMELEC authority (when required) and civil service legality (always required).
The safest approach near elections is to minimize personnel movements, limit them to clearly documented service exigencies, and ensure they are neutral, proportionate, and non-punitive.