DOROMAL VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, G. R. No.

85468, 07 September 1989

Prohibitions [Article VII: Sections 13]
Quintin S. Doromal, a public officer and being a Commissioner of the Presidential Commission on
Good Government, participated in a business through the Doromal International Trading Corporation
(DITC), a family corporation of which he is the President, and which company participated in the
biddings conducted by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) and the National
Manpower & Youth Council (NMYC) .
DITC participated in the biddings to supply equipments to DECS and National Manpower and Youth
Council.
An information was then filed by the Tanodbayan against Doromal for the said violation and a
preliminary investigation was conducted.
The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition questioning the jurisdiction of the
Tanodbayan to file the information without the approval of the Ombudsman.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the act of Doromal would constitute a violation of the Constitution.
Ruling:
1. Article VII, Section 13 (1) of the Constitution provides:
The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall
not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their
tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession,
participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or
special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid
conflict of interest in the conduct of their office
The presence of a signed document bearing the signature of Doromal as part of the application to bid
shows that he can rightfully be charged with having participated in a business which act is absolutely
prohibited by Section 13 of Article VII of the Constitution" because "the DITC remained a family
corporation in which Doromal has at least an indirect interest."

CONCLUSION:
Yes, the act of Doromal would constitute a violation of the Constitution specifically of Section 13 of
Article VII.