1.

Discuss the civil administrative and criminal liability of Aquino

regard of masasapano
2. Liability of allanpurisima
3. Liability of general napenas
4. Explain the two concepts of suspension with respect to the
suspension of Makati mayor junjun binay.
a. What is the legal basis for the suspension imposed by the
ombudsman
b. Does the CA have the jurisdiction for review and reverse
the decision of Ombudsman of the suspension of mayor
Binay
YES.
5. a. What is the legal basis for the suspension imposed by the
SandiganBayan on Enrile, Revilla and Estrada.
c. does the suspension of the sandiganbayan on this
senators violates the constitutional presumption of
innocence
6. two questions in admin law(surprise question)
4. Suspension may be imposed as a penalty or as a preventive
measure against a public officer charged criminally or
administratively charged, in the latter case it is called a
preventive suspension

The latter is different and independent from the latter as it is not

a penalty and is imposed precisely during an investigation. The
purpose of which is clearly to prevent the public officer from
exercising the functions of his office to influence the investigation
in any manner prejudice the investigation against him. If he will
be allowed to stay in office pending investigation then he will
have access to the necessary evidence against him, or use his
office to tamper witnesses and evidence.

The suspension of Jun Jun Binay is in the nature of a preventive

suspension only, as it was imposed by the Ombudsman pursuant
to its authority to investigate.

a. The legal basis of the suspension is Section 24. of R.A. 6770

or the Ombudsman Law
b. It is submitted that the CA has no authority to issue a writ of
injunction against the preventive suspension order issued
by the Ombudsman for the following reasons:

First, All provisionary orders of the Office of the Ombudsman

are immediately effective and executory (Section 27)
Therefore the suspension became effective upon notice to Jun
Jun Binay (i.e. service).

Second the Ombudsman law prohibits the issuance of the writ

of injunction by any court to delay an investigation being
conducted by the Ombudsman. If the suspension was lifted
then the very purpose of the preventive suspension (i.e. to
prevent the public officer from causing prejudice to the
investigation against him) will be rendered useless, thus any
injunction will become cause of delay.
5. the basis of the suspension is Section. 13 R.A 3019 (Anti Graft
and corrupt practices act) in conjunction with the sec. 42 of the
Civil Service Decree. Under Sec 13:
Qny public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under
a valid information under this Act or under the provisions of
the Revised Penal Code on bribery is pending in court, shall be
suspended from office, or for any offense involving public funds
or property or fraud on government. (Bolastig vs Sandigan G.R.
No. 110503 August 4, 1994)

a. No it does not violate the presumption on innocence. In a

plethora of cases the Supreme Court ruled that it is not a
penalty hence it does not impose punishment without
hearing. Paragraph 3 of Article 24 of the Revised Penal Code
clearly states that suspension from the employment or
public office during the trial or in order to institute
proceedings shall not be considered as penalty. (Bayot vs
Sandigan G.R. Nos. 61776 to 61861. March 23, 1984)