You are on page 1of 24

ELECTIONS | Midterms Transcript 2014

By RLB

PUBLIC OFFICE - Whether he had contracted the habit for any of the enumerated misdemeanours.

Art. 11, Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution (Accountability of Public Officers) Purpose of Discipline
Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be Remolona vs CSC
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; Dishonesty as ground for dismissal need not be committed in the performance of duty.
act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. If a public offcier or employee is dishonsst or is guilty of oppression or grave
misconduct, he or she may be dismissed.
- Is there a difference between integirty and honesty? Even if said defects of character are not connected with his or her office, they affect his
o For example, if you cheat on you girlfriend last night, then the following day you told or her right to continue in office.
your girlfriend that you cheated on her last night. thats being honest. But the truth The purpose of discipline is not to punish but to improve public service and preserve
negates your integrity. On other words, when you say that this person has integirty, this public confidence in government.
person does good even if no one is looking. Okay? It applies to you (referring to us)
when you take the exammmmmmhhhh si sir pahisgot.. o But A Resigned Public Officer Cannot Be Subject To Discipline Because It Does Not Serve
Its Purpose
Public Office Is A Public Trust Ombudsman vs Andutan
Cornejo vs Gabriel It is error to interpret CSC MC No. 38 that administrative case may be filed against
Mayor Cornejo was suspended by Governor and Provl Board. So he said he was denied of an a resigned public officer for as long as the act complained of was committed in
office without due process. service.
Due process cannot be invoked in administrative cases. Public office is not a property so not Otherwise, public officers who have long been separated from service may still be
covered by due process. subject of administrative cases.
Power to suspend may be exercised without notice to person suspended. Suspension is not This defeats the purpose of discipline, which is not to punish, but to improve public
removal from officemerely prevents the person from functioning his office. This is service and preserve public trust in government.
universally accepted as fair and necessary.
Lead Modest Lives
At All Times Be Accountable To The People - The point of the command is that, even if the public officer is independently wealthy, he
Social Justice Society vs DDB should not live in a manner that flaunts his wealth. (Bernas)
Random drug test on private and public employees was challenged as unconstitutional o WHAT IS IN EXCESS OF WHAT YOU NEED IS NOT YOURS
because it violates the right of privacy - So those excess pounds DO NOT BELONG TO YOU J nice one sir!
SC said that for private employees, their right to privacy is inferior to the right of thr employer
to maintain discipline and efficiency in the workplace. DEFINITION (by Mechem)
If so, with more reason that civil servants cannot invoke the right to privacy because the - A public office is the right, authority and duty created and conferred by law for a given
constitutional command, they are requried to be accountable at all times to the people and period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is
serve them with utmost responsibilty and efficiency. invested with sovereign functions to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public.

Utmost Responsibility, Integrity, Loyalty and Efficiency (RILE) Enduring At The Pleasure Of The Creating Power
Concerned Citizens of Laoag City vs Arzaga Fernandez vs Ledesma
Arzaga and Mauricio were charged with drunkenness, gambling, bribery, etc. Both were If the term of office for which the chief of police was appointed is not fixed pursunat to
process servers of office of clerk of court. Allegedly, they asked for tires and liters of gas the city charter, it is dependent upon the discretion or pleasure of the appointing power.
from clients and pretend that its the judge who asked those things. Thus, the chief of police may be replaced and such replacement does not amount to
Mauricio was dismissed for being ultimate undesirable employee and a disgrace to the removal but expiration of his tenure.
judiciary. A court employee being a public servant must exhibit the highest sense of It is one of the ordinary modes of terminating official relations.
honesty and integrity not only in the performance of his duties but also in his personal and
private dealings with other people to preserve the courts name and standing. It becomes Sovereign Functions To Be Exercised By Him For The Benefit Of The Public
imperative and sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to maintain its good name Laurel vs Desierto
and standing as a true temple of justice. Chairmanship of the National Centennial Commission to take charge of the centennial
SC said that an employee may be dismissed for being notoriously undesirable if it involves celebrations.
prviate and personal acts.
As a public servant, a court employee must exhibit not only in the highest sense of honesty Javier vs SB
and integrity not only in the performance of his official duties but also in his private Appointment as private sector representative to the National Book Development Board
dealings with other people to preserve the courts name and standing. which is aimed to promote continuing development of the book publishing industry.

Conviction of Criminal Offenses is Not Even Necessary for Removal Serana vs SB


San Luis vs CA Appointment as student regent at the University of the Philippines performing general
Notoriety and habit are sufficient ground for removal pursuant to the 2-fold test: administrative supervision and exercising corporate powers.
- Whether it is generally known as universally believed to be true or manifest to the
world that the public officer committed the acts imputed against him. ELEMENTS of a PUBLIC OFFICE (State vs Hawkins, cited by Martin)
1
ELECTIONS | Midterms Transcript 2014
By RLB

1) It must be created by law or an ordinance authorized by law; EXCEPT: When the issue is which of the two persons is entitled to the public office
2) It must be invested with some sovereign functions of government to be exercised for public Segovia vs Noel
interest; In which case, a public office may be considered property within the protection of the
3) The functions must be defined, expressly or impliedly by law; due process clause.
4) The function must be exercised directly by an offcier under the control of the law; That if one is deprived of title to the office, it should be properly litigated before the
5) It must have some permanency or continuity, not temporary or occasional. courts.
- However take note that in the case of Laurel vs Desierto, the SC said that permanency is
not important, as long as you are delegated with sovereign function of the D. Public Office Cannot Be Inherited
government. Thats the most important characteristic of a public offce. That controls - Substitution is not proper. Public office is personal to the holder and is not a property
whether or not you occupy a public office, even if the other elements are not present, that can be inherited by his heirs. Abeja vs Taada
you are still considered a public officer.

CHARACTERISTICS of a PUBLIC OFFICE PUBLIC OFFICER


A. Public office is a public trust
B. No one has a vested right to a public office DEFINITION
C. Public office is not a property Sec. 2(b), Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
D. Public office cannot be inherited "Public officer" includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or
temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving
A. Public Office Is A Public Trust compensation, even nominal, from the government as defined in the preceding
Cornejo vs Gabriel subparagraph.
- It is created in the interest and for the benefit of the public.
- The officers are public servants. Serana vs SB
- They are mere agents and not rulers of the people. A student regent charged with estafa argues she is not a public offcier because she is a mere
- As such, they have no contractual or proprietary right to an office. student who paid her tuition and did not receive salarry as such.
- They merely hold it in trust for the people. SC said: Compensation is not essential to a public office, but a mere incident to it.

B. No One Has A Vested Right To A Public Office Laurel vs Desierto


- A public officer cannot claim injury if placed under preventive suspension because he Laurel chaired NCC to take charge of the National Centennial Celebrations. He was charfed
has no vested or absolute right to a public office. Carabeo vs CA with graft and corruption due to contractual anomalies
- Suspension of a public officer without prior notice and hearing does not violate due He argues he is not a public officer because he did not receive salary as such which is a
process because he has no proprietary or contractual right to it. Cornejo vs Gabriel characteristic of a public officer
- More so if the appointment does not specify the station, the employee mayb be re- SC said: While salary is a usual criterion to determine the nature of the position, it is not
assigned if exigency requires, provided it does not reduce rank, status or salary. necessary because it is a mere incident and forms no part of the office.
Fernandez vs Sto. Tomas
Mechem
EXCEPT: if the terms of the law that takes it away is UNCLEAR An individual with a public office.
Segovia vs Noel
Segovia is appointed Justice of Peace but later, a law was passed that justuces shall be Section 2, Administrative Code of 1987
appointed to serve until they reach 65 only. When he reached 65 y/o, Noel replaced "Officer" as distinguished from "clerk" or "employee", refers to a person whose duties, not being of
him. a clerical or manual nature, involves the exercise of discretion in the performance of the functions
SC said: the law must be applied prospectively only. Even if he has no vested right to of the government. When used with reference to a person having authority to do a particular act
the office, he has some right that cannot be taken away by law which terms are unclear. or perform a particular function in the exercise of governmental power, "officer" includes any
government employee, agent or body having authority to do the act or exercise that function.
C. Public Office Is Not A Property
Abeja vs Taada "Employee" when used with reference to a person in the public service, includes any person in the
During pendency of an election protest, the protestee died. He was substituted by his widow service of the government or any of its agencies, divisions, subdivisions or instrumentalities.
to pursue his counterclaim for damages.
SC said: The substitution is not proper. Public office is personal to the incumbent and is not a Article 203, Revised Penal Code
property which passes to his heirs. Who are public officers. For the purpose of applying the provisions of this and the preceding
titles of this book, any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or appointment
Cornejo vs Gabriel by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Government
A municipal president was suspended by the governor while his administrative case for of the Philippine Islands, of shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches public
misconduct was pending without opportunity to be heard. duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class, shall be deemed to be a
SC said: Prior notice and hearing is not a requisite to suspension because the holder has no public officer.
proprietary and contractual interest on a public office.
ELEMENTS of a PUBLIC OFFICER (Reyes)

2
ELECTIONS | Midterms Transcript 2014
By RLB

To be a public officer, one must be - Those whose duties relate mainly to the enactment of laws
1) Taking part in the performance of public functions in the government, or performing in
said government any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent, or subordinate Judicial Officers
official, of any rank or class, and - Those whose duties are to decide controversies between individuals and accusations made in
2) That his authority to take part in the performance of public functions or to perform the name of the public against persons charged with a violation of a law
public duties must be by:
a) Direct provision of law, Ministerial Officers
b) Popular election and - Those whose duty is to execute the mandate, lawfully issued, of their superiors
c) Appointment by competent authority
Military Officers
Delegation Of Sovereign Functions Is The Most Important Characteristic Of A - Those who are in command in the army
Public Office
Laurel vs Desierto Naval Officers
Laurel argues he is not a public officer because the NCC is a private temporary office, he - Those who are in command in the navy
was not paid salary for it, and did not take his oath of office.
SC said: Even if the other characteristics are missing, he is still considered public officer Civil Officer
because he was delegated with sovereign functions, the controlling characteristic of a - One who holds his appointment under the government, whether his duties are executive or
public officer. judicial, in the highest or the lowest departments of the government, with the exception of
officers of the army and the navy
EXCEPT: when in the first place, there is no authority to appoint a private
person as public officer Special Agent
Azarcon vs SB - One who receives a definite and fixed order or commission, foreign to the exercise of the
Azarcon was designated by the BIR as custodian of distrained property, one of duties of his office
which was a truch that suddenly disappeared. He was charged before the
Sandiganbayan which jurisdiction he now assails for being a private person. Officer De Jure
SC said: Azarcon is a private person. While the NIRC authorizes designation of a - One who has the lawful right to the office in all respects, but who has either been ousted
custodian, it does not include the power to appoint him as a public officer. from it, or who has never actually taken possession of it.

EXCEPTION to the EXCEPTION: when a private person is charged as co- Officer De Facto
principal, accomplice or accessory of a public officer charged with a crime - One who has the reputation of being the officer he assumes to be, and yet is not the officer
under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan in point of law
Go vs SB
Go is chairman of PIATCO. He was charged in conspiracy with a public officer National Officer
in violating Section 3(g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Go says - Those who render service for the provincial government
section 3(g) does not apply to him because he is not a public officer but a
private person who could not enter into a contract in behalf of the Provincial Officer
government. - Those who render service for the provincial government
The elements of Section 3(g) are:
- that the accused is a public officer, City and Municipal Officer
- that he entered into a contract or transaction in behalf of the - Those who render service for the city and municipal governments, respectively.
government, and
- that it is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to it Requisites to be considered a DE FACTO OFFICER:
SC said: when a private person is charged in conspiracy with a public officer, a) Necessity of office
either as co-principal, accomplice or accessory, he is also considered a public - There must be a created office. No de jure or de facto officer without the
officer for purposes of acquiring jurisdiction over his person by the office to fill
Sandiganbayan. b) Colour of title
- General recognition and reputation
- May consist in election or appointment
KINDS OF PUBLIC OFFICERS - Holding office after expiration of term
- Acquiescence by the public in the acts of officer for such length of time as to
CLASSIFICATIONS of PUBLIC OFFICERS (Mechem) raise presumption of colourable right
c) Physical possession
Executive Officers
- Those whose duties are mainly to cause the laws to be executed. De factor officer is entitled to compesation
Sampayan vs Daza
Legislative Officers

3
ELECTIONS | Midterms Transcript 2014
By RLB

Sampayan and other residents sought to disqaulify Daza as Congressman because he is - For appointive positions only
a green card holder. But his term of office already expired prior to his qualification.
SC said: a de facto officer cannot be made to reimburse funds and salaries because his v.Civil Service
acts are valid as those of a de hure officer. He is also entitled to emoluments for actual - Required in appointive positions
services rendered. - Civil service eligible is prioritized over a non-eligible for appointment to any vacant
position even in a temporary capacity
EXCEPT: where there is a sitting de jure officer
General Manager of PPA vs Monserate When should a public officer possess qualifications?
The general rule us where there is a de jure officer, the de facto officer is not - It depends upon the Constitution or statute
entitled to emoluments attached to the office during his wronggul incumbency even - But generally, at the time of election, appointment or assumption
if he occupied it in good faith. - If qualification is not specified with reference to the time of elections, it refers to qualification
But where the de jure officer assumed the lower position in protest, she is entitled to hold office rather than to be elected to it
to salary but limited to back pay differentials to avoid double compensation. - Thus, disqualification existing at the time of election may be removed before induction to
office or before the term of office begins

ELIGIBILTY and QUALIFICATIONS Frivaldo vs Comelec


Frivaldo won as governor but was disqualified by Comelec for being an alien. Thus, Lee was
Qualification (definition) proclaimed at 8:30pm on June 30, 1995. But at 2pm of the same day, Frivaldo re-acquired
- Endowment that fits one for office his Philippine citizenship
- Act which a person is required by law to do before assuming office like oath taking Lees contention: Even if Frivaldo re-acquried his citizenship, he is still disqualified because
- There must be rational connection between requirements and duties citizenship is a condition precedent to filing of candidacy
SC held: Citizenship is required only at the time of proclamation and at the start of term of
Who Prescribes Qualifications? office.
- Congress prescribes eligibility, qualifications, disqualifications and provide for methods of filling
offices, subject to constitutional limitations Qualifications for PRESIDENT
Article 7, Section 2, 1987 Constitution
GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS: Section 2. No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of
i.Citizenship the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of
- Only citizens can apply or take civil service examinations age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten
- Aliens cannot hold office, either appointive or elective years immediately preceding such election.

ii.Residence Qualifications for VICE-PRESIDENT


- Synonymous with domicile Art. 7, Sec. 3, 1987 Consti
- Imports intention to reside in one place Section 3. There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the same qualifications
- Personal presence in that place and term of office and be elected with, and in the same manner, as the President.
- Conduct indicative of such intention He may be removed from office in the same manner as the President.

President and Vice-President Qualifications for SENATOR


- Resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding Art. 6, Sec. 2, 1987 Consti
the elections Section 2. The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators who shall be
Senator elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by
- Resident of the Philippines for at least 2 years immediately preceding law.
the elections
Congressman Qualifications for HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE
- Resident of the district for at least 1 year immediately preceding the Art. 6, Sec. 6, 1987 Consti
elections except the party-list representatives Section 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he
is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least
iii.Age twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list
President and VP representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a
- 40 resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the
Senator day of the election.
- 35
Congressman Qualifications for CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
- 25 Article 9(b), Section 1(1), 1987 Consti
B. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
iv.Education

4
ELECTIONS | Midterms Transcript 2014
By RLB

Section 1. (1) The civil service shall be administered by the Civil Service May 10, 2004 national and local elections. It further says no person elected to
Commission composed of a Chairman and two Commissioners who shall be natural- any public office assumes office without mandatory drug test
born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty- Petitioners contention: Pimentel, a candidate for senator, says the law dn
five years of age, with proven capacity for public administration, and must not have resolution are unconstitutional because they add to the senatorial
been candidates for any elective position in the elections immediately preceding qualifications set forth in Article 6, Section 3, 1987 Constitution
their appointment. SC held: Section 36(g) of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and Comelec
Resolution No. 6486 are both unconstitutionla because they infringe on the
Qualifications for COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS constiutional definition of qualification or eligibilty requirements of senatorial
Article 9(b), Section 1(1), 1987 Consti candidates.
C. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Section 1. (1) There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman Maquera vs Borra
and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at RA 4421 requires all candidates to post surety bond equivalent to 1 year salary
the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college of the position sought. Thus, the Comelec required candidates for president,
degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective positions in the vice-presidnet, senators and congressmen to post surety bond from a surety
immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof, including the company acceptable to it in the amount of P60,000, P40,000 and P32,000,
Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the respectively.
practice of law for at least ten years. SC said: It constitutes property qualification which is contrary to the
Constitution. It is inconsistent with the Republican system and the principle of
Qualifications for Offices in the Commission social justice.
Sec. 22, Book V, E.O. 292 (Admin Code)
SECTION 22. Qualification Standards.
(1) A qualification standard expresses the minimum requirements for a class of DISQUALIFICATIONS
positions in terms of education, training and experience, civil service eligibility, - Conviction of the crime of malversation of public funds
physical fitness, and other qualities required for successful performance. The - Impeachment
degree of qualifications of an officer or employee shall be determined by the - Being an ecclesiastic
appointing authority on the basis of the qualification standard for the particular - Congress cannot add disqualifications than what is provided for in the Constitution
position. - Property in the form of cash bond Maquera vs Borra
- Lifestyle in the form of negative drug test Pimental vs Comelec
Qualification standards shall be used as basis for civil service examinations for
positions in the career service, as guides in appointment and other personnel Effects Of Pardon Under The RPC
actions, in the adjudication of protested appointments, in determining training Art. 36. Pardon; its effect.
needs, and as aid in the inspection and audit of the agencies' personnel work A pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office, or the right of
programs. suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.

It shall be administered in such manner as to continually provide incentives to A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity
officers and employees towards professional growth and foster the career system in imposed upon him by the sentence.
the government service.
Pardon Does Not Automatically Reinstate, It Merely Restores Eligibility For
(2)The establishment, administration and maintenance of qualification standards Appointment
shall be the responsibility of the department or agency, with the assistance and Monsanto vs Factoran
approval of the Civil Service Commission and in consultation with the Wage and An Assistant Treasurer was convicted for estafa and ordered to pay at least P4,000. She
Position Classification Office. moved to reconsider her conviction during which she was extended absolute presidential
pardon which she accepted.
ART. 3, Sec. 5, 1987 Consti She thus argued that the pardon wiped out her crime and she should be reinstated
Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or without need to re-apply and be paid full back wages. She also refused to pay the fine.
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious SC said: Pardon does not ipso facto restore a convicted felon to the office necessarily
profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be relinquished or forfeited by reason of conviction although it restores her eligibility for
allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. appointment to that office.
Pardon merely removed her disqualification. She must re-apply. That her conviction did
Pimentel vs Comelec not acquire finality when she was extended pardon is of no moment because pardon
Section 36(g) of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 requires all candidates for presupposes a crime was committed.
public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local
government to undergo a mandatory drug test EXCEPT: when acquittal is based on innocence
The Comelec issued a resolution prescribing the rules and regulations on the Garcia vs COA Chairman
mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office in connection with the

5
ELECTIONS | Midterms Transcript 2014
By RLB

Garcia was administratively charged with dishonesty and criminally charged with Santiago Jr. vs CSC
qualified theft due to loss of telegraph poles. But he was acquitted based on The Customs Collector I was promoted as Custom Collector III. So the Custom Collector II
innocence in the criminal case. protested on the ground that he was the person next-in-rank.
SC held: if acquittal in criminal case is based on innocence, acquittal in SC said: it is not mandatory that the person next-in-rank is entitled to promotion, it only
administrative case should follow. Thus, he should be reinstated and paid back means he is the first to be considered.
wages because the separation is void.
Next-in-rank Rule applies only to promotions
Panis vs CSC
APPOINTMENT The positions of permanent public health workers were abolished and new positions were
created. Pursuant to the next-in-rank, they insist appointment to the available positions after
Authority Of The CSC To Approve Appointment Is Limited To Inquiry the reorganization, not the new applicants.
Central Bank vs CSC SC said: the next-in-rank rule specifically applies only to promotions and not to positions
The CSC voided the appointment of Jordan and replaced him with Borja who it considers created in the course of a valid reorganization.
more qualified.
SC ruled that the authority of the CSC is limited to determine whether the appointee Appointment is not complete if the appointee refuses to accept and assume the office
possesses appropriate civil service eligibility and other qualifications because the authority to Borromeo vs Mariano
inquire qualification does not include the power to replace the choice of the appointing A judge of one judicial district was appointed to another judicial district but he refused.
authority as it constitutes encroachment. Despite his refusal, another was appointed in his orginal district.
SC held: Appointment is the sole act of the appointing authority while acceptance is the sole
Even If There Is Evidence One Possesses Better Qualification Than The Other act of the appointee. Without acceptance in the form of assumption, the appointment is not
Lapinid vs CSC complete.
The CSC replaced Lapinid with Junsay because the comparative evaluation sheets show
Lapinid got 75 while Junsay got 79.5. Preventive suspension does not require prior notice and hearing because it is not a
SC said: Appointment is discretionary on the part of the appointing authority. The authority of penalty
the CSC is limited only to inquire whether the appointee possesses qualifications required by Carabeo vs CA
law. Carabeo was OIC Treasurer of Paraaque who was charged with unexplained wealth which
If the appointee does possess the qualification required by law, the CSC has no other choice was not declared in his SALN by reason of which he was placed under preventive suspension
but approve the appointment. without prior notice and hearing.
SC held: Prior notice and hearing are not required in preventive suspension because it is not
The Duration Of Authority Of The CSC Terminates After The Inquiry a penalty but a mere preliminary step in investigation.
Luego vs CSC
If the CSC finds the appointee is qualified, it must approve. Otherwise, it disapproves.
It becomes functus officioan officer or agency whose mandate ended because the date POWERS, DUTIES, PRIVILIEGES AND PROHIBITIONS OF A PUBLIC OFFICER
expired and the purpose for which it was created was accomplished.
It mostly refers to lack of authority to rehear a case after it has rendered judgement, theya re SOURCE OF POWER
void of office. Article 2, Section 1, 1987 Constitution
Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the
Appointment and Designation are separate and distinct people and all government authority emanates from them.
Sevilla vs Santos
Sevilla was an engineer of one city, but he was also designated Acting City Engineer of Scope of authority includes all powers necessary for the effective exercise of
another city. Later, another was appointed in a permanent capacity to the position he was express powers pursuant to the Doctine of Necessary Implication
designated. Lo Cham vs Ocampo
Can he challenge the permanent appointment? A lawyer of the DOJ detailed by the Justice Secretary to assist the city fiscal with the
SC held: No. His designation in an acting capacity merely added his functions. It does not same powers and functions of an assistant city fiscal investigated, signed and filed
confer security of tenure. information sheets. The respondents moved to quash on the ground of lack of authority
SC held: The power to investigate, file and prosecute criminal cases is inherent in the
EXCEPT: when the appointment is used in its general sense, it includes right to assist.
designation The duties of a public officer include all those:
Santiago vs COA - Which truly lie within its scope;
A retiree wanted to base his retirement benefits on a designated position because the - Essential to accomplish the amin purpose of the office;
salary is higher. - Relevant to accomplish the main purpose even if they are merely incidental and
SC held: the law that sets the highest basic salary rate as basis for computation did not collateral.
intend to distinguish between appointment and designation because it includes the - All related acts may be performed, if the law does not prohibit specific acts
highest salary rate compensation for substitutionary services or in an actin capacity. Doctrine of Necessary Implication.

Next-in-rank Rule is discretionary on the part of the appointing authority KINDS OF AUTHORITY
6
ELECTIONS | Midterms Transcript 2014
By RLB

o But again we said that compensation is not an element of a public office but a
Discretionary (defined in Asuncion vs De Yriarte) mere incident to it
- One where the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide
how and when the duty shall be performed Right To Compensation
- A faculty conferred upon a court or other official by which he may decide the question either Salary
way and still be right - Personal compensation provided to be paid to him for his services, and it is
generally a fixed annual, or periodic payment depending on the time and not on
Ministerial (defined in Lamb vs Phipps) the amount of services he may render.
- One where its discharged by the officer concerned is imperative and required neither - Salary is interchangeably used with compensation.
judgement nor discretion on his part.
Salary vs Wages
A discretionary act cannot be compelled by mandamus - Salary is given to officers of higher degree of employment than those to whom
Aprueba vs Ganzon wages are given.
A stall was ordered closed by the mayor due to violations and arrears. The stall owner
paid the arrears and complied with the conditions but the mayor still refused to re-open. o How to establish right to compensation
SC said: the mayor cannot be compelled because the grant of business licenses is a The officer must show that he is the officer de jure either by
discretionary act on his part in the exercise of police power and for reasons of public - Lawful appointment
policy and sound public administration. - Election
- Qualification
EXCEPT: where there is
- Grave abuse of discretion GM of PPA vs Monserate
- Manifest injsutice The general rule is where there is a de jure officer, the de facto officer is not
- Palpable excess of authority equivalent to denial of entitled to the emoluments attached to the office during his wrongful
settled rights incumbency, even if he occupied the office good faith.
- No other plain, adequate or speedy remedy Exception is where the officer de jure assumed a lower position under
protest, he is entitled to back pay differentials to avoid double compensation.
First Phil. Holdings vs SB SIR: The word double compensation was not used in the case but I just
A civil case between the PCGG and spouses Romualde and their dummies to put it there because that is the necessary consequence.
recover shares of stock is pending with the SB. A company intervened, claiming
ownership of the shares. But the intervention was denied because it will unduly Sampayan vs Daza
delay the case, among others. A de facto officer cannot be made to reimburse funds disbursed during his
SC said: the grant of intervention is a discretionary act iof the court that cannot be term of office because his acts are not valid as those of a de jure officer.
compelled by mandamus. As a defacto officer, he is also entitled to emoluments for actual services
But since the company established legal interest in the matter at litigation, the rendered provided there is no sitting de jure officer.
denial of intervention based on flimsy grounds amount to grave abuse of discretion. SIR: Take note ha? SITTING de jure officer
As such, mandamus lies against the discretionary act of granting or denying the
motion to intervene. o Constitutional Prohibitons on salaries
Prohibition against self-serving legislation
NOTE: the writ is issued to compel the exercise of discretion, but not the discretion Article 6, Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution
itself. Section 10. The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives shall be determined by law. No increase in said
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the full term of
- Right to office all the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives
- Right to compensation approving such increase.
- Presidential immunity from suit
- Doctrine of official immunity Prohibition against self-serving approval
- Preference in promotion Article 7, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution
- Leave of absence Section 6. The President shall have an official residence. The salaries of
- Retirement pay the President and Vice-President shall be determined by law and shall not
be decreased during their tenure. No increase in said compensation shall
Right To Office take effect until after the expiration of the term of the incumbent during
- The right to office of an incumbent does not depend on any contract which such increase was approved. They shall not receive during their
- It creates no contractual relation between the holder and the public tenure any other emolument from the Government or any other source.
- It exist by virtue of some law
- It generally entitles the holder to compensation Prohibition against violation of independence
Article 8, Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution

7
ELECTIONS | Midterms Transcript 2014
By RLB

Section 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices SC held: They acted within their authority pursuant to their honest interpretation of
of the Supreme Court, and of judges of lower courts, shall be fixed by the ordinance. The error does not amount to bad faith hence they are not liable for
law. During their continuance in office, their salary shall not be damages.
decreased. SIR: but what if the treasurer and the mayor were lawyers? Could they have
REASON: it might be used by Congress to influence them (judges acted STILL in good faith? Based on honest misinterpretation of the
and justices). ordinance? THE ANSWER IS YOURS IN THE EXAMhehe of course its not
going to come out(weeeh? Di nga??)
o Backwages are awarded for the period of suspension or dismissal if
(a) it is unjustified and Preference In Promotion
(b) the employee is found innocent of the charge Taduran vs Civil Service Commission
CSC vs Cruz There is no mandatory nor peremptory requirement in law that persons next-in-
Employee was suspended and dismissed for grave misconduct and dishonesty. rank are entitled to preference in appointment. But they would be among the first
But he was found innocent of the charges. The findings of dishonesty was to be considered for the vacancy, if qualified. If the vacancy is not filled by
downgraded to violation of reasonable office rule for failure to record promotion, the same shall be filled by transfer or other modes of appointment.
attendance which is punishable by reprimand only.
SC held: the 2 conditions for award of back wages are met. One, innocence. Leave Of Absence
Two, suspension or dismissal is unjustified. Sec. 284 and 285 of the Revised Admin Code amended by RA 2625
Sec. 284.After at least six months' continues faithful, and satisfactory service, the
Presidential Immunity From Suit President or proper head of department, or the chief of office in the case of municipal
- The 1987 Constitution has not reproduced the explicit guarantee of immunity under the employees may, in his discretion, grant to an employee or laborer, whether permanent
previous constitution or temporary, of the National Government, the provincial government, the government
- But the presidential immunity during tenure remains part of the law of a chartered city, of a municipality, of a municipal district or of government-owned or
- Once out of the office, even before the end of the term, immunity is lost controlled corporations other than those mentioned in Section two hundred sixty-eight,
- Its purpose is to assure the exercise of presidential duties and functions is free from any two hundred seventy-one and two hundred seventy-four hereof, fifteen days vacation
hindrance or distraction because the president must devote undivided time and leave of absence with full pay, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, for each
attention. calendar year of service.

But the privilege may be invoked or waived by the president only Sec. 285-A.In addition to the vacation leave provided in the two preceding sections each
Soliven vs Makasiar employee or laborer, whether permanent or temporary, of the National Government, the
Cory Aquino filed a criminal case for libel against Beltran who wrote she hid under provincial government, the government of a chartered city, of a municipality or
her bed at the height of the coup detat. Beltran argued she cannot file a criminal municipal district in any regularly and specially organized province, other than those
case during her incumbency because presidential immunity from suit includes mentioned in Section two hundred sixty-eight, two hundred seventy-one and two
disability to sue. hundred seventy-four hereof, shall be entitled to fifteen days of sick leave for each year
SC said: privilege of immunity from suit pertains to the president alone by virtue of of service with full pay, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and holidays: Provided, That
the office and may be invoked only by the holder of the office and not any other such sick leave will be granted by the President, Head of Department or independent
person in his or her behalf. office concerned, or the chief of office in case of municipal employees, only on account
o So it is only the president who can say that I will not file a suit. She of sickness on the part of the employee or laborer concerned or of any member of his
can, if she likes and thats what happened in the Cory Aquino case. immediate family.

Doctrine Of Official Immunity Right to vacation leave


Error in good faith is covered by immunity - At least 6 months continuous, faithful and satisfactory service
Farolan vs Solmac - Entitles the employee to 15 days vacation leave of absence with full pay, exclusive
Imported film scrap was found to be an oriented fiber which importation is of Saturdays, Sundays and holidays.
prohibited. Farolan withheld release, pending advice from the Bol which took years - For each calendar year of service.
before it allowed release. Farolan was sued for damages because the delay caused
him business losses. Right to sick leave in addition to vacation leave
SC held: Farolan is not personally liable because he acted in good faith. Even if he - At least 6 months continuous, faithful and satisfactory service
erred, he is not liable because the damage did not result in injury to the importer. - Entitles the employee to 15 days sick leave of absence with full pay, exclusive of
Saturdays, Sundays and holidays.
Honest mistake in the interpretation of ordinance is covered by immunity - For each calendar year of service.
Tuason vs CA
An ordinance authorized the treasurer to ask thresher operators who apply for NOTE: on account of sickness of the employee or any member of his immediate family.
permit to donate 1% of all threshed palay. Thus, he prepared an agreement. The o So 30 days all-in-all in a year. And it is not only the EE who is suppose to
operator who did not sign was refused payment of license fee and renewal of be sick but also the immediate members of his family.
permit. It turned out however that the 1% is optional.
Retirement Pay

8
ELECTIONS | Midterms Transcript 2014
By RLB

Pension Section 3, Rule 131 of the RoC expressly provides that the presumption that official duty
- Regualr allowances paid to the retiree in consideration of services rendered or in has been reguarly performed is satisfactory, if uncontradicted and overcome by other
recognition of merit, civil or military. evidence. The presumption, however, is not absolute.
Gratuity
- A donation, an act of pure liberality of the State. It may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary
NOTE: Pension is an act of justice while gratuity is an act of generosity. BPI vs Evangelista
To overcome this presumption, clear and convincing evidence to the contrary must be
Santiago vs COA presented.
Retirement laws should be liberally construed in favor of the retiree because they are
intended to provide sustenance for the retiree, and even comfort, when he no longer Pan Pacific Industrial Sales Co., Inc.
has the stamina to continue earning his livelihood. The presumption of regularity may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, strong and
convincing as to exclude all controversy. Absence such, the presumption must be
PROHIBITION FOR AND AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICERS upheld.
Article IX-B, 1987 Constitution The burden of proof to overcome the presumption lies on the contesting the same.
Section 2. (3) No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended
except for cause provided by law. Kinds Of Liability
Nonfeasance
Section 8. No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive additional, double, - Neglect or refusal, without sufficient cause, to perform an act which it was the officers legal
or indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by law, nor accept without the obligation to the individual to perform. This is omission of duty. (wa siyay gibuhat but he
consent of the Congress, any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind from any foreign was suppose to do something)
government.
Misfeasance
- Negligence, failure to use, in the performance of a duty owing to the individual, that degree
LIABILITIES OF A PUBLIC OFFICER of care, skill and diligence which the circumstances of the case reasonably demand. This is
improper act. (Duna siyay gibuhat pero sayup)
Presumption Of Good Faith And Regularity In The Performance Of Duties
- This is a very good defense in many criminal cases, especially for police officers Malfeasance
- Acts without any authority, excess, ignorance or abuse of power. This is illegal act. (Duna
Farolan case nay element of abuse)
Even if the withholding of imported goods turned out to be improper, the public officer is not
personally liable because his acts enjoys presumption of good faith and regularity Test to determine if offense is committed in relation to office
Crisostomo vs Sandiganbayan
Tuzon case Crisostomo is a jail guard charged with murder of a detainee under his custody before
Even if the public officer erred in the interpretation of ordinance resulting in the delay of the Sandiganbayan. He argues lack of jurisdiction because there is no direct relation
issuace of permit and business losses, he is not personally liable if the interpretation is honest between the commission of murder and his public office.
although erroneous. SC held: The direct relation is shown in his duty as a jail guard which is to ensure safe
custody and proper confinement of a detainee who was murdered under his watch.so
Error in the exercise of authority is covered by immunity provided it is done it negates his duty
- Within the scope of authority
- In good faith Public office need not be an element of the crime charged to show they are related
- Without wilfulness, malice or corruption Esteban vs Sandiganbayan
A bookbinder charged a judge with acts of lasciviousness after he made sexual advances
PRC vs Bonifacio and innuendos on her when she sought his recommendation. The judge argues the acts
- The results of a horse race was nullified by the Commission on Races after it of lasciviousness were not committed in relation to his office as a judge, and it is not an
investigated and found a faulty start. The winners claimed prizes and losers were essential element of the crime.
reimbursed of the amount of their bets. However, it turned out that it did not have the SC held: True, public office is not an element but still, he could not have committed it
authority to nullify the results of the race. were it not for his power to recommend appointment.
- SC said: Honest belief that it had the power of control is good faith.
o Nganung in good faith man sila? Three-Fold Liability Rule (Office of the Court Administrator vs Enriquez)
- They conducted on the spot investigation.thats the only thing that - It states that the wrongful acts or omissions of a public officer may give rise to civil, criminal
made them act in good fatih. and administrative liability.
- Plus the fact that it was an honest belief that they had the authority. - An action for each can proceed independently of the others.
Murag impulse bah.. - They are separate and distinct from each other.

The presumption is however not absolute Quantum of Proof required:


Eulogio vs Sps Apeles - Civil: preponderance of evidence

9
ELECTIONS | Midterms Transcript 2014
By RLB

- Criminal: guilt beyond reasonable doubt such, the accessory penalties of disqualification and forfeiture cannot be imposed
- Administrative: substantial evidence pursuant to the principle that the accessory follows the principal.
SC held: Dismissal of the criminal case does not bar administrative case and accessory
SIR: I have to confess (mao naaani! Unsa kaha ni iya i.confess), Ive been a lawyer for like a penalties pursuant to the 3-fold liability rule.
decade already but it is only 2 or 3 years ago that I came to know and understand
preponderance of evidence. Diha ra jud ku kasabot when I was confronted with a case. But when the public officer acts as a government lawyer, the action for damages
Because I really thought all along that preponderance of evidence is presentation of evidence. must be brought in a separate action
(okay ra na sir! Crush gihapun tka *sparkle2x ang eyes) But its not mere presentation of Chavez vs Sandiganbayan
evidence but the determination of which of the two sets of evidence is weightier that the The PCGG, represented by Solicitor General Frank Chavez, filed a complaint for re-
other. And thats the only basis for the grant or denial of a civil case. NOW WE KNOW! conveyance, reversion and accounting, restitution and damages against Enrile. Enrile
impleaded Chavez in his counter-claim for damages, alleging it is a mere harassment
Bad faith results in personal civil liability for damages suit because he was already cleared from a similar case before.
San Luis vs CA SC held: The action is misplaced. There is no general immunity arising solely from
A governor suspended and dismissed a quarry superintendent in defiance of the order of occupying a public office. Public officers can be held personally liable for ultra vires ats
the CSC and the Office of the President to revert and reinstate. The superintendent was or if they act in bad faith. But to allow a counterclaim against a lawyer leads to
exonerated of the charges. mischievous consequences. Any claim for damages should be filed in an entirely
SC held: The governor acted in bad faith. As such, he is personally liable for damages in separate and distinct civil action. The issue is whether it is proper to implead the lawyer.
the nature of civil liability.
(kana man gud madugay naka sa pwestosaktu gyud nang g.ingn sa mga aquinoI Liability Of Superior Officers For Acts Of Subordinates
wont deny that I am fan of the AquinosPOWER SHOULD BE TEMPORARY because if it
is permanent, it will corrupt. And if it corrupts, it corrupts absolutelyso kani nga mga The signature of the approving officer does not in itself amount to conspiracy with
tao mag.dugay gali sa pwesto, they acquire this delusion of power. Kabantay ka? They the subordinates
are so vindictive because they feel that if they are offended, you are trying to trumple Arias vs Sandiganbayan & Data vs Sandiganbayan
on their power. When in fact in the first place, they dont own that power. You know Arias approved payment for expropriated land which turned out to be overpriced and
what, I came to realize that for this country to improve or prosper, our only hope does supported by falsified documents. He was charged in conspiracy with others who
not lie on the politicians. Our hope is somewhere else. I dont know where but its not examined, reviewed and prepared falsified documents for the transaction.
with them. Its somewhere else) --- ANG SPEECH NI SIR.ayaw na k.strong dha sir..lab SC held: The mere signature of the head of office who had to rely to a reasonable extent
gihapun tka! J on the competence and good faith of his subordinates is not an evidence of conspiracy.
To require the head of office to personally probe records, inspect documents or
Absence of essential elements of the crime charged does not bar administrative investigate the motives of all individuals involved in the transaction before signing it is
liability pursuant to the three-fold liability rule asking the impossible. There has to be some added reason why the head of office
Domingo vs Rayala should examine the documents in detail. Otherwise, he repeats the process all over
A stenographic reporter charged the NLRC Chairman with sexual harassment. The again, defeating delegation and division of labor, which are good administrative
Chairman argued the acts complained of do not constitute sexual harassment because practices.
the essential elements of demand for sexual favour and made as a pre-condition to
employment or promotion were not alleged. EXCEPT: When there is no allegation of conspiracy among the superior and
SC held: Correct, if it is a criminal case. Even if none of the elements of sexual subordinates
harassment is alleged, he is still administratively liable because under the 3-fold liability Cesa vs Ombudsman
rule, the wrongful acts of a public officer may also give rise to administrative liability, Cesa is City treasurer. Under him are 5 department heads and 370 employees, one
apart from criminal and civil liability. (so wala gihapun kay lusot) It is not required that of whom is Badana, the paymaster who malversed at least 18M pesos of public
the demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor be made categorically. It is funds. An administrative case was filed against Badana by the City Mayor. But the
enough if it creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment. Ombudsman impleaded Cesa for neglect of duty. Cesa argues he could not be held
- Unsa may manifestation ani? That it created an intimidating, hostile or offensive liable because he does not approve cash advances. Invoking the Arias doctrine, he
environment to the EE. After the sexual harrasment, she wanted to transfer. She said he had to rely on his subordinates by virtue of division of labor and delegation
wanted to take a leave of absence. That instance shows that there was already a of functions.
hostile environment. SC held: The City treasurer is still liable for neglect of duty because his lack of
supervision contributed to the malversation of public funds. As a matter of fact, he
Dismissal of a criminal case does not bar administrative liability even if both arise approved paymasters requests based on papers without particulars. Arias doctrine
from identical facts does not apply because he was not charged in conspiracy with the paymaster. He
OP vs Cataquiz was separately charged and found to be negligent in his supervisory powers.
Cataquiz was criminally and administratively charged for graft and corruption. He was
replaced and later dismissed from service, disqualified to hold public office and forfeited
of retirement benefits. But the criminal case was dismissed. He argued it constitutes the MODES OF TERMINATION OF RELATIONS
law of the case. As such, the administrative case must also be dismissed. He also argued
he could no longer be dismissed because he was dismissed by replacement earlier. As End Of Term
Fernandez vs Ledesma (this is a very old case)

10
ELECTIONS | Midterms Transcript 2014
By RLB

The chief of police was replaced by the president with another pursuant to the city charter If there is no evidence of bad faith in the abolition of office, the termination does
that allows him to remove appointed officers in the city at his pleasure or discretion, except not result in removal, but a result of abolition
the municipal judge who may be removed only for cause provided by law. Facundo vs Pabalan & Ulep vs Carbonell
SC held: If the creation and tenure of office is expressly made dependent upon the pleasure Facundo is an eligible market collector while Ulep is a non-eligible clerk. The municipal
of the appointing authority, the appointment has no fixed term. As such, replacement does council resolved to abolish their positions because they are unnecessary, useless and
not amount to removal but expiration of term. redundant. But on the same day, another resolution was passed creating 4 positions for
policemen. They argued the resolution abolishing their offices illegally terminated them.
Hernandez vs Villegas SC held: While it appears the abolition is tainted with politics, the positions created by
The Director for Security of the Bureau of Customs was removed and transferred as Arrastre one resolution are entirely different from the positions abolished by another resolution.
Superintendent without cause. Respondents argued that the transfer is allowed because the Thus, there is no evidence of bad faith. Ulep could not invoke his right against removal
position is primarily confidential as it coordinates functions of security, patrol and without cause because he was not removed, but his office was abolished. Thus, it does
investigation. Primarily confidential, policy-determining and highly technical positions are not matter whether he is civil service eligible, non-civil service eligible, or eligible-in-
excluded from the merit system and their dismissal is at the pleasure of the appointing waiting.
authority. Thus, the Director can be removed and transferred with or without cause.
SC held: The position is not primarily confidential. The only authority to classify it as such is Abolition of office in bad faith is null and void hence it results in unlawful
the President. The constitution merely exempts these positions from the civil service termination
requirement that appointments must be made on the basis of merit and fitness as determined Cruz vs Primicias
by competitive examinations. As such, they can only be suspended or removed for cause as Cruz and other are civil service eligible provincial clerks. By virtue of authority from the
may be provided by law. And that cause is loss of confidence. If they are terminated on provincial board, the governor issued an executive order reorganizing his office and the
ground of loss of confidence, it is not removal but expiration of the term of office. provincial board to promote economy, efficiency and simplicity. It abolished the positions
of clerks but created positions for the governors confidential staff.
Retirement SC held: The issue is not removal but validity of the abolition of their offices. It is null
Beronilla vs GSIS because it clearly serves personal or political ends or to circumvent security of tenure.
Beronilla changed his year of birth from 1898 to 1900 which was approved by the GSIS No economy. Of the 72 positions abolished, 50 were vacant and the 22 occupied
general manager. Thus, the proceeds of his insurance policy was re-computed, maturity date positions were paid P25,000 per semester. Whereas the 28 new positions were paid
and value were adjusted. He also paid additional premium. But later it was found out that he P43,000 per semester. There is no need for more efficiency because there is no
had been paid salaries and fringe benefits despite lapse of his compulsory retirement age. complaint for inefficiency filed. As a matter of fact, they were all promoted before due to
Thus, the GSIS Board of Trustees resolved to supersede the decision of the general manager efficiency.
that allowed change of year of birth.
Contention of Beronilla: He argued it impaired the obligations of contract between him and Abolition of office presupposes clear intention to do away with it wholly and
the GSIS regarding his retirement. permanently
SC held: The constitutional injunction against impairment of obligations of insurance contracts Busacay vs Buenaventura (this is THE.ASOQUE DOCTRINE!SIR: Van roe? Where is
can only be directed against legislation and not resolutions of government agencies. van roe? Oooh! There he is!)
Retirement of government employees is imposed by law and is not a result of any contractual A toll collector was laid off when the bridge was totally destroyed by flood. When it
stipulation. reopened, he was replaced because accordingly, his position is temporary and the total
collapse of the bridge abolished it.
Abolition Of Office SC held: The total collapse of the bridge merely suspended the position, because there
Manalang vs Quitoriano (g.lag-lag ni Quitoriano si Manalangana xa: bai, ikaw na gyud ang is no intention to do away with it wholly and permanently. When it reopened, the
m.appoint. you have this passion for the agency blah blah blahnya si Quitoriano d.i tu ang position was automatically restored.
n.appoint. what makes this case more pityful is that Manalng was the one who drafted the law
that abolished his office. SIR: my heart bleeds for the guy *aweeee! Si sir jud uuui!* hahaha) Reorganization
The Placement Bureau was expressly abolished by law organizing its replacement, the Dario vs Mison
National Employment Service. Manalang, the Bureau Director was expected to be appointed Cory Aquino reorganized the Bureau if Customs. Thus, Mison terminated 394 customs officials
Commissioner but Labor Secretary Quitoriano was appointed. Manalang argued there is no and employees but replaced them with 522 new employees.
abolition of office but a mere fading away of the title Placement Bureau and all its functions SC held: Reorganization is valid if done in good faith. There is reorganization if personnel are
are continued by the National Employment Service. Hence, he continues to occupy it by reduced, offices consolidated or abolished by reason of economy or redundancy. No
operation of law. As such, the appointment of Quitoriano is illegal because it amounted to his economy, 394 were replaced with 522 new employees. No reorganization, but mere change
removal from office without cause. of personnel.
SC held: Removal presupposes that the officer was ousted from office prior to term end and
that the office still exists after the ouster of the occupant. It is not the case in point. A law Qualifications are continuing requirements
expressly abolished the Placement Bureau. Thus, the Office of the Director is impliedly Article VIII, 1987 Constitution
abolished because it cannot exist without the bureau. The abolition of the office likewise Section 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold
abolished the right of the occupant to stay. There is no removal, but abolition by express office during good behaviour until they reach the age of seventy years or become
legislative act. incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The Spreme Court en banc shall
have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of

11
ELECTIONS | Midterms Transcript 2014
By RLB

majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the have been struck down as done in bad faith had both offices performed
case and voted thereon. substantially the same functions. (Facundo vs Pabalan, Ulep vs Carbonell)

Reorganization by abolition does not result in unlawful removal from office C. Incumbents are replaced with less qualified in terms of status of
Dela Llana vs Alba appointment, performance and merit;
Dela Llana is a lower court judge who challenged the constitutionality of BP 129 - Replacement of eligible clerks who were once promoted for efficiency with
reorganizing the judiciary. He argued it violates his security of tenure because he holds confidential employees whose only qualification is loyalty to the governor negates
office during good behaviour until he reaches compulsory age of retirement or is efficiency as justification for reorganization. (Cruz vs Primicias)
incapacitated.
SC held: Reorganization of lower courts does not violate security of tenure of its D. Reclassification with substantially the same functions as the original offices;
occupants because there is no removal but abolition of their offices.
E. Removal violates order of separation provided in Section 3
TAKE NOTE: Abolition is just a concrete manifestation of reorganization. - Order of separation of personnel pursuant to reorganization:
Casual employees serving less than 5 years
The power of the president to reorganize his office does not include the power to Casual employees serving 5 or more years
create one Temporary employees
Biraogo vs Truth Commission & Lagman vs Albano Permanent employees
President Aquino created the truth commission to investigate graft and corruption cases
allegedly committed under the Arroyo administration. Evidence of bad faith must be adduced, otherwise the reorganization is sustained
SC held: While the law grants the president continuing authority to reorganize his office, Cotiangco vs Province of Biliran (I did not assign this casethis is a new case. 2012
it does not include the power to create an office. case.)
Reorganization involves: Permanent public health workers were terminated when their offices were abolished due
- reduction of personnel, to reorganization which they claimed was done in bad faith.
- consolidation or SC held: Good faith is presumed. He who alleges otherwise has the burden of proof.
- abolition of offices by reason of economy or redundancy. Instead of significant increase in positions, it decreased from 120 to 98. The new
Thus, it presupposes an office existed prior to alteration. It is not an exercise of power positions created were for storekeepers that do not perform similar functions as health
of control because it involves the power to modify, alter, nullify or set aside the decision practitioners.
of a subordinate. It does not include the power to create an office. They also failed to show:
The power to create a public office is: - Reclassification of offices performing substantially similar functions.
- legislative, or - Evidence they are better qualified in performance and merit than those who
- validly delegated by Congress or replaced them.
- inherent duty to faithfully execute laws. - Order of separation was violated, especially the provision that says those who are
least qualified in terms of performance and merit shall be laid off first, regardless of
TAKE NOTE: but in this case, the inherent duty to faithfully execute laws was invoked by the length of service.
solicitor general in favor of the office of the president. But it was not taken into consideration
by the SC because the SC was actually blinded by the fact that it violated the equal protection Abandonment
clauseof the Consti because it singled-out the Arroyo administration. Summers vs Ozaeta
A cadastral judge received, qualified and assumed an ad interim appointment as judge-at-
Bad faith in reorganization per R.A. 6656 (Act that protects the Security of Tenure) large of first instance. But it was disapproved by the Commission on Appointments. He
argues he did not abandon his former position because the constitution entitles him to hold
A. Significant increase in the number of positions; office as cadastral judge during good behaviour until he reaches mandatory retirement age of
- Replacement of 394 eligible employees with 522 new employees negates economy 70 or becomes incapacitated.
as justification for reorganization. (Dario vs Mison) SC held: there is no doubt about the right to hold office during good behaviour until he
- Replacement of 22 occupied positions at P25,000 per semester with 28 new reaches maximum retirement age of 70 years or becomes incapacitated. But it can be waived
positions at P43,800 per semester negates economy as justification for through abandonment. If the officer discharged the functions of his new position and
reorganization. (Cruz vs Primicias) received salaries for it, he is considered to have abandoned his former position without right
to repossess.
B. An office is abolished and replaced with another performing substantially the
same functions; Other acts constitute of abandonment
- The offices of a market collector and local civil registrar clerk were dissolved and Unabia vs City Mayor
replaced with 4 positions for policemen. It appeared that the market collector and A foreman was removed by the city mayor without investigation and cause. But he filed
local civil registrar clerk were removed via abolition of their offices because of their a petition for quo warranto to recover his position a year and 15 days after.
political affiliation. SC held: Inaction or failure to recover position for an unreasonable length of time
- Although the reorganization is tainted with politics, the Supreme Court said that constitutes abandonment.
was not prepared to declare it an abuse of power because the dissolved positions
and the newly created positions performed entirely different functions. It would Zandueta vs de la Costa

12
ELECTIONS | Midterms Transcript 2014
By RLB

A judge accepted another appointment, discharged its functions and received salaries. - If the law requires a particular form, it must be followed.
SC held: He abandoned his office without right to repossess if the new appointment was - Where no such form is prescribed or particular mode required, it may be made by any
disapproved. method indicative of the purpose.
- It need not be in writing, unless so required by law.
Incompatible Office - It may be oral or implied by conduct.
- Incompatibility is found on the character of the offices and their relation to each other, in the
subordination of one to the other, and in the nature of the functions and duties which attach Resignation implied by conduct or CONSTRUCTIVE RESIGNATION
to them. - By applying for and receiving retirement benefits, one may be deemed to have
- It requires the involvement of two government offices or positions which are held by one irrevocably resigned from government service. (Triste vs Macaraeg)
individual at the same time. - If resignation is conditional, there is no resignation at all due to lack of intention to
relinquish the position. To constitute a complete and operative act of resignation, there
It exists where: must be:
1) There is conflict and interference in the duties and functions Clear intention to relinquish, and
2) One is subordinate of public policy Acceptance by a competent and lawful authority. (Gonzales
3) The law, for reasons of public policy, declares the incompatibility even though there vs Hernandez)
is no inconsistency in the nature and functions of the offices.
To whom tendered
NOTE: - To the one designated by statute
- Thus, Members of Congress are disqualified to hold any other office or employment in - If not designated by law, to the officer or body having authority to appoint his successor
the government. or call an election.
o In the government only. But in the private sector, it can be allowed.
- They cannot hold 2 classes of office Acceptance
Incompatible office - By formal declaration or appointment of successor
Forbidden office - Without it, resignation is inoperative and ineffective
- Without it, the officer who abandons his office to the detriment of public service is
DEFINITION criminally liable.
Incompatible office - Without it, the offer to resign is revocable.
- Incompatible office includes any kind of office or employment in the government, or any
of its subdivision, agency or instrumentality including GOCCs or their subsidiaries. Withdrawal of resignation is allowed provided it is done before:
- Acceptance of the second office incompatible with the first ipso facto vacates the latter. Its intended date
- Thus, a senator or congressman who accepts any other office or employment in the It is accepted
government during his term of office forfeits his seat. While the holding of another office The appointing officer acts in reliance on it.
is allowed, he automatically forfeits his elective post. An appointive officer is deemed
ipso facto resigned upon filing of candidacy for an elective position. Effect of resignation on administrative case
o So if you hold a permanent position in the government, that is appointive. OP & PAGC vs Cataquiz
Then you want to run for public office. So the moment you file you certificate Cataquiz was dismissed with accessory penalties of disqualification and forfeiture. But he
of candidacy (COC) with the Comelec, automatically ipso facto mechanically was already replaced with another prior to his dismissal. The Court of Appeals thus
you are considered reisgned from your appointive position because of disallowed the accessory penalties because there is no more principal penalty of
incompatibility of offices. And that results in the termination of official dismissal which the accessories should follow.
relations. SC held: Removal or resignation is not a bar to the finding of administrative liability.
Hence, accessory penalties can still be imposed.
Forbidden office
- Refers to any office created or the emoluments of which have been increased during the EXCEPT: If the public officer resigned before the administrative case was filed
term for which he was elected, not merely during his tenure or actual incumbency. and it is clearly shown that it was not intended to pre-empt its filing
- Ineligibility lasts until after end of term, not tenure. So, he is not eligible to be appointed - In other words, there are cases that the BEFORE and AFTER agreement matter.
to the office created during his term even if he resigns or loses his seat before end of What mattters is: was there an intention to preempt the filing of the administrative
term. case.
- The time of resignationthe before and after of the filing of the admin casemay
Terms of office not matter, if it still can be shown that the purpose or the intention was to preempt
- A fixed period of time during which the officer has a right to hold office the filing of admin case. So it is case-to-case basis.

Tenure of office Ombudsman vs Andutan REMEMBER THIS CASE!!


- The period during which the incumbent actually holds office. A deputy director of the finance department resigned after he was directed to
vacate for being a non-career official. More than a year after he resigned however,
Resignation he was administratively charged for dishonesty, grave misconduct, falsification and
- Formal renunciation of a public office. prejudicial conduct.

13
ELECTIONS | Midterms Transcript 2014
By RLB

SC held: The ombudsman may still investigate an administrative offense after a SECTION 69. By Whom Exercised. The power of recall for loss of confidence shall be
year it was committed. But if the public officer resigned before it is filed, the exercised by the registered voters of a local government unit to which the local elective official
administrative case is mooted and the accessory penalties could no longer be subject to such recall belongs.
imposed. While it is true that the Supreme Court has held that resignation does not
moot administrative cases, the public officials involved in such cases resigned after Section 70. Initiation of the Recall Process. (as amended by RA 9244)
the administrative cases were filed against them. In those cases, it was intended (a) The Recall of any elective provincial, city, municipal or barangay official shall be
either to discontinue one already filed or pre-empt imminent filing of one. None of commenced by a petition of a registered voter in the local government unit concerned and
which is present, because the director was forced to resign. supported by the registered voters in the local government unit concerned during the election
in which the local official sought to be recalled was elected subject to the following
Removal percentage requirements:
Manalang vs Quitoriano
- Entails ouster of an incumbent before the expiration of his term. (1) At least twenty-five percent (25%) in the case of local government units with a
- It implies that the office exists after the ouster. voting population of not more than twenty thousand (20,000);
- It may be express or implied. Implied if
Appointment of another officer (2) At least twenty percent (20%) in the case of local government units with a voting
Transfer to another office population of at least twenty thousand (20,000) but not more than seventy-five
Demotion thousand (75,000): Provided, That in no case shall the required petitioners be less than
Reassignment five thousand (5,000);

Power to appoint includes power to remove, where there is no fixed term (3) At least fifteen percent (15%) in the case of local government units with a voting
Lacson vs Roque population of at least seventy-five thousand (75,000) but not more than three hundred
Limitations on the power to remove thousand (300,000): Provided, however, That in no case shall the required number of
Purely executive officials with no fixed term are removable anytime with or petitioners be less than fifteen thousand (15,000); and
without cause
Civil service employees cannot be removed or suspended except for cause as (4) At least ten percent (10%) in the case of local government units with a voting
provided for by law. population of over three hundred thousand (300,000): Provided, however, That in no
For cause means reasons which the law and sound public policy recognize as sufficient case shall the required petitioners be less than forty-five thousand (45,000).
ground for removal.
(b) The process of recall shall be effected in accordance with the following procedure:
Dismissal of criminal case does not bar removal in administrative case
OP & PAGC vs Cataquiz (1) A written petition for recall duly signed by the representatives of the petitioners
Cataquiz was recommended to be dismissed due to graft and corruption. Instead of before the election registrar or his representative, shall be filed with the Comelec
acting on it, the president replaced him with another in an acting capacity. He was later through its office in the local government unit concerned.
dismissed by the president, disqualified to hold public office and forfeited of benefits.
But since the dismissal could no longer be enforced because of prior replacement, the (2) The petition to recall shall contain the following:
president removed the penalty of dismissal but reiterated disqualification and forfeiture. (a) The names and addresses of the petitioners written in legible form and their
Contention of Cataquiz: The Ombudsman dismissed the criminal cases against him signatures;
involving the same set of facts. As such, it becomes the law of the case between the
parties which warrants dismissal of the administrative charges against him. (b) The barangay, city or municipality, local legislative district and the province to
SC held: The dismissal by the Ombudsman of the cases against him involving similar which the petitioners belong;
facts does not bar the president from removing him. As presidential appointee, he is
under the presidents direct disciplining authority which includes dismissal. (c) The name of the official sought to be recalled; and

Impeachable officials can only be removed on the grounds enumerated in the (d) A brief narration of the reasons and justifications therefor.
Constitution
In Re: Gonzales, 160 SCRA 771 (3) The Comelec shall, within fifteen (15) days from the filing of the petition, certify to
A chief justice was sought to be disbarred. the sufficiency of the required number of signatures. Failure to obtain the required
SC held: The Chief Justice is removable only by impeachment. Since he is also required number of signatures automatically nullifies the petition;
to be a member of the Philippine Bar, he cannot be disbarred during his incumbency. To
grant disbarment circumvents constitutional mandate that SC members can only be (4) If the petition is found to be sufficient in form, the Comelec or its duly authorized
removed by impeachment. representative shall, within three (3) days from the issuance of the certification, provide
the official sought to be recalled a copy of the petition, cause its publication in a national
Recall (aku gi copy-paste ang discussion about Recall from our Pub Corp class last sem kay wa ku newspaper of general circulation and a newspaper of general circulation in the locality,
k.gukod ug picture sa tanan slides ni sir. Hehe in addition sa slides nga aku na picture-an. hehe) once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks at the expense of the petitioners and at
the same time post copies thereof in public and conspicuous places for a period of not
less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty (20) days, for the purpose of allowing

14
ELECTIONS | Midterms Transcript 2014
By RLB

interested parties to examine and verify the validity of the petition and the authenticity The incumbent official, who is the subject of the recall proceedings, will automatically
of the signatures contained therein. becomes a candidate for that recall election, whether he likes it or not. In fact, he
cannot resign. Then, Comelec will invite other persons to file COC for the recall election.
(5) The Comelec or its duly authorized representatives shall, upon issuance of - If the incumbent official will win the recall election, it means that the recall election
certification, proceed independently with the verification and authentication of the failed since it has been shown that the people still have their trust and confidence
signatures of the petitioners and registered voters contained therein. Representatives of on the incumbent.
the petitioners and the official sought to be recalled shall be duly notified and shall have
the right to participate therein as mere observers. The filing of any challenge or protest - If somebody else wins the recall election, then it means that the recall election
shall be allowed within the period provided in the immediately preceding paragraph and succeeded, since it has been shown that the people lost their trust and confidence
shall be ruled upon with finality within fifteen (15) days from the date of filing of such on the incumbent.
protest or challenge;
The reason behind the requirement of certain percentages is that it cannot be that,
(6) Upon the lapse of the aforesaid period, the Comelec or its duly authorized every now and then, each time a local elective official sits in the office that he will face a
representative shall announce the acceptance of candidates to the position and recall election. To give semblance of legitimacy to a grievance by the electorates, the
thereafter prepare the list of candidates which shall include the name of the official registered voters needs the support of 25%, 20% etc. as the case may be.
sought to be recalled.
Prohibition in Recall Proceedings:
SEC. 71. Election on Recall. Upon the filing of a valid petition for recall with the appropriate No resignation during recall process;
local office of the Comelec, the Comelec or its duly authorized representative shall set the date of Recall election should only be once during the term of the official.
the election or recall, which shall not be later than thirty (30) days upon the completion of the
procedure outlined in the preceding article, in the case of the barangay, city or municipal officials, NOTE: it speaks of election, not proceeding, thus, initiation can be done more than once.
and forty-five (45) days in the case of provincial officials. The officials sought to be recalled shall
automatically be considered as duly registered candidate or candidates to the pertinent positions No recall election shall take place:
and, like other candidates, shall be entitled to be voted upon. (as amended by RA 9244) - within one (1) year from date of officials assumption to office or
- one (1) year immediately preceding a regular election (day of election and that
SECTION 72. Effectivity of Recall. The recall of an elective local official shall be effective election affecting the office of the official concerned)
only upon the election and proclamation of a successor in the person of the candidate receiving
the highest number of votes cast during the election on recall. Should the official sought to be *Hence, a recall election can only be scheduled during the middle of the incumbent officials
recalled receive the highest number of votes, confidence in him is thereby affirmed, and he shall term. The reason in the first prohibition, it is too early to tell that the people had already lost
continue in office. their trust and confidence and it is not a good practice. Also, it is to give him a chance to
prove himself. While in the second prohibition, it is too close to the next regular election,
SECTION 73. Prohibition from Resignation. The elective local official sought to be recalled thus, it wouldnt be prudent to insist on a recall election when the voters can still manifest
shall not be allowed to resign while the recall process is in progress. their decision on the incumbent official in the next regular election. It is also a waste of
money and resources.
SECTION 74. Limitations on Recall.
(a) Any elective local official may be the subject of a recall election only once during his By this procedure, an elective official may be removed at any time during his term by the
term of office for loss of confidence. vote of the people at an election called for such purpose.
Any time means after one year from assumption or one year before a regular local election
(b) No recall shall take place within one (1) year from the date of the official's where the position of the subject to be recalled is to be contested.
assumption to office or one (1) year immediately preceding a regular local election. Its purpose is to provide an effective speedy remedy to remove an official who fails to give
satisfactory service and whom electors no longer want to remain in office.
SECTION 75. Expenses Incident to Recall Elections. All expenses incident to recall
elections shall be borne by the COMELEC. For this purpose, there shall be included in the annual Contents of the recall petition:
General Appropriations Act a contingency fund at the disposal of the COMELEC for the conduct of - Names, addresses and signatures of petitioners
recall elections. - Barangay, city or municipality, local legislative district and the province where petitioners
belong
- Definition: Recall is a mode of removing an elected official by the people before the end of his - Name of the official sought to be recalled
term. - Brief narration of the reasons and justifications
- Ground: LOSS OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE NOTE: Thus, the allegation of loss of confidence is not sufficient
- No more preparatory recall assembly (PRA) as a mode of initiating recall.
- There is only one mode of initiating recall: By the Registered Voters (following certain Where filed
percentage) - Comelec through its field office in the local government unit concerned.

*In the Philippines, we only apply recall to local elective officials. Election on recall
- Official sought to be recalled is automatically considered a candidate.
- He is not allowed to resign while the recall process is in progress.

15
ELECTIONS | Midterms Transcript 2014
By RLB

The SC has exclusive administrative control and supervision over all court
Limitations on recall personnel even if they are presidential appointees
- A local elective official may be subject of recall only once during his term of office for - Undue delay in disposition of a case is administrative in nature. As such, it pertains to
loss of confidence. the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. (Dolalas vs Ombudsman)
- No recall within one year from date of assumption or before a regular local election. - But falsification of certificates of service is not only criminal for falsification but also
administrative for serious misconduct and inefficiency. As such, the Ombudsman must
Regular local election defer action and refer it to SC to determine if he acted within his scope of duties.
- For the time bar to apply, the approaching regular local election must be one where the (Maceda vs Vasquez)
position of the official to be recalled will be contested and filled by the electorate.
(Angobung vs Comelec) Discipline over non-presidential appointees
- The prohibition is due to the proximity of the next regular election where the electorate Book V, EO 292 or the Revised Administrative Code
can choose a replacement with longer tenure than the successor elected through recall. SECTION 46.Discipline: General Provisions.
- Recall election is potentially disruptive of the normal working of a local government, (a) No officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be suspended or dismissed except for
aside from additional expenses. (Paras vs Comelec) cause as provided by law and after due process.

Prescription (b) The following shall be grounds for disciplinary action:


Unabia vs Mayor (1) Dishonesty;
On June 16, 1953, a foreman was removed and replaced by the city mayor without (2) Oppression;
investigation and cause. On July 1, 1954, he filed quo warranto to be reinstated. (3) Neglect of duty;
SC held: He appears to have abandoned his position because it took him a year and 15 days (4) Misconduct;
to file quo warranto. But since the law does not fix a period for abandonment, prescription of (5) Disgraceful and immoral conduct;
action is the more appropriate mode on how his official relations were terminated. (6) Being notoriously undesirable;
(7) Discourtesy in the course of official duties;
Reasons for prescription (8) Inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties;
Tumulak vs Egay (9) Receiving for personal use of a fee, gift or other valuable thing in the course of
In July 1946, a justice of the peace was replaced with another. In August 1948, he filed official duties or in connection therewith when such fee, gift, or other valuable thing is
a quo warranto case. given by any person in the hope or expectation of receiving a favor or better treatment
SC held: The action prescribed. It is not proper that the title of a public office should be than that accorded other persons, or committing acts punishable under the anti-graft
subjected to continued uncertainty. Public interest requires that such right should be laws;
determined as soon as possible or within reasonable time. (10) Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
(11) Improper or unauthorized solicitation of contributions from subordinate employees
Failure to assume office and by teachers or school officials from school children;
Effect: Failure to assume vacates the office and terminates relations (12) Violation of existing Civil Service Law and rules or reasonable office regulations;
Section 11. Failure to assume office of the Omnibus Election Code IHcSCA
The office of any official elected who fails or refuses to take his oath of office within six (13) Falsification of official document;
months from his proclamation shall be considered vacant, unless said failure is for a (14) Frequent unauthorized absences or tardiness in reporting for duty, loafing or
cause or causes beyond his control. frequent unauthorized absences from duty during regular office hours; SEIDAC
(15) Habitual drunkenness;
Criminal liability for failure to assume office (16) Gambling prohibited by law;
Article 234. Refusal to discharge elective office. Arresto mayor or a maximum 1,000 fine or (17) Refusal to perform official duty or render overtime service;
both. (18) Disgraceful, immoral or dishonest conduct prior to entering the service;
(19) Physical or mental incapacity or disability due to immoral or vicious habits;
Elements: (20) Borrowing money by superior officers from subordinates or lending by subordinates
- Offender is elected by popular election to a public office to superior officers;
- Refuses to swear or discharge duties of office (21) Lending money at usurious rates of interest;
- Without legal motive (22) Willful failure to pay just debts or willful failure to pay taxes due the government;
o Legal motive means legal justification. (23) Contracting loans of money or other property from persons with whom the office of
the employee concerned has business relations;
Reason why it is punished: (24) Pursuit of private business, vocation or profession without the permission required
- Discharge of duties not only becomes a matter of right, but a matter of duty. by the Civil Service rules and regulations;
(25) Insubordination;
(26) Engaging directly or indirectly in partisan political activities by one holding a non-
ADMINITRATIVE DISCIPLINE political office;
(27) Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service;
Discipline over presidential appointees (28) Lobbying for personal interest or gain in legislative halls or offices without
authority;

16
ELECTIONS | Midterms Transcript 2014
By RLB

(29) Promoting the sale of tickets in behalf of private enterprises that are not intended
for charitable or public welfare purposes and even in the latter cases if there is no prior
authority;
(30) Nepotism as defined in Section 59 of this Title.

(c) Except when initiated by the disciplining authority, no complaint against a civil service
official or employee shall be given due course unless the same is in writing and subscribed
and sworn to by the complainant.

(d) In meting out punishment, the same penalties shall be imposed for similar offenses and
only one penalty shall be imposed in each case. The disciplining authority may impose the
penalty of removal from the service, transfer, demotion in rank, suspension for not more than
one year without pay, fine in an amount not exceeding six months' salary or reprimand.

SECTION 59.Nepotism.
(1) All appointments in the national, provincial, city and municipal governments or in any
branch or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations,
made in favor of a relative of the appointing or recommending authority, or of the chief of the
bureau or office, or of the persons exercising immediate supervision over him, are hereby
prohibited. you and your siblings are 2nd degree relatives
you and your parents are 1st degree relatives
As used in this Section, the word "relative" and members of the family referred to are those you and your grandparents are 2nd degree relatives
related within the third degree either of consanguinity or of affinity. uncle and aunts are your 3rd degree relatives
1st cousins are 4th degree relatives
(2) The following are exempted from the operation of the rules on nepotism:
(a) persons employed in a confidential capacity, Exempted in the Rules on Nepotism
(b) teachers, - Persons employed in a confidential capacity by the elected official
(c) physicians, and o They are now entitled to support staff, unlike before. this support staff is more
(d) members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines: often than not kay mga parente ug mga supporters nga tig.pilit ug mga
posters during campaign.
Provided, however, That in each particular instance full report of such appointment shall - Teachers
be made to the Commission. - Physicians
- AFP
The restriction mentioned in subsection (1) shall not be applicable to the case of a
member of any family who, after his or her appointment to any position in an office or Impeachment
bureau, contracts marriage with someone in the same office or bureau, in which event Article XI, 1987 Constitution
the employment or retention therein of both husband and wife may be allowed. Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the
Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from
(3) In order to give immediate effect to these provisions, cases of previous appointment office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason,
which are in contravention hereof shall be corrected by transfer, and pending such transfer, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public
no promotion or salary increase shall be allowed in favor of the relative or relatives who were officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by
appointed in violation of these provisions. impeachment.
SIR: Bisaya sa impeachment kay GISUMBONG KA. But dont use that in ordinary language like
What is nepotism? sa imung manghud mu ingun kag i-impeach tika ni mama. Thats too legal.
- If you make an appointment in favor of a relative of the appointing or the
recommending authority, that is prohibited. Because of nepotism. - A method of national inquest into the conduct of public men.
- Purpose to protect the people from official delinquencies.
- It is not to punish but only to remove an officer who does not deserve to hold office. Limited
to removal from office and disqualification to hold public office. Without prejudice to filing of
appropriate cases. Thus, double jeopardy is not a defense.

Impeachment is beyond the presidents power of executive clemency


- Impeachable officials:
President
Vice-president
Members of the SC
Members of the Con. Com.
17
ELECTIONS | Midterms Transcript 2014
By RLB

The Ombudsman
When can you say that the tribunal has acquired jurisdiction?
NOTE: This list is exclusive - The body where the complaint was filed first; AND
- Opts to take cognizance of the case
Grounds for impeachment:
- Culpable violation of the Constitution NOTE: Only the proper COURT can order the REMOVAL of the official.
- Treason
- Bridbery Section 61. Form and Filing of Administrative Complaints.
- Graft and Corruption A verified complaint against any erring local elective official shall be prepared as follows:
- Other high crimes (a) A complaint against any elective official of a province, a highly urbanized city, an
- Betrayal of public trust independent component city or component city shall be filed before the Office of the
President;
Gonzales vs OP
Betrayal of public trust refers to any form of violation of oath of office even if it is (b) A complaint against any elective official of a municipality shall be filed before the
not a criminally punishable offense. sangguniang panlalawigan whose decision may be appealed to the Office of the President;
Too broad, thus SC clarified this definition. It refers to acts which are just short of being and
criminal but constitute gross faithlessness against public trust, tyrannical abuse of
power, inexcusable negligence of duty, favouritism, and gross exercise of discretionary (c) A complaint against any elective barangay official shall be filed before the sangguniang
powers. panlungsod or sangguniang bayan concerned whose decision shall be final and executory.
Acts that constitute betrayal of public trust as to warrant removal from office may be
less than criminal but must be attended by bad faith and of such gravity and seriousness These are the tribunals or offices that have jurisdiction over disciplinary action, if you are to
as the other grounds for impeachment. file the administrative case under the Local Government Code:
- Office of the President: Province, HUC and City
Administrative discipline over local elective officials (aku ra g.copy-paste from pub corp - Sangguniang Panlalawigan: Municipality - appealable to the Office of the
transcript last year nga relevant kay matter of reading ra man daw ingun xa so i.skip nlng niya. President
Haaaaaiii) - Sangguniang Panlungsod (if city) or Sangguniang Bayan (if municipality):
Local Government Code Barangay - final and executory
Section 60. Grounds for Disciplinary Actions.
An elective local official may be disciplined, suspended, or removed from office on any of the In the case of Barangay, the decision of the SP is final and executory, unlike in
following grounds: the case of a municipality that it can be appealed to the President. But as you
(a) Disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines; know, you can invoke Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the grounds of grave
(b) Culpable violation of the Constitution; abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
(c) Dishonesty, oppression, misconduct in office, gross negligence, or dereliction of duty;
(d) Commission of any offense involving moral turpitude or an offense punishable by at least *You will notice that it actually depends on the affiliation of the respondent. If he
prision mayor; belongs to the Liberal Party, for example, like our incumbent Governor, you dont file the
(e) Abuse of authority; administrative case in the Office of the President. (kapartido man si Noynoy ug Junjun
(f) Unauthorized absence for fifteen (15) consecutive working days, except in the case of Davide)
members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, sangguniang bayan,
and sangguniang barangay; Concurrent jurisdiction with the Ombudsman
(g) Application for, or acquisition of, foreign citizenship or residence or the status of an - In administrative cases involving the concurrent jurisdiction of two or more disciplining
immigrant of another country; and authorities, the body where the complaint is filed first, and which opts to take
(h) Such other grounds as may be provided in this Code and other laws. cognizance of the case, acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of other tribunals exercising
concurrent jurisdiction. In this case, the petitioner is a Barangay Chairman, occupying a
An elective local official may be removed from office on the grounds enumerated above by order position corresponding to salary grade 14.
of the proper court. - Since the complaint against the petitioner was initially filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman, the Ombudsman's exercise of jurisdiction is to the exclusion of the
Pursuant to the constitutional mandate that there must be a provision on accountability in the sangguniang bayan whose exercise of jurisdiction is concurrent.
LGC.
Purpose: To discipline local elective officials. *So typically, the usual mode of disciplinary action is through the ombudsman. For the following
It has the nature of an administrative proceeding. Therefore, it imposes administrative reasons:
penalties. And the highest penalty that may be imposed is only SUSPENSION. (1) It is not expected to be highly politicized now, compared to before when the it was
If you are to seek disciplinary action, we have the ombudsman or you can avail of the LGC administrated by Gutierrez but now it is under the EVER straight and strict retired SC Justice
provisions. Its a choice on the part of the aggrieved party. (Concurrent jurisdiction sila) Conchita Carpio-Morales. Naa tanan! Maldita, strikta, straight!
But as a matter of rule in administrative law: The tribunal that first acquires jurisdiction over
the case shall continue to exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other one. Otherwise, it
will be a case of forum shopping.

18
ELECTIONS | Midterms Transcript 2014
By RLB

(2) if you tend to seek imposition of preventive suspension, mas taas ang ombudsman, 6
months of preventive suspension. Whereas, in the case of LGC, 60 days and if multiple, 90 In a case, when are issues considered joined? What is an issue?
days. Answer: In legal parlance, an issue is an allegation that is denied by the other party
because allegation that is admitted is not an issue. Therefore, issues are joined
Section 63. Preventive Suspension. upon the filing of a responsive pleading.
(a) Preventive suspension may be imposed:
Length of preventive suspension:
(1) By the President, if the respondent is an elective official of a province, a highly - Single offense 60
urbanized or an independent component city; - Multiple offense 90
(2) By the governor, if the respondent is an elective official of a component city or *In the case of the Ombudsman, you can ask for a 6 months preventive suspension.
municipality; or
(3) By the mayor, if the respondent is an elective official of the barangay. Note: Prior hearing is not required in preventive suspension because it is not a penalty
and will not violate due process
(b) Preventive suspension may be imposed at any time after the issues are joined, when the
evidence of guilt is strong, and given the gravity of the offense, there is great probability that Section 64. Salary of Respondent Pending Suspension. - The respondent official
the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to preventively suspended from office shall receive no salary or compensation during such
the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence: Provided, That, any single suspension; but upon subsequent exoneration and reinstatement, he shall be paid full salary or
preventive suspension of local elective officials shall not extend beyond sixty (60) days: compensation including such emoluments accruing during such suspension.
Provided, further, That in the event that several administrative cases are filed against an - You are not entitled to salary during suspension but if you are exonerated and reinstated, you
elective official, he cannot be preventively suspended for more than ninety (90) days within a will be paid in full salary and emolument. Genadan case
single year on the same ground or grounds existing and known at the time of the first
suspension. Section 65. Rights of Respondent. - The respondent shall be accorded full opportunity to
appear and defend himself in person or by counsel, to confront and cross-examine the witnesses
(c) Upon expiration of the preventive suspension, the suspended elective official shall be against him, and to require the attendance of witnesses and the production of documentary
deemed reinstated in office without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings against process of subpoena or subpoena duces tecum.
him, which shall be terminated within one hundred twenty (120) days from the time he was - Full opportunity to appead and to defend himself or by counsel
formally notified of the case against him. However, if the delay in the proceedings of the case - The party in an inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel and the body has no duty to
is due to his fault, neglect, or request, other than the appeal duly filed, the duration of such furnish him with counsel. Remolona vs CSC
delay shall not be counted in computing the time of termination of the case. o the right to counsel is waivable in an administrative proceeding

(d) Any abuse of the exercise of the power of preventive suspension shall be penalized as Section 68. Execution Pending Appeal. - An appeal shall not prevent a decision from
abuse of authority. becoming final or executory. The respondent shall be considered as having been placed under
preventive suspension during the pendency of an appeal in the event he wins such appeal. In the
It is not a penalty; Hence invocation of due process is generally not appropriate. event the appeal results in an exoneration, he shall be paid his salary and such other emoluments
Due process is irrelevant. There is no denial of life, liberty or property because public during the pendency of the appeal.
office is not a property, public office is a public trust. - Appeal does not prevent decision becoming final and executory. If respondent wins an
In a case, SC held that the sole objective of an administrative suspension is: appeal, the period during which the appeal was pending shall be considered as a period of
- To prevent the accused from hampering the normal course of the investigation with preventive suspension.
his influence and authority over possible witnesses or to keep him off the records - If the appeal exonerates, he shall be paid his salary and such other emoluments during the
and other evidence; and pendency of the appeal.
- To assist prosecutors in firming up a case, if any, against an erring local official.
Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman
Authority to impose preventive suspension:
1) President in the case of Province, HUC and ICC; The full administrative disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman is not limited to
2) Governor in the case of CC and Municipality; recommendation. When public officers are found at fault, it includes the power
3) Mayor in the case of barangay. - to remove,
- suspend,
Conditions sine qua non: (Section 63) - demote,
a) Issues have already been joined; - fine,
b) After filing of the answer (any pleading filed whether it is the formal answer or - censure and
not), which may be in various forms so long as it will render the allegations be - prosecute
considered as issues Ombudsman vs CA & Armilla
c) Evidence of guilt is strong; --the disciplining authority decides whether An administrative complaint for abuse of authority and misconduct was filed with the
evidence of guilt is strong. Office of the Ombudsman against DENR employees after they entered a property
d) Given the gravity of the offense, respondent might influence witnesses or pose without permission. They were found guilty of simple misconduct and suspended for one
a threat to records/evidence. month. The Court of Appeals sustained simple misconduct but said that pursuant to the

19
ELECTIONS | Midterms Transcript 2014
By RLB

Tapiador ruling, the Ombudsman can only recommend penalty and not directly remove, SC held: A public officer may be dismissed from service for an offense not related to
suspend, demote, fine, censure and prosecute public officials found at fault. work or foreign to his performance of official duties because dishonesty affects fitness to
Contention of the Ombudsman: The power of the Ombudsman to recommend includes continue in office.
the power to penalize. The Constitution vests it with the power to recommend
administrative sanction but also to ensure its compliance. It not only enumerates its Dishonesty defined
powers and functions, it also authorized Congress to add by legislation. As such, the - As an administrative offense, dishonesty is defined as the disposition to lie, cheat,
Ombudsman Act of 1989 was passed giving it concomitant prerogatives of the power to deceive, or defraud, untrustworthiness, lack of integrity in principle, lack of fairness and
discipline. To limit its power to merely recommendatory is absurd as the mayor may straightforwardness, disposition to defraud, deceive or betray. (Pagcor vs Rillorosa)
adopt or reject it as in review when no such recourse is provided for by law. - It is the concealment or distortion of truth in a matter of fact relevant to ones office or
Contention of the DENR employees: The power to recommend necessarily excludes the connected with the performance of his duties. (Alfonso vs OP)
power to implement.
SC held: The passing statement in Tapiador is a mere obiter dictum that cannot be cited The Military Ombudsman is not prohibited to perform other functions affecting
as a doctrinal declaration. The term recommend in the 1987 Constitution should not non-military personnel. Thus, it has jurisdiction to investigate police officers even
be literally interpreted, but construed in tandem with the Ombudsman Act of 1989. The if they are civilian personnel of the government. And there is no distinction
Constitution allows Congress to add powers and functions to the Ombudsman. Hence, between the duty to investigate and the power to conduct preliminary
the Ombudsman Act was enacted vesting it with full administrative disciplinary authority investigation
from recommendation to implementation. It was not intended to be passive, but an Acop vs Ombudsman, Lacson vs Casaclang
activist watchman armed with the power to prosecute and take active role in enforcing Different composite teams of police officers were investigated by the Deputy
anti-graft laws. Ombudsman for the military for their involvement in the rubout of 11 suspected
members of the notorious robbery gang, Kuratong Baleleng. They argued the duty of
The Ombudsman has the power to prosecute criminal cases involving public the Ombudsman to investigate is separate and distinct from the power to conduct
officers, and it includes the power to conduct preliminary investigation preliminary investigation which remains with the Special Prosecutor. The Military
Camanag vs Guerrero Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over police officers because they are civilian personnel
A BIR employee was charged with falsifying official documents after she falsely claimed of the government.
to be a CPA in her personal data sheet and presented a purported certified true copy of SC held: Based on the deliberations of the framers, there is no distinction between the
her passing rate. The Ombudsman conducted preliminary investigation and found duty to investigate and the power to conduct preliminary investigation. There is also no
probable cause. Based on this, it deputized the city prosecutor to file and prosecute showing that such power remains with the Special Prosecutor. While there is an
falsification charges. intention to withhold prosecutorial powers, it did not hesitate to recommend legislation
SC held: It is true that the framers intended to withhold prosecutorial powers from the to add powers, functions and duties of the Ombudsman. Hence, the Ombudsman Act of
Ombudsman. However, they also did not hesitate to recommend legislation to prescribe 1989 was passed which made the Office of the Special Prosecutor an organic component
its other powers, duties and functions. of the Office of the Ombudsman. It also removed powers of the Special Prosecutor and
Section 13(8), Article XI empowers it to exercise such other powers and perform such transferred them to the Ombudsman.
other functions or duties as Congress may legislate. Thus, the Ombudsman Act of 1989 There is no evidence from the deliberation that the Military Ombudsman is prohibited
was enacted granting it power to prosecute including power to investigate. from performing other functions affecting non-military personnel.
Sec. 31 of the Ombudsman Act authorizes the Ombudsman to designate personnel of his
The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman over GOCCs is confined only to those with office or deputize any prosecutor or government lawyer to act as special investigator or
original charter prosecutor. Thus, the Ombudsman may refer cases involving non-military personnel for
Khan Jr. Vs Ombudsman investigation to the Military Ombudsman.
PAL officers were charged for violation of R.A. 3019 before the Ombudsman after they
allegedly used their positions to secure a contract for a company they were The School Superintendent has original jurisdiction over administrative cases
stockholders. They moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, saying PAL is a private involving public school teachers. As such, the Ombudsman must yield, except,
entity and they were not public officers. It was denied because PAL is now a GOCC after where there is estoppel.
its controlling interest was acquired by the government through the GSIS. - A public school teacher was charged with falsification, dishonesty and gave misconduct
SC held: The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman over GOCCs is confined only to those with before the Ombudsman after he failed to produce original copy of his TOR, which
original charters. While it is true that PAL is now a GOCC after its controlling interest was authenticity was denied by the school registrar. He filed his counter-affidavit. But he was
acquired by the government through the GSIS, it has no original charter. It was found guilty of dishonesty and dismissed him from service.
originally organized as a private entity seeded with private capital under the general - SC held: The Magna Carta for Public School Teachers and the Ombudsman Act of 1989
corporate law. Juco defines the phrase with original charter as chartered by special reveal overlapping jurisdiction over administrative cases against public school teachers.
law as distinguished from corporations organized under the Corporation Code. - Section 9 of the Magna Carta grants jurisdiction to the investigating Committee
headed by the School Superintendent over erring public school teachers. But Section
A public officer may be dismissed from service for private and personal acts 19 of the Ombudsman Act likewise grants jurisdiction to the Ombudsman over acts
Remolona vs CSC or omissions that are contrary to law. Section 13 (1), Article XI of the 1987
A postmaster was dismissed after found guilty of dishonesty for faking the eligibility of Constitution empowers the Ombudsman to investigate act or omission that appear to
his wife. He argued his dismissal violates due process because it was not for cause since be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.
since the dishonest act was not committed in the performance of his official duties as
postmaster.

20
ELECTIONS | Midterms Transcript 2014
By RLB

- Deloso vs Domingo defined illegal act or omission of any official as any crime - x x x or who neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty required by law, and
committed by a public officer, even if the act or omission is not related with the recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and
performance of official duty. ensure compliance therewith;
- Ombudsman vs Estandarte rules that per Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, It is only when the officer fails to act that the Ombudsman is empowered to enforce and
original jurisdiction over administrative cases against public school teachers pertains to compel such officer to act. If R.A. 6770 empowered the Ombudsman to directly remove,
the School Superintendent. Purpose is to impose a separate standard and procedural it should have placed the word enforce at the start of the provision or enforce its
requirement for administrative cases involving public school teachers. disciplinary authority.
The Office of the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and
EXCEPT: when there is estoppel appointive officials of the Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and
- In this case, Galicia is estopped because he was given due process and he filed his agencies, including Members of the Cabinet, local government, government-owned or
counter-affidavit. It was only when the decision was adverse to him that he raised controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.
the issue of lack of jurisdiction for the first time. (Ombudsman vs Galicia) SC held: Do not be too literal. Ledesma vs Court of Appeals said that such literal
- The public school teacher is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the interpretation is too restrictive and inconsistent with the wisdom and spirit behind the
Ombudsman because he was given sufficient opportunity to be heard and he creation of the Office of the Ombudsman. The word recommend as used in the
submitted his defenses. (Alcala vs Villar) Constitution and the Ombudsman Act means that the implementation of the order to
remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure and prosecute be coursed through the proper
The administrative disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman is not merely officer. And that officer has no choice but enforce it.
recommendatory, but mandatory Provided, that the refusal by any officer without just cause to comply with an
Ombudsman vs Beltran order of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure or prosecute an
An employee of the Tricycle Regulatory Office was dismissed by the Ombudsman after being officer or employee who is at fault or who neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty
found guilty of misconduct for failure to remit fees collected from tricycle drivers. required by law shall be a ground for disciplinary action against said officer. This
SC held: Ledesma vs Court of Appeals overruled a mere obiter dictum the Tapiador decision strongly indicates that recommendation is not merely advisory in nature but mandatory
that says the administrative disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman is merely within the bounds of the law.
recommendatory.
Section 13 (3), Article XI of the Constitution that directs the Ombudsman to recommend The Ombudsman and the President have concurrent jurisdiction to enforce
removal, suspension, fine, censure and prosecution of public officers found to be at fault administrative discipline on local elective officials of a highly urbanized city
should not be interpreted literally. When read with the pertinent provisions of the Hagad vs Dadole
Ombudsman Act, the full administrative disciplinary authority is mandatory, and not merely Local elective officials of a highly urbanized city were charged with falsification before
advisory. the Ombudsman after they allegedly altered the amount in an appropriation ordinance
without authority from the Sangguniang Panlungsod. Separate criminal and
Acop vs Ombudsman administrative cases were docketed by the Ombudsman and their preventive suspension
SC ruled that the constitutional powers of the Ombudsman are not exclusive. Congress is was likewise sought.
authorized to legislate additional powers hence it passed the Ombudsman Act of 1989 Ouano moved to dismiss, arguing that the Ombudsman has no more jurisdiction over
empowering the Ombudsman to directly remove, suspend, fine, censure and prosecute public the administrative case because of the enactment of the Local Government Code of
officers. 1991. Section 63 empowers the Office of the President to investigate and impose
administrative sanctions against, and preventively suspend, elective officials of a highly
Ombudsman vs CA urbanized city. Ouano added that there is nothing in the Constitution that gave the
SC ruled that its disciplinary authority covers the gamut of administrative adjudication. Ombudsman superior powers than those of the Office of the President over elective
It entails authority to receive complaints, investigate, hear, summon witnesses, require officials.
documents, preventively suspend, determine and impose appropriate penalty. It is the real But the Ombudsman denied the motion to dismiss and recommend that Ouano be
party-in-interest in administrative cases because it stands to suffer if decisions adverse to it placed under preventive suspension. He went to the Regional Trial Court asking
attain finality. If deprived of disciplinary authority, enforcement of its mandated functions as prohibition and injunction. Presiding Judge Dadole restrained the Ombudsman. But the
protector of the people is defeated. Ombudsman moved to dismiss. Dadole denied it, saying that the investigative power of
the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act is too general and vague whereas the LGC
The word recommend is mandatory and the proper officer whom it is coursed provides more specific and well-defined grounds for administrative discipline. Thus, the
through has no choice but to enforce it LGC provides exception to the disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman to investigate
Ombudsman vs Court of Appeals and Santos local elective officials.
Santos is LTFRB special collection and disbursing officer who was dismissed by the SC held: Section 21 of the Ombudsman Act grants the Ombudsman with disciplinary
Ombudsman for dishonesty after she was found by COA with a cash shortage. She went administrative authority over all elective and appointive officials except those removable
to the CA, saying that the Ombudsman cannot directly dismiss her because its by impeachment and members of Congress. Whereas, Section 24 authorizes the
disciplinary power is merely recommendatory. The CA agreed with her. Ombudsman to preventively suspend any public officer under its investigation. Thus,
Sec. 13(3), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution elective officials of a highly urbanized city may be preventively suspended by it.
- Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or But Section 61(a) of the LGC says that an administrative complaint against any
employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, elective official of a province, a highly urbanized city, an independent component city or
censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith. component city shall be filed before the Office of the President.
Sec. 15(3) of R.A. 6770:

21
ELECTIONS | Midterms Transcript 2014
By RLB

The Supreme Court required the Solicitor-General to comment since any final resolution school teachers. Unquestionably, the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to discipline his or her
of the case is a matter of national concern. The Sol-Gen said that while the LGC own men. But also unquestionably, the President has concurrent authority with the
conferred on the Office of the President disciplinary authority over local elective officials, Ombudsman to remove the deputy and special prosecutor under certain conditions. That
such grant is not exclusive. it must be for any of the grounds for removal of the Ombudsman. That due process is
The LGC did not withdraw the power of the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act observed.
conformably with the constitutional mandate. Indeed, there is nothing in the LGC that Section 8(2) is not unconstitutional. As such, the express grant by Section 8(2) on the
indicates it has, expressly or impliedly, repealed the pertinent provisions of the President to remove a deputy and special prosecutor merely filled the gap in law. The
Ombudsman Act. power to remove the deputy and special prosecutor is implied from the power of the
Congress is presumed to have known existing laws on the subject and not to have President to appoint them. As a general rule, all officers appointed by the President are
enacted conflicting statutes. Hence, doubts must be resolved against implied repeal and removable by him, except when the law expressly provides otherwise. Like when the
the laws must be harmonized. Section 61 and 63 of the LGC of 1991 are parallel Constitution expressly separates the power to remove from the power to appoint.
with Sections 61 and 63 of its precursor, the Government Code of 1983. In that law, the
authority to investigate and preventively suspend elective local officials was placed Examples:
under the Minister of Local Government. - Supreme Court Justices appointed by the President but removable by
impeachment.
The President and the Ombudsman have concurrent authority to remove the - Judges of lower courts are appointed by the President but removable by the
Deputy and Special Prosecutor under certain conditions Supreme Court.
Gonzales vs Office of the President & Sulit vs Ochoa - The Chairman and Commissioners of the Constitutional Bodies, and the
Gonzales is deputy ombudsman for the military who was dismissed from service. This Ombudsman are appointed by the President but removable by impeachment.
after the Office of the President found him guilty of gross neglect of duty and grave
misconduct constituting betrayal of public trust. The Office of the President based its NOTE: The terms of office, salary, appointments and discipline are reasonably insulated
decision on the findings and recommendations of the Incident Investigation and Review from the whims of the politicians through prescribed term of 7 years, prohibition against
Committee (IIRC) chaired by Justice Secretary de Lima. It was tasked to determine salary decreases and fiscal autonomy.
accountability for the hostage-taking incident by Mendoza that left dead and injured
foreign tourists. Earlier, the Ombudsman dismissed Mendoza for grave misconduct. He It refers to acts which are just short of being criminal but constitutes gross
moved to reconsider. While pending, the dismissal order was enforced. The IIRC blamed faithlessness against public trust, tyrannical abuse of power, inexcusable negligence of
Gonzales for not acting on motion for reconsideration filed by Mendoza for more than 9 duty, favouritism, and gross exercise of discretionary powers. Acts that constitute
months without justification. betrayal of public trust as to warrant removal from office may be less than criminal but
Meanwhile, Major Carlos Garcia, his wife and sons were charged with plunder and must be attended by bad faith and of such gravity and seriousness as the other grounds
money laundering by Special Prosecutor Wendell Barreras-Sulit before the for impeachment.
Sandiganbayan. Garcia moved to bail but was denied because there is strong The tragic hostage-taking incident was the result of a confluence of several unfortunate
prosecution evidence. But suddenly, Sulit sought approval of the bargaining agreement events including system failure of government response. It cannot be solely attributed to
entered into with Garcia. The Sandiganbayan resolved that the change of plea is what Gonzales may have negligently failed to do for the quick and complete resolution
warranted and the plea bargaining agreement complies with jurisprudential of the case, or in his error of judgment. The failure to immediately act on a request for
requirements. early resolution is not, by itself, gross neglect of duty amounting to betrayal of public
Outraged by the back deal that could allow Garcia to get off the hook, Congress trust. As a matter of fact, Gonzales recommended it for final approval within 9 days from
investigated and recommended to the President that Sulit be dismissed after filing receipt. Even if there was long delay and unexplained failure to supervise his
charges for acts or omissions amounting to betrayal of public trust. The office of the subordinates, it cannot be considered a malevolent and vicious act amounting to
President initiated an administrative case against Sulit. But she invoked prematurity and betrayal of public trust. While the Office of the President is vested with concurrent
lack of jurisdiction. authority with the Ombudsman, neglect of duty or misconduct in office without
Contention of Gonzales and Sulit: They should be solely and directly subject to the intentional wrong doing of a grave and serious kind, does not amount to betrayal of
disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman and not the President. public trust.
SC held: While the disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman is extensive and covers all Sulits defense of prematurity does not hold water. True, it is the Sandiganbayan that
public officers except those removable by impeachment, it is not exclusive. Section determines the propriety of a plea bargain based on evidence. What the disciplinary
8(2) of the Ombudsman Act says that the Deputy or Special Prosecutor may be authority determines is whether the special prosecutor considered the best interest of
removed from office by the President for any of the grounds for impeachment of the the Government or was diligent and efficient in performing her prosecutorial duty when
Ombudsman, after due process. The seeming conflict in the law shows the legislative she entered into a plea bargain. But she was found to be inept and negligent in her duty
intent to grant the President and the Ombudsman concurrent disciplinary jurisdiction for failing to build a strong case for the government. And instead of pursuing or building
over the Deputy Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor. a strong case despite the strength of evidence against Garcia, she entered into a plea
Hagad vs Dadole upheld the plenary power of the Ombudsman to discipline elective bargain which is grossly disadvantageous to the government. This could lead to
officials. But Ombudsman vs Delijero tempered such plenary power by citing Section administrative liability hence the Office of the President should continue the
23(2) of the Ombudsman Act. It gives the Ombudsman the option to refer certain investigation.
complaints to the proper disciplinary authority for the institution of appropriate
administrative proceedings against erring public officers or employees. The enactment The Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction with the Department of Justice
of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers intended a standard and a separate set of Honasan vs DOJ Panel of Investigationg Prosecutors
procedural requirements in connection with administrative proceedings involving public

22
ELECTIONS | Midterms Transcript 2014
By RLB

Sen. Honasan was charged with the crime of coup detat before the DOJ. He was recognized its concurrent jurisdiction with other investigative jurisdiction of the
accused as the brains behind the National Recovery Program aimed to overthrow the government in the prosecution of cases cognizable by the regular courts.
government through revolution and replaced with a military junta. This led to the failed As ruled in Cojuangco Jr. Vs PCGG, the power of the Ombudsman to conduct
Oakwood mutiny. Instead of filing counter-affidavit, he moved to clarify the jurisdiction investigation is not exclusive. The jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
of the DOJ to conduct preliminary investigation on the case based on the following Sandiganbayan is concurrent with all investigatory agencies of the government duty
grounds: authorized to conduct preliminary investigation under the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
- Since the imputed acts relate to his public office, it is the Ombudsman, and not the The only qualification is that, the Ombudsman may take over the investigation at any
DOJ, that has jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation. stage of the exercise of its primary jurisdiction.
- Should the case be filed, it is with the Sandiganbayan, and not the regular courts Deloso vs Domingo ruled that the Ombudsman under the authority of Section 13(1),
since he receives Salary Grade 31 as senator. Article XI has jurisdiction to investigate any crime committed by a public official. The
The DOJ Panel of Investigators merely noted the motion and ordered Honasan to file Ombudsman Act makes perfectly clear that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman
counter-affidavit. Hence, Honasan filed this petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 alleging encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance that have been
grave abuse of dicretion and lack of jurisdiction. committed by any officer or employee during his tenure of office.
Issue: Whether the DOJ has jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation over the
charge of coup detat against a senator. NOTE: Seemingly, the Cojuangco and Deloso rulings contradict each other.
Contention of Honasan:
- Since the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation over all Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to investigate ill-gotten wealth
public officials, it includes him, because he is a senator. Since Honasan is charged Republic vs Sandiganbayan & Argana
with coup detat in relation to his office, the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to conduct The PCGG and the Ombudsman do not have concurrent jurisdiction to investigate cases
preliminary investigation, and not the DOJ. of ill-gotten wealth. Instead, the jurisdiction of the PCGG and the Ombudsman to
- This is because Section 13(1), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution confers on the investigate cases of ill-gotten wealth are separated by the period of time. For
Ombudsman the power to investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, wealth ill-gotten before February 25, 1986, the PCGG has jurisdiction. But thereafter, it
any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such pertains to the Ombudsman.
act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. The 1987
Administrative Code and the Ombudsman Act of 1989 cannot prevail over the Jurisdiction of the Military Ombudsman over police officers
Constitution. Agbay vs Deputy Ombudsman for the Military
- Joint Circular No.95-001 is null and void for being ultra vires, in violation of the On Sept. 7, Agbay was detained for touching the genitals of a minor while aboard a
Constitution, beyond the powers granted by law to the Ombudsman and tricycle. Agbay filed before the Ombudsman-Visayas a complaint for delay in the delivery
inoperative due to lack of publication. of detained persons against the police officers who refused to release him. By virtue of
Contention of the DOJ: MC No. 14, the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas transferred the case to the Deputy
- It has jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation pursuant to the Revised Military Ombudsman for proper disposition. The Military Ombudsman dismissed the
Administrative Code. Coup detat is not directly related to his public office as a case. He moved to reconsider, but was denied. Agbay argued that the Military
senator. The jurisdiction of the DOJ is a statutory grant under the Revised Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to act on a complaint against police officer because of
Administrative Code and is not derived from any of the provisions of the Joint the civilian character of the Philippine National Police.
Circular. Acop ruled that the deliberation on the military ombudsman does not yield conclusive
Contention of the Ombudsman: evidence that such deputy is prohibited from performing other functions and duties
- The DOJ has jurisdiction because coup detat falls under the Sandiganbayan only if affecting non-military personnel.
its committed in relation to the office. The Joint Circular need not be published Section 31 empowers the Ombudsman to deputize and designate personnel of his
because it is a mere internal arrangement between the DOJ and the Ombudsman office, any prosecutor or state prosecutor to assist him in the investigation and
and it neither regulates nor penalizes conduct of persons. prosecution of certain cases.
- SC held: The jurisdiction of the DOJ is not derived from the Joint Circular, but from
the pertinent provisions of several laws. The Revised Administrative Code says the Preventive suspension
DOJ is the principal law agency of the government it is both its legal counsel and Lastimosa vs Vasquez
prosecutor. It is empowered to investigate commission of crimes and prosecute A public health nurse filed a criminal complaint for frustrated rape and administrative
offenders. complaint for immortal acts, abuse of authority and grave misconduct against a municipal
- Section 1, of P.D. 1275 created the National Prosecution Service under the mayor before the Office of the Ombudsman. The graft investigator recommended dismissal
supervision and control of the Justice Secretary which is empowered to investigate for the lack of evidence. In the administrative case, she was placed under preventive
and prosecute all violations of penal laws. Section 13(1), Article XI does not suspension for 6 months. Thus, she filed this certiorari and prohibition to set aside the orders
exclude other government agencies tasked by law to investigate and prosecute to file the attempted rape case, to explain why she should not be held in contempt and to
public officials. Otherwise, there would not have been par.8 allowing the place her under preventive suspension. She argued that the Ombudsman and the Prosecutor
Ombudsman to promulgate its rules of procedure, exercise other powers and have concurrent authority to investigate public officers. When the Ombudsman first takes
perform other functions as may be provided by law. As such, the Ombudsman Act cognizance it excludes the Prosecutor.
of 1989 was enacted empowering the Ombudsman with primary jurisdiction over Thus, it must file the case in court because preparation and filing are part and parcel of
cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. Thus, it may take over, at any stage, preliminary investigation. As such, it must not be referred or delegated. That she investigated
investigation of such cases from any investigatory agency of the government. And, just the same is because the Ombudsman insisted. It has no jurisdiction because rape was
pursuant to the authority to lay down its own procedure, the Ombudsman not committed in relation to a public office. As such, it has no authority to cite her in

23
ELECTIONS | Midterms Transcript 2014
By RLB

contempt, aside from prejudicial question, and place her under preventive suspension for Contention of petitioners: invoking Lopez vs Court of Appeals and Lapid vs Court of
disobedience, aside from no basis for 6 months. She was not afforded a chance to refute the Appeals, they argued that the execution of Ombudsman decision is automatically stayed
charges and the evidence is not strong. upon the filing of an appeal and is stayed throughout the pendency of the appeal.
SC held: The Ombudsman has the power to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of SC held: These cases are antiquated. The Ombudsman Rules of Procedure allowing stay
any public officer when such act or omission appears illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. of execution pending appeal has been amended on September 15, 2003 by
This power includes investigation and prosecution of any crime whether or not the acts or Administrative Order No. 17.
omissions relate to, connected or arise from the performance of his duties. It is enough that It says the Ombudsman decision in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of
the act or omission is committed by a public official. In the exercise of this power, the course. An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executor. In case the penalty is
Ombudsman is authorized to designate or deputize prosecutors for assistance under his removal and suspension, and the respondent wins such appeal, he shall be considered
supervision and control. under preventive suspension and paid the salary and other emoluments he did not
Once deputized, the prosecutor cannot legally act on his own and refuse to prepare and file receive by reason of the suspension or removal.
the information as directed. Any disobedience is contumacious pursuant to Section 15 (g) of Under this provision, a respondent penalized with suspension for more than one month
the Ombudsman Act granting it power of contumacy. The argument that she cannot be cited has the right to appeal. But the act of filing an appeal does not stay the
in contempt because her refusal arose out of an administrative and not judicial proceeding executionpursuant to the ruling in In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court
has no merit. She herself said in another context that preliminary investigation is a quasi- Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong and reiterated in Ombudsman vs CA & Barriaga
judicial proceeding. where it said the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure is clear that an appeal does not stay
Section 21 of the Ombudsman Act grants the Ombudsman disciplinary authority over execution.
prosecutors. Section 22 authorizes the Ombudsman to preventively suspend any officer under
investigation if in his judgment the evidence of guilt is strong, the charge involves dishonesty, HAVING SAID THAT, ARE YOU THE MOST BRILLIANT MIND OR THE PALEST INK?
oppression, grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty, charges warrant
removal and the continued stay may prejudice the case. It continues until the case is
terminated but not to exceed 6 months except when the delay in the disposition is due to the
fault, negligence or petition of the respondent.
Prior notice and hearing are not required because preventive suspension is not a penalty but
a mere preliminary step in administrative investigation. Buenaseda vs Flavier ruled that
whether the evidence of guilt is strong is left to the determination of the Ombudsman by
taking into account the evidence before him. Nera vs Garcia likewise ruled that the
disciplining authority is given the discretion to decide when the evidence of guilt is strong.
True, 90 days is based on jurisprudence. But it refers to cases where the law is either silent
or expressly limits suspension to 90 days.
When law is silent as to period of suspension, Section 13 of R.A. 3019 supplies to limit period
to 90 days to prevent indefinite suspension. In this case, she was suspended under Sec.24 of
the Ombudsman Act expressly setting the maximum period of suspension to 6 months. The
contention of prejudicial question has no merit. The two cases arose out of the same act or
omission. They may proceed hand in hand, or one over the other. Whatever order does not
matter.

Appeal does not stay the execution of administrative decisions of the Ombudsman
penalizing dismissal or suspension
Ganaden vs CA
Ganaden, Mina, Bautista and Narciso are NPC employees. They were charged with three
administrative cases before the Ombudsman for dishonesty, misconduct and acts
inimical to public service. Ganaden, Bautista and Narciso were found guilty of dishonesty
and suspended for one year. Ganaden and Mina were also found guilty of dishonesty
and suspended for one year. They moved to reconsider. But instead, the penalty of
suspension modified to dismissal, except for Mina. They filed petitions for review before
the Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, they retired early form NPC. When they learned about
the decision of dismissal and suspension, they were already employed at the National
Transmission Commission. Hence, the Ombudsman directed CEO Ortiz to dismiss and
suspend them. Ortiz did.
They argued that by virtue of their pending appeal with the Court of Appeals, plus the
fact that the CA granted their motion to amend to include Transco as respondent, the
decisions enforcing dismissal and suspension are automatically stayed even without a
restraining order. The CA denied the motion for contempt, saying the resolution allowing
inclusion of respondent did not carry with it the relief of automatic stay of execution.
Hence, this petition for certiorari.

24