Prohibitions and Inhibitions of Public Office (2004)

JAR faces a dilemma: should he accept a Cabinet appointment now or run later for Senator? Having
succeeded in law practice as well as prospered in private business where he and his wife have
substantial investments, he now contemplates public service but without losing the flexibility to engage
in corporate affairs or participate in professional activities within ethical bounds. Taking into account the
prohibitions and inhibitions of public office whether as Senator or Secretary, he turns to you for advice
to resolve his dilemma. What is your advice? Explain briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I shall advise JAR to run for SENATOR. As a Senator, he can retain his investments in his business,
although he must make a full disclosure of his business and financial interests and notify the Senate of a
potential conflict of interest if he authors a bill. (Section 12, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.) He can
continue practicing law, but he cannot personally appear as counsel before any court of justice, the
Electoral Tribunals, or quasi- judicial and other administrative bodies. (Section 14, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution. As a member of the Cabinet, JAR cannot directly or indirectly practice law or participate in
any business. He will have to divest himself of his investments in his business. (Section 13, Article VII of
the 1987 Constitution.) In fact, the Constitutional prohibition imposed on members of the Cabinet
covers both public and private office or employment. (Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, 194
SCRA 317

Elective Public Officers; De Facto Officer; effects (2004)

B. AVE ran for Congressman of QU province. However, his opponent, BART, was the one proclaimed and
seated as the winner of the election by the COMELEC. AVE filed seasonably a protest before HRET
(House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal). After two years, HRET reversed the COMELECs decision
and AVE was proclaimed finally as the duly elected Congressman. Thus, he had only one year to serve in
Congress. Can AVE collect salaries and allowances from the government for the first two years of his
term as Congressman? Should BART refund to the government the salaries and allowances he had
received as Congressman? What will happen to the bills that BART alone authored and were approved
by the House of Representatives while he was seated as Congressman? Reason and explain briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

B. AVE cannot collect salaries and allowances from the government for the first two years of his term,
because in the meanwhile BART collected the salaries and allowances. BART was a de facto officer while
he was in possession of the office. To allow AVE to collect the salaries and allowances will result in
making the government pay a second time. (Mechem, A Treatise on the Law of Public Offices and Public
Officers, [1890] pp. 222-223.) BART is not required to refund to the government the salaries and
allowances he received. As a de facto officer, he is entitled to the salaries and allowances because he
rendered services during his incumbency. (Rodriguez v. Tan, 91 Phil. 724 119520. The bills which BART
alone authored and were approved by the House of Representatives are valid because he was a de facto
officer during his incumbency. The acts of a de facto officer are valid insofar as the public is concerned.
(People v. Garcia, 313 SCRA 279 [19990

Ombudsman: Power to Suspend; Preventive Suspension (2004)

Director WOW failed the lifestyle check conducted by the Ombudsman's Office because WOWs assets
were grossly disproportionate to his salary and allowances. Moreover, some assets were not included in
his Statement of Assets and Liabilities. He was charged of graft and corrupt practices and pending the
completion of investigations, he was suspended from office for six months. A. Aggrieved, WOW
petitioned the Court of Appeals to annul the preventive suspension order on the ground that the
Ombudsman could only recommend but not impose the suspension. Moreover, according to WOW, the
suspension was imposed without any notice or hearing, in violation of due process. Is the petitioner's
contention meritorious? Discuss briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The contention of Director WOW is not meritorious. The suspension meted out to him is preventive and
not punitive. Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6770 grants the Ombudsman the power to impose
preventive suspension up to six months. Preventive suspension maybe imposed without any notice or
hearing. It is merely a preliminary step in an administrative investigation and is not the final
determination of the guilt of the officer concerned. (Garcia v. Mojica, 314 SCRA 207 [1999]).

Political Question: Separation of Powers (2004)

(b) SDO was elected Congressman. Before the end of his first year in office, he inflicted physical injuries
on a colleague, ET, in the course of a heated debate. Charges were filed in court against him as well as in
the House Ethics Committee. Later, the House of Representatives, dividing along party lines, voted to
expel him. Claiming that his expulsion was railroaded and tainted by bribery, he filed a petition seeking a
declaration by the Supreme Court that the House gravely abused its discretion and violated the
Constitution. He prayed that his expulsion be annulled and that he should be restored by the Speaker to
his position as Congressman. Is SDO's petition before the Supreme Court justiciable? Cite pertinent
issues for consideration.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

While under Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution the Supreme Court may inquire whether or
not the decision to expel SDO is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, the petition should be dismissed. In Alejandrino v. Quezon (46 Phil. 83 [1924]), the Supreme
Court held that it could not compel the Senate to reinstate a Senator who assaulted another Senator
and was suspended for disorderly behavior, because it could not compel a separate and co-equal
department to take any particular action. In Osmea v. Pendatun (109 Phil. 863 [1960]), it was held that
the Supreme Court could not interfere with the suspension of a Congressman for disorderly behavior,
because the House of Representatives is the judge of what constitutes disorderly behavior

Elective Public Officers; De Facto Officer; effects (2004)

B. AVE ran for Congressman of QU province. However, his opponent, BART, was the one proclaimed and
seated as the winner of the election by the COMELEC. AVE filed seasonably a protest before HRET
(House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal). After two years, HRET reversed the COMELECs decision
and AVE was proclaimed finally as the duly elected Congressman. Thus, he had only one year to serve in
Congress. Can AVE collect salaries and allowances from the government for the first two years of his
term as Congressman? Should BART refund to the government the salaries and allowances he had
received as Congressman? What will happen to the bills that BART alone authored and were approved
by the House of Representatives while he was seated as Congressman? Reason and explain briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

B. AVE cannot collect salaries and allowances from the government for the first two years of his term,
because in the meanwhile BART collected the salaries and allowances. BART was a de facto officer while
he was in possession of the office. To allow AVE to collect the salaries and allowances will result in
making the government pay a second time. (Mechem, A Treatise on the Law of Public Offices and Public
Officers, [1890] pp. 222-223.) BART is not required to refund to the government the salaries and
allowances he received. As a de facto officer, he is entitled to the salaries and allowances because he
rendered services during his incumbency. (Rodriguez v. Tan, 91 Phil. 724 119520. The bills which BART
alone authored and were approved by the House of Representatives are valid because he was a de facto
officer during his incumbency. The acts of a de facto officer are valid insofar as the public is concerned.
(People v. Garcia, 313 SCRA 279 [19990