AGUINALDO v SANTOS

G.R. Bo. 94115, August 21, 1992

Nocon, J.
TOPIC: DOCTRINE OF CONDONATION

FACTS: Rodolfo Aguinaldo was the duly elected Governor of the Province of
Cagayan. Shortly after the coup detat was crushed, the Secretary of Local
Government sent a telegram and a letter to Aguinaldo requiring him to show
cause why he should not be suspended or removed from office for disloyalty to
the Republic, within 48 hours from receipt thereof. A sworn complaint for
disloyalty to the Republic and culpable violation of the Constitution was filed by
certain mayors of Cagayan against Aguinaldo for acts the latter committed during
the coup. Aguinaldo denied being privy to the planning of the coup or actively
participating in its execution, although he admitted that he was sympathetic to the
cause of the rebels. Hon. Luis Santos (Department of Local Government Sec),
suspended Aguinaldo from office for 60 days pending the investigation.
Aguinaldo did not present any evidence and later, the Secretary rendered a
decision finding him guilty as charged and ordered his removal from office.

During the pendency of the case before the SC, Aguinaldo filed his
certificate of candidacy for the position of Governor of Cagayan. Three petitions
for disqualification were filed against him on the ground that he had been
previously removed from office. The COMELEC granted the petition and was
subsequently reversed on the ground that the decision of the Secretary has not
yet attained finality and is still pending review with this Court. Aguinaldo won in
the elections, and eventually he was proclaimed as Governor of Cagayan.

ISSUE: w/n Aguinaldo can be removed from office by reason of administrative

misconduct committed prior to said election

HELD:

NO. Aguinaldos re-election to the position of Governor of Cagayan has

rendered the administrative case at bar moot and academic. After the canvassing
of votes, Aguinaldo garnered the most number of votes among the candidates.
As ruled by the court in Aguinaldo v Comelec, the re-election to office operates
as a condonation of the officers misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to
remove him therefor. The Court should never remove a public officer for acts
done prior to his present term of office. To do otherwise would be to deprive the
people of their right to elect their officers. When the people have elected a man
to office, it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and
character, and that they disregarded or forgave his fault or misconduct, if he had
been guilty of any. It is not for the court, by reason of such fault or misconduct, to
practically overrule the will of the people. The foregoing rule, however, finds no
application to criminal cases pending against Aguinaldo for acts he may have
committed during the failed coup.