Você está na página 1de 19

ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS Nevertheless, public officers may by law be

rewarded for exemplary and exceptional

performance. A system of incentives for exceeding
ABAKADA GURO PARTY LISTOFFICERSv. HON. the set expectations of a public office is not
CESAR V. PURISIMA, HON. GUILLERMO L. anathema to the concept of public accountability. In
PARAYNO, JR. and HON. ALBERTO D. LINA fact, it recognizes and reinforces dedication to duty,
G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008, CORONA, J. industry, efficiency and loyalty to public service of
deserving government personnel.
A system of incentives for exceeding the set
expectations of a public office is not anathema to the
concept of public accountability. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER
RA 9335 or the Attrition Act of 2005 was G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015,
enacted to optimize the revenue-generation PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
capability and collection of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs The condonation doctrine is abandoned, for
(BOC).The law intends to encourage BIR and BOC being inconsistent with the concept of public office as
officials and employees to exceed their revenue a public trust and the corollary requirement of
targets by providing a system of rewards and accountability to the people at all times.
sanctions through the creation of a Rewards and
Incentives Fundand a Revenue Performance Facts:
Evaluation Board. The petitioner challenge the
constitutionality of RA 9335, contending that by A complaint for Plunder and violation of
establishing a system of rewards and incentives, RA 3019 or the the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
the law transforms the officials and employees of Act was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman
the BIR and the BOC into mercenaries and bounty against Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Jr. and other public
hunters as they will do their best only in officers and employees of the City Government of
consideration of such rewards. Thus, the system of Makati in connection with the five phases of the
rewards and incentives invites corruption and procurement and construction of the Makati City
undermines the constitutionally mandated duty of Hall Parking Building. Primarily, Binay, Jr. argued
these officials and employees to serve the people that he could not be held administratively liable
with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and since Phases I and II were undertaken before he
efficiency. was elected Mayor of Makati in 2010 and Phases III
to V transpired during his first term. Binay Jr assails
Issue: and that his re-election as City Mayor of Makati for
a second term effectively condoned his
Whether the implementation of RA 9335 administrative liability, if any, thus rendering the
runs counter to the concept of public administrative cases against him moot and
accountability. academic. Binay Jr. added that in view of the
condonation doctrine his suspension from office
Ruling: would undeservedly deprive the electorate of his
NO. Petitioners’ claim is not only without
any factual and legal basis but is also purely Issue:
speculative. Public officers enjoy the presumption
of regularity in the performance of their duties. Whether or not the condonation doctrine
This presumption necessarily obtains in favor of can be applied to pardon a public official’s
BIR and BOC officials and employees. The administrative liability.
presumption is disputable but proof to the contrary
is required to rebut it. It cannot be overturned by Ruling:
mere conjecture especially in this case where it is
an underlying principle to advance a declared NO. Condonation is a victim's express or
public policy. Public service is its own reward. implied forgiveness of an offense, especially by
treating the offender as if there had been no Francisco Lecaroz was charged with the
offense. It is a jurisprudential creation that crime of grave coercion when he allegedly took
originated from the 1959 case of Pascual v. Hon. over the operation and control of the gasoline
Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija. The decision in station owned by Pedro Par, to sell the gasoline
Pascual was based on American authorities who therein to the public. The information was
argued that when the people have elected a man to amended with the insertion of the phrase "by
office, it must be assumed that they did this with ordering his policemen companions" between the
knowledge of his life and character, and that they words "Pedro Par" and "to sell the gasoline.”
disregarded or forgave his faults or misconduct, if Lecaroz claimed that offense of grave coercion is
he had been guilty of any. not among those mentioned or determined by
Section 4(c), P.D. No. 1486 or the Act Creating the
However, the doctrine of condonation is Sandiganbayan.
actually bereft of legal bases. The concept of public
office is a public trust and the corollary Issue:
requirement of accountability to the people at all
times, as mandated under the Constitution, is Whether the Sandiganbayan has
plainly inconsistent with the condonation doctrine. jurisdiction over cases not involving graft and
Election is not a mode of condoning an corrupt practices committed by public officers.
administrative offense. Furthermore, Sec 40 (b) of
the LGC precludes condonation since, an elective Ruling:
local official who is meted with the penalty of
removal could not be re-elected to an elective local Yes. Under Section 5, Article XIII of the
position due to a direct disqualification from Constitution, Sandiganbayan has jurisdictional
running for such post. Also, it cannot be inferred competence not only over criminal and civil cases
from Section 60 of the LGC that the grounds for involving graft and corrupt practices committed by
discipline enumerated therein cannot anymore be public officers and employees but also over other
invoked against an elective local official to hold him crimes committed by them in relation to their
administratively liable once he is re-elected to office, though not involving graft and corrupt
office. In addition, it is contrary to human practices, as may be determined by law. The
experience that the electorate would have full intention of the framers of the Constitution is
knowledge of a public official's misdeeds. Thus, patent from the explicit language thereof as well as
there could be no condonation of an act that is from Section 1 of the same Article XIII on
unknown. Accountability of Public Officers. On the case at
hand, the original and amended information clearly
However, the abandonment of the alleged that petitioner took advantage of his
condonation doctrine should be prospective in position as mayor when he intimidated the
application for the reason that judicial decisions gasoline station’s owner in taking over the
applying or interpreting the laws or the operation and control of the establishment,
Constitution, until reversed, shall form part of the ordering his policemen to sell the gasoline therein
legal system of the Philippines. and padlocking the dispensing pump thereof
without legal authority. Stated differently, if
petitioner were not the mayor he would not have
MAYOR FRANCISCO LECAROZ v. allegedly directed the policeman and the latter
SANDIGANBAYAN would not have followed his orders and
G.R. No. 56384.March 22, 1984, RELOVA, J. instructions to sell Pedro Par’s gasoline and
padlocked the station
Sandiganbayan has jurisdictional
competence not only over criminal and civil cases
involving graft and corrupt practices committed by MIGUEL CUENCOv.HON. MARCELO B. FERNAN
public officers and employees but also over other A.M. No. 3135, February 17, 1988, PER CURIAM
crimes committed by them in relation to their office,
though not involving graft and corrupt practices. Members of the Supreme Court may be
removed from office only by impeachment and not
Facts: through disbarment during the Member’s
listed in Article XI (2) of the Constitution. Precisely
Facts: the same situation exists in respect of the
Ombudsman, a majority of the members of the
Vito Borromeo died without any forced Commission on Elections and the members of the
heirs, but instituted Fortunate, Tomas and Amelia Commission on audit who are not certified public
Borromeo, under a will, as the sole heirs. The accountants all of whom are constitutionally
probate court rendered a Decision declaring the required to be members of the Philippine Bar.
will to be a forgery. That decision became final after
being affirmed by the Supreme Court. Atty. Miguel
Cuenco ordered the disbarment of Mr. Justice OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. HONORABLE
Marcelo B. Fernan, Chairman of the Third Division COURT OF APPEALS AND FORMER DEPUTY
of the Supreme Court. Miguel alleges that Justice OMBUDSMAN FOR THE VISAYAS ARTURO C.
Fernan despite having already accepted his MOJICA
appointment as an Associate Justice of the Supreme G.R. No. 146486, March 4, 2005, CHICO-
Court continued to be counsel for the instituted NAZARIO, J.
heirs. Moreover, Miguel asserted that Justice
Fernan exerted personal efforts to take away from The list of impeachable officials under the
the Supreme Court en banc, the First and Second Constitution is exclusive and it excludes the Deputy
Divisions of the Tribunal, the Vito Borromeo Ombudsman.
proceedings to his Office as Chairman of the Third
Division to enable him to influence the decision or Facts:
the outcome of the Vito Borromeo proceedings.
Officials and employees of the Office of the
Issue: Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, led by its two
directors, filed a formal complaint with the Office of
Whether Justice Fernan as member of the the Ombudsman requesting an investigation on
Supreme Court, can be disbarred. Arturo Mojica, then Deputy Ombudsman who
allegedly committed offenses including sexual
Ruling: harassment, forfeiture of money from confidential
employees and oppression against employees. The
No. The charges against Mr. Justice Fernan Ombudsman directed his Fact-Finding and
were completely unsupported by the facts and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) to conduct a verification
evidence of record. There was nothing in the record and fact-finding investigation. The FFIB report was
to indicate that Mr. Justice Fernan had appeared as referred by the Ombudsman to a constituted
counsel in such proceedings representation of Committee of Peers. The Committee of Peers
instituted heir. The record reveals that Mr. Justice initially recommended that the investigation be
Fernan withdrew as such counsel. It is entirely converted into one solely for purposes of
clear that Mr. Justice Fernan's professional impeachment. However, this recommendation was
involvement in the Special Proceedings had ceased denied by the Ombudsman after careful study that
long before his appointment to the Supreme Court the Deputy Ombudsmen and The Special
in April of 1986. Moreover, Mr. Justice Fernan Prosecutor are not removable through
inhibited himself from participating in the impeachment.
deliberations on the Vito Borromeo estate cases
and, in fact, did not take part in the resolution Issue:
thereon. Consequently, Members of the Supreme
Court must, under Article VIII (7) (1) of the Whether the Deputy Ombudsman is an
Constitution, be members of the Philippine Bar and impeachable officer.
may be removed from office only by impeachment
as provided under Article XI [2] of the Constitution. Ruling:
To grant a complaint for disbarment of a Member
of the Court during the Member's incumbency, NO. Sec 2, Art XI of the Constitution
would in effect be to circumvent and hence to ran provides the list of impeachable officers namely the
afoul of the constitutional mandate that Members President, Vice-President, Members of the
of the Court may be removed from office only by Supreme Court, Members of the Constitutional
impeachment for and conviction of certain offenses Commissions, and the Ombudsman. The
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission Four months after the dismissal of the first
reveal that the term Ombudsman refers to the complaint, the second impeachment complaint was
person and not to the office. Therefore only the filed by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and
Ombudsman may be removed through Felix William B. Fuentebella against CJ Davide, Jr.
impeachment, excluding his deputies. Moreover, founded on the alleged results of the investigation,
the leading legal luminaries of the Constitution in aid of legislation, on the manner of
agree that the list under Sec 2 is exclusive and may disbursements and expenditures by the Chief
not be increased or reduced by legislative Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary
enactment. The power to impeach is essentially a Development Fund (JDF).
non-legislative prerogative and can be exercised by
the Congress only within the limits of the authority The instant petitions arose against the
conferred upon it by the Constitution. This House of Representatives, et. al., most of which
authority may not be expanded by the grantee itself contend that the filing of the second impeachment
even if motivated by the desire to strengthen the complaint is unconstitutional as it violates the
security of tenure of other officials of the provision of Section 5 of Article XI of the
government. Constitution that "no impeachment proceedings
shall be initiated against the same official more
than once within a period of one year."
PILIPINO, INC., ITS OFFICERS AND MEMBERS, Whether the power of judicial review
WORLD WAR II VETERANS LEGIONARIES OF extends to those arising from impeachment
FRANKLIN M. DRILON, REPRESENTATIVE YES. As reflected above, petitioners plead
GILBERTO C. TEODORO, JR. AND for this Court to exercise the power of judicial
REPRESENTATIVE FELIX WILLIAM B. review to determine the validity of the second
FUENTEBELLA, JAIME N. SORIANO impeachment complaint.
G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003, CARPIO This Court's power of judicial review is
MORALES, J. conferred on the judicial branch of the government
in Section 1, Article VIII of our present 1987
Judicial review is indeed an integral Constitution which states that the judicial power
component of the delicate system of checks and shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such
balances which, together with the corollary principle lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial
of separation of powers, forms the bedrock of our power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
republican form of government and insures that its settle actual controversies involving rights which
vast powers are utilized only for the benefit of the are legally demandable and enforceable, and to
people for which it serves. determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
Facts: jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government.
Former President Estrada filed an the first
impeachment complaint against Chief Justice The separation of powers is a fundamental
Hilario G. Davide Jr. (CJ Davide) for culpable principle in our system of government. The
violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public Constitution has provided for an elaborate system
trust and other high crimes. The House Committee of checks and balances to secure coordination in
on Justice ruled that the first impeachment the workings of the various departments of the
complaint was sufficient in form, but voted to government and the judiciary in turn, with the
dismiss the same for being insufficient in Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively
substance. checks the other departments in the exercise of its
power to determine the law, and hence to declare
executive and legislative acts void if violative of the respondent, through two separate Resolutions,
Constitution. found both complaints sufficient in form and in
substance which both allege culpable violation of
Finally, there exists no constitutional basis the Constitution and betrayal of public trust.
for the contention that the exercise of judicial
review over impeachment proceedings would Petitioner Gutierrez, challenges via
upset the system of checks and balances. Verily, the petition for certiorari and prohibition the
Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and one Resolutions of the House of Representatives
section is not to be allowed to defeat another. Both Committee on Justice. Respondents raise the
are integral components of the calibrated system of impropriety of the remedies of certiorari and
independence and interdependence that insures prohibition. They argue that public respondent was
that no branch of government act beyond the not exercising any judicial, quasi-judicial or
powers assigned to it by the Constitution. ministerial function in taking cognizance of the two
impeachment complaints as it was exercising a
Consequently, the second impeachment political act that is discretionary in nature.
complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
which was filed by Representatives Gilberto C. Issue:
Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William B. Fuentebella with
the Office of the Secretary General of the House of Whether HOR Committee on Justice
Representatives on October 23, 2003 is barred committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
under paragraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of the lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing its two
Constitution. assailed Resolutions.
__________________________________________________________ Ruing:
NO. Petitioner alleges that public
MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ v. THE HOUSE respondent’s chairperson, Representative
OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON NielTupas, Jr. (Rep. Tupas), is the subject of an
JUSTICE, RISA HONTIVEROS- investigation she is conducting, while his father,
BARAQUEL,FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR.et al. former Iloilo Governor Niel Tupas, Sr., had been
G.R. No. 193459, February 15, 2011, CARPIO charged by her with violation of the Anti-Graft and
MORALES, J. Corrupt Practices Act before the Sandiganbayan. To
petitioner, the actions taken by her office against
It bears stressing that, unlike the process of Rep. Tupas and his father influenced the
inquiry in aid of legislation where the rights of proceedings taken by public respondent in such a
witnesses are involved, impeachment is primarily for way that bias and vindictiveness played a big part
the protection of the people as a body politic, and not in arriving at the finding of sufficiency of form and
for the punishment of the offender. substance of the complaints against her.

Facts: The Court finds petitioner’s allegations of

bias and vindictiveness bereft of merit, there being
Respondents Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, hardly any indication thereof. Mere suspicion of
Danilo Lim, and spouses Felipe and Evelyn Pestaño partiality does not suffice. The act of the head of a
(Baraquel group) filed an impeachment complaint collegial body cannot be considered as that of the
against Ma. Merceditas Gutierrez. Also, entire body itself.
respondents Renato Reyes, Jr., Mother Mary John
Mananzan, Danilo Ramos, Edre Olalia, Ferdinand The determination of sufficiency of form
Gaite and James Terry Ridon (Reyes group) filed and substance of an impeachment complaint is an
another impeachment complaint against exponent of the express constitutional grant of
Ombudsman Gutierrez. rule-making powers of the House of
Representatives which committed such
During its plenary session, the House of determinative function to public respondent. In the
Representatives simultaneously referred both discharge of that power and in the exercise of its
complaints to the public respondent HOR discretion, the House has formulated determinable
Committee on Justice. After hearing, public standards as to the form and substance of an
impeachment complaint. Prudential Given their concededly political character,
considerations behoove the Court to respect the the precise role of the judiciary in impeachment
compliance by the House of its duty to effectively cases is a matter of utmost importance to ensure the
carry out the constitutional purpose, absent any effective functioning of the separate branches while
contravention of the minimum constitutional preserving the structure of checks and balance in our
guidelines. government. Moreover, in this jurisdiction, the acts
of any branch or instrumentality of the government,
In another vein, petitioner, pursuing her including those traditionally entrusted to the
claim of denial of due process, questions the lack of political departments, are proper subjects of judicial
or, more accurately, delay in the publication of the review if tainted with grave abuse or arbitrariness.
Impeachment Rules. Public respondent counters
that "promulgation" in this case refers to "the Facts:
publication of rules in any medium of information,
not necessarily in the Official Gazette or newspaper A caucus was held by the majority bloc of
of general circulation." the House of Representatives (HOR) during which
a verified complaint for impeachment against Chief
Promulgation must thus be used in the Justice Renato Corona (CJ Corona) was submitted
context in which it is generally understood—that by the leadership of the Committee on Justice. On
is, to make known. Generalia verba sunt generaliter the same day, the complaint was voted in session
inteligencia. What is generally spoken shall be and 188 Members signed and endorsed it. The
generally understood. Between the restricted complaint was transmitted to the Senate which
sense and the general meaning of a word, the convened as an impeachment court the following
general must prevail unless it was clearly intended day.
that the restricted sense was to be used.
CJ Corona received a copy of the complaint
Since the Constitutional Commission did charging him with culpable violation of the
not restrict "promulgation" to "publication," the Constitution, betrayal of public trust and graft and
former should be understood to have been used in corruption. On January 16, 2012, the Senate, acting
its general sense. It is within the discretion of as an Impeachment Court, commenced trial
Congress to determine on how to promulgate its proceedings against CJ Corona.
Impeachment Rules, in much the same way that the
Judiciary is permitted to determine that to CJ Corona filed with the SC a petition for
promulgate a decision means to deliver the certiorari and prohibition with prayer for
decision to the clerk of court for filing and immediate issuance of TRO and writ of preliminary
publication. Publication in the Official Gazette or a injunction assailing the impeachment case initiated
newspaper of general circulation is but one avenue by the Members of the HOR and trial being
for Congress to make known its rules. conducted by Senate. Senate contends that unless
__________________________________________________________ there is a clear transgression of these
__________________________________________________________ constitutional limitations, this Court may not
__________ exercise its power of expanded judicial review over
the actions of Senator-Judges during the
OF THE PHILIPPINES sitting as an
BANK, ARLENE "KAKA" BAG-AO, GIORGIDI Whether the certiorari jurisdiction of this
AGGABAO, MARILYN PRIMICIAS-AGABAS, NIEL Court may be invoked to assail matters or incidents
TUPAS, RODOLFO FARINAS, SHERWIN TUGNA, arising from impeachment proceedings, and to
RAUL DAZA, ELPIDIO BARZAGA, REYNALDO obtain injunctive relief for alleged violations of
UMALI, NERI COLMENARES (ALSO KNOWN AS right to due process of the person being tried by the
THE PROSECUTORS FROM THE HOUSE OF Senate sitting as Impeachment Court.
G.R. No. 200242, July 17, 2012, VILLARAMA, Ruling:
JR., J.
YES. Impeachment, described as the most The Court ruled that the concerned officers
formidable weapon in the arsenal of of government-owned or controlled corporations,
democracy, was foreseen as creating divisions, whether created by special law or formed under the
partialities and enmities, or highlighting pre- Corporation Code, come under the jurisdiction of the
existing factions with the greatest danger that the Sandiganbayan for purposes of the provisions of the
decision will be regulated more by the comparative Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations
of innocence or guilt. Our own Constitution’s Facts:
provisions on impeachment were adopted from the
US Constitution. CJ Corona was impeached through Two separate informationsf or violation of
the mode provided under Art. XI, par. 4, Sec. 3, in a Section 3(e) of RA 3019were filed with the
manner that he claims was accomplished with Sandiganbayan against Efren Alas (Alas) for the
undue haste and under a complaint which is alleged anomalous advertising contracts entered
defective for lack of probable cause. into by Alas, in his capacity as President and COO of
the Philippine Postal Savings Bank (PPSB), with
In the first impeachment case decided by Bagong Buhay Publishing Company which caused
this Court, Francisco, Jr. v. Nagmamalasakit na mga damage and prejudice to the government.
Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc.,
the Court ruled that the power of judicial review in Alas filed a motion to quash the
this jurisdiction includes the power of review over informations for lack of jurisdiction. The
justiciable issues in impeachment proceedings. Sandiganbayan ruled that PPSB was a private
Subsequently, in Gutierrez v. House of corporation and that its officers did not fall under
Representatives Committee on Justice, the Court Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. The records
resolved the question of the validity of the disclosed that while PPSB is a subsidiary of the
simultaneous referral of two impeachment Philippine Postal Corporation which is a GOCC, the
complaints against petitioner Ombudsman which same is not created by a special law. It was
was allegedly a violation of the due process clause organized and incorporated under the Corporation
and of the one-year bar provision. Code.

In the meantime, the impeachment trial The People, through the OSP, contends
had been concluded with the conviction of CJ that in further defining the jurisdiction of the
Corona by more than the required majority vote of Sandiganbayan, RA 8249 did not make a distinction
the Senator-Judges. Petitioner immediately as to the manner of creation of the GOCC for their
accepted the verdict and without any protest officers to fall under its jurisdiction. Hence, being
vacated his office. Unarguably, the constitutional President and COO of the PPSB at the time of
issue raised by CJ Corona had been mooted by commission of the crimes charged, Alas came
supervening events and his own acts. An issue or a under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to
present a justiciable controversy so that a Issue:
determination thereof would be without practical
use and value. In such cases, there is no actual Whether the Sandiganbayan has
substantial relief to which the petitioner would be jurisdiction over presidents, directors or trustees,
entitled to and which would be negated by the or managers of government-owned or controlled
dismissal of the petition. corporations organized and incorporated under
__________________________________________________________ the Corporation Code for purposes of the
__________________________________________________________ provisions of RA 3019.
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (Fifth Division) YES. PPSB fits the bill as a government-
and EFREN L. ALAS owned or controlled corporation, and organized
G.R. Nos. 147706-07, February 16, 2005, and incorporated under the Corporation Code as a
CORONA, J. subsidiary of the Philippine Postal Corporation
(PHILPOST). More than 99% of the authorized
capital stock of PPSB belongs to the government
while the rest is nominally held by its incorporators employees of government-owned or controlled
who are/were themselves officers of PHILPOST. corporations, likewise without any distinction.
It is not disputed that the Sandiganbayan __________________________________________________________
has jurisdiction over presidents, directors or __________
trustees, or managers of government-owned or
controlled corporations with original charters OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. CIVIL SERVICE
whenever charges of graft and corruption are COMMISSION
involved. However, a question arises whether the G.R. No. 159940, February 16, 2005, CARPIO-
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the same MORALES, J.
officers in government-owned or controlled
corporations organized and incorporated under It bears emphasis that that under P.D. No
the Corporation Code in view of the delimitation 807, Sec. 9 (h) which authorizes the CSC to approve
provided for in Article IX-B Section 2(1) of the 1987 appointments to positions in the civil service, except
Constitution which states that the Civil Service those specified therein, its authority is limited only to
embraces all branches, subdivisions, determine whether or not the appointees possess the
instrumentalities, and agencies of the government, legal qualifications and the appropriate eligibility,
including government-owned or controlled nothing else.
corporations with original charters.
It should be pointed out however, that the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is separate and The CSC approved the Qualification
distinct from the Civil Service Commission. The Standards for several positions in the Office of the
same is governed by Article XI, Section 4 of the Ombudsman including that for Graft Investigation
1987 Constitution which provides that the present Officer III. The Career Executive Service Board
anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall (CESB) advised the Ombudsman that the position
continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as of Graft Investigation Officer IIIwas classified as a
now or hereafter may be provided by law. Career Executive Service (CES) position, hence,
governed by the rules of the CES pertaining to
On March 30, 1995, Congress, pursuant to eligibility, appointment to CES ranks, and
its authority vested under the 1987 Constitution, performance evaluation.
enacted RA 7975 maintaining the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan over presidents, directors or Melchor Arthur H. Carandang
trustees, or managers of government-owned or (Carandang), Paul Elmer M. Clemente (Clemente)
controlled corporations without any distinction and Jose Tereso U. de Jesus, Jr (De Jesus) were
whatsoever. The legislature, in mandating the temporarily appointed Graft Investigation Officers
inclusion of presidents, directors or trustees, or III of the Ombudsman. The CSC approved the
managers of government-owned or controlled appointments on the condition that for the
corporations within the jurisdiction of the appointees to acquire security of tenure, they must
Sandiganbayan, has consistently refrained from obtain Civil Service Executive (CSE) eligibility. It
making any distinction with respect to the manner appears that Carandang and Clemente were
of their creation. conferred with CSE Eligibility.

The deliberate omission, in Court’s view, Ombudsman subsequently reclassified

clearly reveals the intention of the legislature to several positions, including Graft Investigation
include the presidents, directors or trustees, or Officer III which was reclassified to Graft
managers of both types of corporations within the Investigation and Prosecution Officer III. With
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan whenever they respect to the reclassified Graft Investigation and
are involved in graft and corruption. Had it been Prosecution Officer III position, the Qualification
otherwise, it could have simply made the necessary Standards were the same as those for Graft
distinction. But it did not. Corollarily, Article XI Investigation Officer III.
Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, on the
jurisdiction of the Ombudsman (the government’s The CSC issued the questioned resolution
prosecutory arm against persons charged with changing the status of Carandang’s and Clemente’s
graft and corruption), includes officers and appointments to permanent, but not with respect
to De Jesus on the ground that he has not met the 0665 dated June 6, 2003, should be changed to
eligibility requirements. The questioned resolution permanent effective December 18, 2002 too.
provided that a Graft Investigation Officer III __________________________________________________________
position is a career service position requiring a CSE __________________________________________________________
Eligibility. Considering that De Jesus has not met __________
the eligibility requirement, the change of status of
his appointment from temporary to permanent EMILIO A. GONZALES IIIv.OFFICE OF THE
cannot be effected. PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, acting
through and represented by EXECUTIVE
Whether the of CSC can constitutionally M. AMORANDO, Officer in Charge, Office of the
and validly restrict the specific discretionary Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs,
power of appointment, including the grant of ATTY. RONALDO A. GERON, DIR. ROWENA
security of tenure, by the Ombudsman as an TURINGAN-SANCHEZ, and ATTY. CARLITOD.
independent constitutional body in favor of the CATAYONG
latter’s own officials. G.R. No. 196231, September 4, 2012, PERLAS-
In giving the President the power to remove
NO. The positions subject of the present a Deputy Ombudsman and Special Prosecutor,
case are unique and highly technical in nature, as Congress simply laid down in express terms an
are those of the Judiciary. A person occupying the authority that is already implied from the
position of Graft Investigation Officer III is not, President's constitutional authority to appoint the
however, appointed by the President but by the aforesaid officials in the Office of the Ombudsman.
Ombudsman as provided in Article IX of the
Constitution which states that the officials and Facts:
employees of the ombudsman, other than the
deputies, shall be appointed by the ombudsman G.R. No. 196231
according to the civil service law.
P/S Insp. Rolando Mendoza (Mendoza),
To classify the position of Graft and four others were charged criminally and
Investigation Officer III as belonging to the CES and administratively for Grave Misconduct. Petitioner
require an appointee thereto to acquire CSE Emilio A. Gonzales III (Gonzales) requested all
eligibility before acquiring security of tenure relevant documents and evidence in relation to
would be absurd as it would result either in 1) said case to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman
vesting the appointing power for said position in for appropriate administrative adjudication. Upon
the President, in violation of the Constitution; or 2) the recommendation of Gonzales, a decision in the
including in the CES a position not occupied by a administrative case finding Mendoza and his fellow
presidential appointee, contrary to the police officers guilty of Grave Misconduct was
Administrative Code. approved by the Ombudsman with the penalty of
dismissal from the service.
It is not disputed that, except for his lack of
CSE eligibility, De Jesus possesses the basic Mendoza and his fellow police officers filed
qualifications of a Graft Investigation Officer III, as a Motion for Reconsideration of the foregoing
provided in the Qualification Standards. Such being Decision. The motion remained pending for final
the case, the CSC has the ministerial duty to grant review and action when P/S Insp. Mendoza
the request of the Ombudsman that appointment hijacked a bus-load of foreign tourists on that
be made permanent effective December 18, 2002. fateful day of August 23, 2010 in a desperate
To refuse to heed the request is a clear attempt to have himself reinstated in the police
encroachment on the discretion vested solely on service.
the Ombudsman as appointing authority. It goes
without saying that the status of the appointments Incident Investigation and Review
of Carandang and Clemente, who were conferred Committee (IIRC) found that Deputy Ombudsman
CSE eligibility pursuant to CSC Resolution No. 03- Gonzales committed serious and inexcusable
negligence and gross violation of their own rules of integrated measure and not as a hodge-podge of
procedure by allowing Mendoza's motion for conflicting provisions. A construction that would
reconsideration to languish for more than nine render a provision inoperative should be avoided;
months without any justification. The inaction is instead, apparently inconsistent provisions should
gross, considering there is no opposition thereto. be reconciled whenever possible as parts of a
The prolonged inaction precipitated the desperate coordinated and harmonious whole. Otherwise
resort to hostage-taking. stated, the law must not be read in truncated parts.
Every part thereof must be considered together
The Office of the President issued a with the other parts, and kept subservient to the
resolution, after due investigation, finding Deputy general intent of the whole enactment.
Ombudsman Gonzales guilty of Gross Neglect of
Duty and Grave Misconduct constituting betrayal of A harmonious construction of these two
public trust, and meted out the penalty apparently conflicting provisions in R.A. No. 6770
of dismissal from service. leads to the inevitable conclusion that Congress
had intended the Ombudsman and the President to
G.R. No. 196232 exercise concurrent disciplinary jurisdiction over
petitioners as Deputy Ombudsman and Special
Major General Carlos F. Garcia and his Prosecutor, respectively. This sharing of authority
family were charged with Plunder and Money goes into the wisdom of the legislature, which
Laundering before the Sandiganbayan. The prerogative falls beyond the pale of judicial inquiry.
government, represented by petitioner Special
Prosecutor Wendell Barreras-Sulit (Barreras- Indubitably, the manifest intent of
Sulit), sought the Sandiganbayan's approval of a Congress in enacting both provisions - Section 8(2)
Plea Bargaining Agreement entered into with the and Section 21 - in the same Organic Act was to
accused. The Sandiganbayan approved the Plea provide for an external authority, through the
Bargaining Agreement. person of the President, that would exercise the
power of administrative discipline over the Deputy
The House of Representatives' Committee Ombudsman and Special Prosecutor without in the
on Justice conducted public hearings on the Plea least diminishing the constitutional and plenary
Bargaining Agreement which in effect authority of the Ombudsman over all government
recommended to the President the dismissal of officials and employees. Such legislative design is
petitioner Barreras-Sulit from the service and the simply a measure of "check and balance" intended
filing of appropriate charges. to address the lawmakers' real and valid concern
that the Ombudsman and his Deputy may try to
The Office of the President initiated an protect one another from administrative liabilities.
investigation against petitioner Barreras-Sulit. In __________________________________________________________
her written explanation, petitioner raised the __________________________________________________________
defenses of prematurity and the lack of jurisdiction __________
of the OP with respect to the administrative
disciplinary proceeding against her. GEORGE UYv. SANDIGANBAYAN, OMBUDSMAN
and ROGER C. BERBANO, SR., Special
Issue: Prosecution Officer III, Office of the Special
Whether the Office of the President has G.R. Nos. 105965-70, August 9, 1999, PARDO, J.
jurisdiction to exercise administrative disciplinary
power over a Deputy Ombudsman and a Special It can be deduced from provisions of law
Prosecutor who belong to the constitutionally- that both the nature of the offense and the position
created Office of the Ombudsman. occupied by the accused are conditions sine qua non
before the Sandiganbayan can validly take
Ruling: cognizance of the case.

YES. It is a basic canon of statutory Facts:

construction that in interpreting a statute, care
should be taken that every part thereof be given George Uy (Uy) was Deputy Comptroller of
effect, on the theory that it was enacted as an the Philippine Navy and has the authority is to sign
disbursement vouchers relative to the
procurement of equipment needed by the In the instant case, while petitioner Uy is
Philippine Navy. Six informations for estafa charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R. A. No.
through falsification of official documents and one 3019, as amended, which is an offense covered by
information for violation of Section 3 (e), R.A. No. Section 4 of the Sandiganbayan Law, his position as
3019, were filed with the Sandiganbayan against Lieutenant Commander of the Philippine Navy is a
petitioner Uy and 19 co-accused. rank lower than "naval captains and all officer of
higher rank" as prescribed under sub-paragraph
The Special Prosecutor Desierto (d) of Section 4.
recommended that the informations for estafa
through falsification of official documents be Thus, not falling within the "rank"
withdrawn and, in lieu thereof, informations for requirement stated in Section 4, exclusive
violation of Section 3 (e) of R. A. No. 3019, as jurisdiction over petitioner is vested in the regular
amended, be filed against five accused including courts pursuant to the provision of Section 4 of the
the petitioner Uy. Sandiganbayan Law, as amended by R.A. No. 8249,
which states that "In cases where none of the
Petitioner Uy filed with the Sandiganbayan a accused are occupying positions corresponding to
motion to quash the informations on the grounds Salary Grade "27" or higher, as prescribed in the
that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP
offense charged or the person of the accused, the officers mentioned above, exclusive original
facts charged do not constitute an offense and more jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper
than one offense is charged. The Sandiganbayan regional trial court, metropolitan trial court,
denied petitioner Uy's motion to quash for lack of municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial
merit. court, as the case may be, pursuant to their
respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas
Issue: Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.

Whether the Sandiganbayan has In this connection, it is the prosecutor, not

jurisdiction over the subject criminal cases or the the Ombudsman, who has the authority to file the
person of petitioner Uy. corresponding information/s against petitioner Uy
in the regional trial court. The Ombudsman
Ruling: exercises prosecutorial powers only in cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
NO. The Court rules that the __________________________________________________________
Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over petitioner, __________________________________________________________
at the time of the filing of the informations, and as __________
now prescribed by law. RA No. 8249, the latest
amendment to P. D. 1606 creating the RENATO A. TAPIADOR v. OFFICE OF THE
Sandiganbayan, provides the prevailing scope of OMBUDSMAN and ATTY. RONALDO P.
the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction. LEDESMA
G.R. No. 129124, March 15, 2002, DE LEON,
The pertinent portions of Section 4 of the JR., J.
Sandiganbayan Law states that the Sandiganbayan
shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all Under Section 13, subparagraph (3), of
cases involving; a. Violations of Republic Act Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman
No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti- can only "recommend" the removal of the public
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. official or employee found to be at fault, to the public
1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of official concerned.
the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the
accused are officials occupying the following Facts:
positions in the government, whether in a
permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time Walter Beck (Beck), a U.S. citizen, filed a
of the commission of the offense: xxx (d.) Philippine complaint-affidavit against the Renato Tapiador
army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all (Tapiador), a BID Special Investigator, with the BID
officers of higher rank. Resident Ombudsman alleging that Tapiador
demanded and received from herP10, 000.00 in prior notice before the investigating officer who
exchange for the issuance of an alien certificate of subsequently dismissed the criminal aspect of the
registration (ACR) which was subsequently case upon finding that the charge against the
withheld by Tapiadorunless Beck pay an additional petitioner "was not supported by any
P7, 000.00. Tapiador denied that he demanded nor evidence". Hence, Beck's affidavit is hearsay and
received any amount of money from Beck in inadmissible in evidence. On this basis alone, the
consideration for the issuance of Beck’s ACR. Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the Office of
the Ombudsman should have dismissed the
BID Resident Ombudsman found Tiapador administrative complaint against Tapiador in the
liable for violating civil service rules and penal laws first instance.
and thus, recommended that criminal and
administrative charges be filed against the Nonetheless, a perusal of the affidavit
Tapiador.The Ombudsman dismissed the criminal executed by Walter Beck does not categorically
charge for lack of evidence but found Tapiador state that it was petitioner Tapiador who
liable for grave misconduct and imposed the personally demanded from Beck the amount of
penalty of dismissal from the government service. P10,000.00 in consideration for the issuance of the
latter's ACR. Walter Beck could have easily stated
Issue: in his affidavit that he paid the said amount directly
to Tapiador if it were indeed the latter who actually
Whether or not the Ombudsman erred in received the same, but he did not. This significant
finding Tapiadorliable for grave misconduct and omission in his affidavit is fatal in establishing the
imposing the penalty of dismissal from the alleged administrative liability of the petitioner.
government service.
The complainant clearly failed to present
Ruling: the quantum of proof necessary to prove the charge
in the subject administrative case, that is, with
YES. In administrative proceedings, the substantial evidence. Besides, assuming arguendo,
complainant has the burden of proving, by that Tapiador was administratively liable, the
substantial evidence, the allegations in the Ombudsman has no authority to directly dismiss
complaint. Substantial evidence does not Tapiador from the government service, more
necessarily import preponderance of evidence as is particularly from his position in the BID.
required in an ordinary civil case; rather, it is such __________________________________________________________
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might __________________________________________________________
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. __________

Notably, the instant administrative EDGARDO V. ESTARIJA v. EDWARD F. RANADA

complaint was resolved by the Ombudsman merely and the Honorable OMBUDSMAN Aniano A.
on the basis of the evidence extant in the record of Desierto (now succeeded by Hon. Simeon
OMB-ADM-0-94-0983. The preliminary conference Marcelo), and his Deputy OMBUDSMAN for
required under Republic Act No. 6770was Mindanao, Hon. Antonio E. Valenzuela
dispensed with after the nominal complainant. G. R. No. 159314, June 26, 2006,
Consequently, the only basis for the questioned QUISUMBING, J.
resolution of the Ombudsman dismissing the
petitioner from the government service was the Rep. Act No. 6770 provides for the
unverified complaint-affidavit of Walter H. Beck functional and structural organization of the Office
and that of his alleged witness, PurisimaTerencio. of the Ombudsman. In passing Rep. Act No. 6770,
Congress deliberately endowed the Ombudsman
A thorough review of the records, with the power to prosecute offenses committed by
however, showed that the subject affidavits of Beck public officers and employees to make him a more
and Terencio were not even identified by the active and effective agent of the people in ensuring
respective affiants during the fact-finding accountability in public office. Moreover, the
investigation conducted by the BID Resident legislature has vested the Ombudsman with broad
Ombudsman at the BID office in Manila. Neither did powers to enable him to implement his own actions.
they appear during the preliminary investigation to
identify their respective sworn statements despite Facts:
(4) the constitutional question raised is the
Edward Ranada, a member of the Davao very lismota of the case.
Pilots Association, Inc. (DPAI) and Davao Tugboat
and Allied Services, Inc., (DTASI) filed an In Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, the Court
administrative complaint for Gross Misconduct held that Rep. Act No. 6770 is consistent with the
before the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution.
against petitioner Captain Edgardo V. Estarija Thus, in addition to the power of the Ombudsman
(Estarija), who as Harbor Master, issues the to prosecute and conduct investigations, the
necessary berthing permit for all ships that dock in lawmakers intended to provide the Ombudsman
the Davao Port. with the power to punish for contempt and
preventively suspend any officer under his
NBI caught Estarija in possession of the P5, authority pending an investigation when the case
000 marked money used by the NBI to entrap so warrants. He was likewise given disciplinary
Estarija for his alleged extortion activities. Estarija authority over all elective and appointive officials
denied demanding money for the approval of of the government and its subdivisions,
berthing permits. The Ombudsman issued a instrumentalities and agencies except members of
decision in the administrative case finding Estarija Congress and the Judiciary.The Court also held
guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct imposed in Ledesma that the statement in Tapiador v. Office
the penalty of dismissal from the service with of the Ombudsman that made reference to the
forfeiture of all leave credits and retirement power of the Ombudsman is, at best, merely
benefits. an obiter dictum and cannot be cited as a doctrinal
declaration of this Court.
Estarija questioned the penalty of
dismissal imposed upon him with the CA claiming Lastly, the Constitution gave Congress the
that dismissal was unconstitutional since the discretion to give the Ombudsman other powers
Ombudsman did not have direct and immediate and functions. Thus, the Constitution does not
power to remove government officials, whether restrict the powers of the Ombudsman in Section
elective or appointive, who are not removable by 13, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, but allows
impeachment. He maintains that under the 1987 the Legislature to enact a law that would spell out
Constitution, the Ombudsman’s administrative the powers of the Ombudsman. Through the
authority is merely recommendatory, and that enactment of Rep. Act No. 6770, specifically Section
Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as "The 15, par. 3, the lawmakers gave the Ombudsman
Ombudsman Act of 1989", is unconstitutional such powers to sanction erring officials and
because it gives the Office of the Ombudsman employees, except members of Congress, and the
additional powers that are not provided for in the Judiciary.To conclude, the Court holds that Sections
Constitution. The CA dismissed the petition and 15, 21, 22 and 25 of Republic Act No. 6770 are
affirmed the Ombudsman’s decision. constitutionally sound. The powers of the
Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory. His
Issue: office was given teeth to render this constitutional
body not merely functional but also effective. Thus,
Whether the power of the Ombudsman to the Court rules that under Republic Act No. 6770
directly remove, suspend, demote, fine or censure and the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman has the
erring officials is constitutional. constitutional power to directly remove from
government service an erring public official other
Ruling: than a member of Congress and the Judiciary.
YES. When the issue of unconstitutionality __________________________________________________________
of a legislative act is raised, the Court may exercise __________
its power of judicial review only if the following
requisites are present: (1) an actual and BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA, Presiding Judge,
appropriate case and controversy; (2) a personal Branch 12, Regional Trial Court, Antique v.
and substantial interest of the party raising the HON. OMBUDSMAN CONRADO M. VASQUEZ
constitutional question; (3) the exercise of judicial AND ATTY. NAPOLEON A. ABIERA
review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity; and G.R. No. 102781, April 22, 1993, NOCON, J.
Article VIII, section 6 of the 1987 criminally liable to the State under the Revised
Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court Penal Code for his felonious act.
administrative supervision over all courts and court
personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the Court of However, the Court agrees with Judge
Appeals down to the lowest municipal trial court Maceda that in the absence of any administrative
clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme action taken against him by this Court with regard
Court that can oversee the judges' and court to his certificates of service, the investigation being
personnel's compliance with all laws, and take the conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the
proper administrative action against them if they Court's power of administrative supervision over
commit any violation thereof. No other branch of all courts and its personnel, in violation of the
government may intrude into this power, without doctrine of separation of powers.
running afoul of the doctrine of separation of
powers. The Ombudsman cannot justify its
investigation of Jude Macedaon the powers granted
Facts: to it by the Constitution, for such a justification not
only runs counter to the specific mandate of the
Respondent Napoleon Abiera (Abeira) of Constitution granting supervisory powers to the
the Public Attorney's Office filed his affidavit- Supreme Court over all courts and their personnel,
complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman, but likewise undermines the independence of the
alleging that Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda judiciary.
(Maceda) had falsified his Certificate of Service by
certifying "that all civil and criminal cases which Thus, the Ombudsman should first refer
have been submitted for decision or determination the matter of petitioner's certificates of service to
for a period of 90 days have been determined and this Court for determination of whether said
decided on or before January 31, 1998," when no certificates reflected the true status of his pending
decision had been rendered in five civil and ten case load, as the Court has the necessary records to
criminal cases that have been submitted for make such a determination. The Ombudsman
decision. cannot compel this Court, as one of the three
branches of government, to submit its records, or
Judge Maceda contends that he had been to allow its personnel to testify on this matter, as
granted by this Court an extension of 90 days to suggested by Abiera in his affidavit-complaint.
decide the cases and that the Ombudsman has no
jurisdiction over said case despite this Court's In fine, where a criminal complaint against
ruling in Orap vs. Sandiganbayan, since the offense a Judge or other court employee arises from their
charged arose from the judge's performance of his administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer
official duties, which is under the control and action on said complaint and refer the same to this
supervision of the Supreme Court. Court for determination whether said Judge or
court employee had acted within the scope of their
Issue: administrative duties.
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman __________________________________________________________
could entertain a criminal complaint for the alleged __________
falsification of a judge's certification submitted to
the Supreme Court. JUDGE JOSE CAOIBES, JR. v. OMBUDSMAN and
Ruling: G.R. No. 132177, July 19, 2001, BUENA, J.

NO. The Court disagrees with the first Part Under Section 6, Article VIII of the
of Judge Maceda’s basic argument. There is nothing Constitution, it is the SC which is vested with
in the decision in Orap that would restrict it only to exclusive administrative supervision over all courts
offenses committed by a judge unrelated to his and its personnel. The Ombudsman cannot
official duties. A judge who falsifies his certificate of determine for itself and by itself whether a criminal
service is administratively liable to the Supreme complaint against a judge, or court employee,
Court for serious misconduct and inefficiency involves an administrative matter. The Ombudsman
under Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, and is duty bound to have all cases against judges and
court personnel filed before it, referred to the SC for administrative case based on the act subject of the
determination as to whether an administrative complaint before the Ombudsman is already
aspect is involved therein. pending with the Court. For, aside from the fact that
the Ombudsman would not know of this matter
Facts: unless he is informed of it, he should give due
respect for and recognition of the administrative
Alumbres filed before the Ombudsman, 2 authority of the Court, because in determining
complaints, the 2nd one being an administrative whether an administrative matter is involved, the
case against Caoibes Jr., praying for his dismissal Court passes upon not only administrative
from the judiciary. Caoibes Jr. filed an Ex-Parte liabilities but also other administrative concerns.
Motion for Referral to the SC and contended that
the SC, not the Ombudsman, has the authority to The Ombudsman cannot dictate to, and
make a preliminary determination of their bind the Court, to its findings that a case before it
respective culpability, both being members of the does or does not have administrative implications.
bench, are under its exclusive supervision and To do so is to deprive the Court of the exercise of its
control. Ombudsman denied and invoked Sec 15(1) administrative prerogatives and to arrogate unto
of RA 6770. MR denied, hence a petition for itself a power not constitutionally sanctioned. This
certiorari was filed. is a dangerous policy which impinges, as it does, on
judicial independence. By virtue of its
Issue: constitutional power of administrative supervision
over all courts and court personnel, from the
Whether the Ombudsman should defer Presiding Justice of the CA down to the lowest MTC
action on the case before it, pending the resolution clerk, it is only the SC that can oversee the judges’
of the administrative case. and court personnel’s compliance with all laws, and
take the proper administrative action against them
Ruling: if they commit any violation thereof. No other
branch of government may intrude into this power,
YES. Section 15(1) of RA 6770 grants the without running afoul of the doctrine of separation
powers and duties to the Ombudsman. The of powers.
provisions supply the legal basis for the
Ombudsman in maintaining its jurisdiction over
the charges of physical injuries, malicious mischief JUAN GALLANOSA FRIVALDO v. COMELEC AND
and assault upon a person in authority filed by THE LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES, SORSOGON
Alumbres against Caoibes Jr. This conclusion seems CHAPTER, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
to be reinforced by Section 16 which states that the SALVADOR NEE ESTUYE
powers of the Ombudsman apply to all kinds of G.R. No. 87193, June 23, 1989, CRUZ, J.
malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance
committed by public officers and employees during Article XI, Section 9, of the Constitution: all
their tenure or office. public officials and employees owe the State and the
Constitution "allegiance at all times". Under CA 473
But it appears that the present case and PD 725, Philippine citizenship may be
involves two members of the judiciary who were reacquired by direct act of Congress, by
entangled in a fight within court premises over a naturalization, or by repatriation.
piece of office furniture. Under Section 6, Article
VIII of the Constitution, it is the SC which is vested Facts:
with exclusive administrative supervision over all
courts and its personnel. The Ombudsman cannot Frivaldo was proclaimed governor-elect of
determine for itself and by itself whether a criminal Sorsogon and assumed office in due time. The
complaint against a judge, or court employee, League filed with COMELEC a petition for the
involves an administrative matter. The annulment of Frivaldo’s election and proclamation
Ombudsman is duty bound to have all cases against on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen,
judges and court personnel filed before it, referred having been naturalized in the US. Frivaldo
to the SC for determination as to whether an admitted that he was naturalized but pleaded the
administrative aspect is involved therein. This rule special and affirmative defenses that he had sought
should hold true regardless of whether an
American citizenship only to protect himself citizenship. But that is hardly the formal
against Marcos.. declaration the law envisions surely, Philippine
citizenship previously disowned is not that cheaply
Issue: recovered. If the Special Committee had not yet
been convened, what that meant simply was that
Whether Frivaldo was a citizen of the Frivaldo had to wait until this was done, or seek
Philippines at the time of his election as provincial naturalization by legislative or judicial
governor of Sorsogon. proceedings.

NO. Article XI, Section 9, of the G.R. No. 88831, November 8, 1990, GRIÑO-
Constitution: all public officials and employees owe AQUINO, J.
the State and the Constitution "allegiance at all
times". Sec 42 of the LGC: a candidate for local To be qualified to run for elective office, the
elective office must be inter alia a citizen of the law requires that the candidate who is a green card
Philippines and a qualified voter of the holder must have waived his status as a permanent
constituency where he is running. Sec 117 of the resident or immigrant of a foreign country. His act of
OEC: a qualified voter must be, among other filing a COC for elective office in the Philippines, did
qualifications, a citizen of the Philippines, this not of itself constitute a waiver of his status as a
being an indispensable requirement for suffrage. permanent resident or immigrant of the US. The
waiver of his green card should be manifested by
The SC cannot agree that as a consequence some act or acts independent of and done prior to
thereof he was coerced into embracing American filing his candidacy for elective office. Without such
citizenship. His feeble suggestion that his prior waiver, he was disqualified to run for any
naturalization was not the result of his own free elective office.
and voluntary choice is totally unacceptable and
must be rejected outright.There were many other Facts:
Filipinos in the US similarly situated as Frivaldo,
and some of them subject to greater risk than he, Under dispute is the disqualification under
who did not find it necessary nor do they claim to Section 68 of the OEC of Miguel for the position of
have been coerced to abandon their cherished municipal mayor of Bolinao on the ground that he
status as Filipinos. They did not take the oath of is a green card holder, hence, a permanent resident
allegiance to the US, unlike Frivaldo who solemnly of the USA. Miguel admitted that he holds a green
declared "on oath, that I absolutely and entirely card issued to him by the US Immigration Service,
renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to but he denied that he is a permanent resident of the
any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty US. He allegedly obtained the green card for
of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject convenience in order that he may freely enter the
or citizen," meaning in his case the Republic of the US for his periodic medical examination and to visit
Philippines. The martyred Ninoy Aquino heads the his children there. COMELEC dismissed the
impressive list of those Filipinos in exile who, petitions. RTC denied the MD. CA ordered RTC to
unlike Frivaldo, held fast to their Philippine dismiss and desist from the quo warranto case.
citizenship despite the perils of their resistance to
the Marcos regime. If he really wanted to disavow Issue:
his American citizenship and reacquire Philippine
citizenship, he should have done so in accordance Whether Miguel is disqualified to hold the
with the laws of our country. Under CA 473 and PD position of municipal mayor of Bolinao.
725, Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by
direct act of Congress, by naturalization, or by Ruling:
YES. “Section 68 of the OEC: Any person
It does not appear that Frivaldo has taken who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to
these categorical acts. He contends that by simply a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for
filing his certificate of candidacy he had, without any elective office under this Code, unless said
more, already effectively recovered Philippine person has waived his status as permanent
resident or immigrant of a foreign country in right to file criminal charges against Osias, et. al. is
accordance with the residence requirement prescriptible, the prescriptive period should be
provided for in the election laws.” In the counted from the discovery of the crimes charged,
"Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien and not from the date of their commission.
Registration", Miguel's answer to Question 21
therein regarding his "Length of intended stay", Facts:
was," Permanently."On its face, the green card that
was subsequently issued to Miguel identifies him in President Ramos issued AO no. 13,
clear bold letters as a RESIDENT ALIEN. Miguel's creating the Committee. The Committee reported
immigration to the US constituted an abandonment that the PSI of which Osias, et. al. were the
of his domicile and residence in the Philippines. Directors, was one of the 21 corporations which
Based on that application of his, he was issued by obtained behest loans. Through Salvador, the
the US the requisite green card or authority to Committee filed a sworn complaint against the
reside there permanently. Directors of PSI. The Ombudsman dismissed the
complaint on the ground of prescription and relied
“To be qualified to run for elective office, on the ruling in People v. Dinsay(CA 40 O.G., 12th
the law requires that the candidate who is a green Supp., 50): the questioned transactions were
card holder must have waived his status as a evidenced by public instruments and were thus
permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign open for the perusal of the public, the prescriptive
country. Therefore, his act of filing a COC for period commenced to run from the time of the
elective office in the Philippines, did not of itself commission of the crime, not from the discovery
constitute a waiver of his status as a permanent thereof.
resident or immigrant of the US. The waiver of his
green card should be manifested by some act or Issue:
acts independent of and done prior to filing his
candidacy for elective office in this country. Whether the Ombudsman committed
Without such prior waiver, he was disqualified to grave abuse of discretion in holding that the
run for any elective office.” Miguel's said offenses with which Osias, et. al. were charged had
application and his possession of a green card already prescribed.
attesting to such status are conclusive proof that he
is a permanent resident of the US despite his Ruling:
occasional visits to the Philippines. The waiver of
such immigrant status should be as indubitable as YES. Behest loans are part of the ill-gotten
his application for it. Absent clear evidence that he wealth which Marcos and his cronies accumulated
made an irrevocable waiver of that status or that he and which the Government through the PCGG seeks
surrendered his green card before he ran for mayor to recover. Besides, even assuming ex gratia that
of Bolinao in the local elections, our conclusion is the right to file criminal charges against Osias, et.
that he was disqualified to run for said public office, al. is prescriptible, the prescriptive period should
hence, his election thereto was null and void. be counted from the discovery of the crimes
charged, and not from the date of
their commission. The ruling in Dinsay is not
PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING applicable to the case at bar. First, it is a decision of
COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS, CA. Second, it involved a prosecution for
MAGTANGGOL GUNIGUNDO and ORLANDO estafa. Third, Dinsay involved private parties,
SALVADOR v. HON. ANIANO DESIERTO; JOSE while the instant case involves the Government and
OSIAS; PACIFICO MARCOS; EDUARDO public officers. Fourth, the ruling is not absolute.
ORDOVEZA Since the law alleged to have been
G.R. No. 130140, October 25, 1999, DAVIDE, violated, i.e., paragraphs (e) and (g) of Sec 3, RA
JR., C.J. 3019, is a special law, the applicable rule in the
computation of the prescriptive period is Sec 2 of
Behest loans are part of the ill-gotten Act No. 3326. This simply means that if the
wealth which Marcos and his cronies accumulated commission of the crime is known, the prescriptive
and which the Government through the PCGG seeks period shall commence to run on the day it was
to recover. Besides, even assuming ex gratia that the committed.
In the present case, it was well-nigh Issue:
impossible for the State, the aggrieved party, to
have known the violations at the time the Whether the OSG has the authority to
questioned transactions were made because, as appear for Solgen Chavez in the said civil suit for
alleged, the public officials concerned connived or damages.
conspired with the beneficiaries of the loans. Thus,
we agree with the Committee that the prescriptive Ruling:
period should be computed from the discovery of
the commission thereof and not from the day of NO. This Court held that once an
such commission.The Ombudsman’s reliance information is filed against the public official, the
on Dinsay is misplaced. The estafa committed by OSG can no longer represent the said official in the
the accused was known to the offended party from litigation. The anomaly in this paradigm becomes
the very start; hence, it could even be said that the obvious when, in the event of a judgment of
commission and the discovery of the offense were conviction, the case is brought on appeal to the
simultaneous. Since the computation of the appellate courts. The OSG, as the appellate counsel
prescriptive period for the filing of the criminal of the People of the Philippines, is expected to take
action should commence from the discovery of the a stand against the accused. More often than not, it
offense, the Ombudsman clearly acted with grave does. Accordingly, there is a clear conflict of
abuse of discretion in dismissing outright the interest here, and one which smacks of ethical
case. It should have first received the evidence to considerations, where the OSG as counsel for the
resolve the case on its merits and on the issue of the public official, defends the latter in the preliminary
date of discovery of the offense. investigation stage of the criminal case, and where
the same office, as appellate counsel of the People
of the Philippines, represents the prosecution
ILUMINADO URBANO and MARCIAL ACAPULCO when the case is brought on appeal. This
v. FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, RAMON BARCELONA anomalous situation could not have been
and AMY LAZARO-JAVIER contemplated and allowed by the law, its
G.R. No. 87977, March 19, 1990, GANCAYCO, J. unconditional terms and provisions
notwithstanding. It is a situation which cannot be
This Court held that once an information is countenanced by the Court. Otherwise, if the Solgen
filed against the public official, the OSG can no longer who represents the state on appeal in criminal
represent the said official in the litigation. The cases can appear for the accused public official in a
anomaly in this paradigm becomes obvious when, in preliminary investigation, then by the same token
the event of a judgment of conviction, the case is a provincial or city fiscal, his assistant or any
brought on appeal to the appellate courts. The OSG, government prosecutor who represents the People
as the appellate counsel of the People of the of the Philippines at the preliminary investigation
Philippines, is expected to take a stand against the of a case up to the trial thereof can appear for an
accused. More often than not, it does. Accordingly, accused public official at the preliminary
there is a clear conflict of interest here, and one investigation being conducted by another fiscal,
which smacks of ethical considerations. prosecutor or municipal judge. The situation would
simply be scandalous, to say the least.
This observation should apply as well to a
Chavez caused to be published certain public official who is haled to court on a civil suit
defamatory imputations against Urbano. Chavez for damages arising from a felony allegedly
was the counsel of the PCGG and a Solicitor committed by him. Any pecuniary liability he may
General(Solgen). By way of a Motion seeking the be held to account for on the occasion of such civil
disqualification of the OSG to act as counsel of suit is for his own account. The State is not liable
Solgen Chavez, Urbano manifested that he is suing for the same. A fortiori, the OSG likewise has no
the Solgen in his personal capacity for acts which authority to represent him in such a civil suit for
he committed beyond the scope of his authority damages.
and as such he cannot be represented by the said
Office in the civil suit instituted. RTC denied
Urbano’s motion.
HON. RICARDO T. GLORIA, in his capacity as reinstated with full pay for the period of the
Secretary of the DECS v. CA, AMPARO A. ABAD, suspension. Thus, respondent "shall be considered
VIRGILIA M. BANDIGAS, ELIZABETH A. as under preventive suspension during the
SOMEBANG and NICANOR MARGALLO pendency of the appeal in the event he wins." On
G.R. No. 131012, April 21, 1999, MENDOZA, J the other hand, if his conviction is affirmed, i.e., if
he is not exonerated, the period of his suspension
Preventive suspension pending becomes part of the final penalty of suspension or
investigation, as already discussed, is not a penalty dismissal.
but only means of enabling the disciplining authority
to conduct an unhampered investigation. On the Sec. 47 of the present law providing that an
other hand, preventive suspension pending appeal is administrative decision meting out the penalty of
actually punitive although it is in effect subsequently suspension or dismissal shall be immediately
considered illegal if respondent is exonerated and executory and that if the respondent appeals he
the administrative decision finding him guilty is shall be considered as being merely under
reversed. Hence, he should be reinstated with full pay preventive suspension if eventually he prevails is
for the period of the suspension. taken from P.D No. 807. Nonetheless, under R.A. No.
2260 the payment of salaries was ordered in cases
Facts: in which employees were found to be innocent of
the charges or their suspension was held to be
Abad, et. al. are public school teachers. unjustified, because the penalty of suspension or
They were administratively charged and placed dismissal was executed without a finding by the
under preventive suspension. The investigation Civil Service Commissioner that it was necessary
was concluded before the lapse of 90-day "in the interest of the public service." On the other
suspension and they were found guilty as charged. hand, payment of back salaries was denied where
Merit Systems and Protection Board(MSPB) found it was shown that the employee concerned was
Margallo guilty and imposed on him a six-month guilty as charged and the immediate execution of
suspension and dismissed the appeal of the others. the decision was ordered by the Civil Service
Civil Service Commission(CSC) affirmed with Commissioner "in the interest of the public
respect to Margallo, but found the other three service."To be entitled to such compensation, the
guilty only of violation of reasonable office rules employee must not only be found innocent of the
and regulation, by filing to file applications for charges but his suspension must likewise be
leave of absence and, therefore, reduced the unjustified. But through an employee is considered
penalty imposed on them to reprimand and under preventive suspension during the pendency
ordered them reinstated to their former positions. of his appeal in the event he wins, his suspension is
CA affirmed but ruled that they were entitled to the unjustified because what the law authorizes is
payment of salaries during their suspension preventive suspension for a period not exceeding
beyond 90 days. 90 days. Beyond that period the suspension is
illegal. Hence, the employee concerned is entitled
Issue: to reinstated with full pay.

Whether Abad, et. al. were entitled to the

payment of salaries during their suspension
beyond 90 days.


YES. Preventive suspension pending

investigation, as already discussed, is not a penalty
but only means of enabling the disciplining
authority to conduct an unhampered investigation.
On the other hand, preventive suspension pending
appeal is actually punitive although it is in effect
subsequently considered illegal if respondent is
exonerated and the administrative decision finding
him guilty is reversed. Hence, he should be