CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | DIGESTS | 1D

Case No. <2>: <Jarque v Desierto>

A. C. No. 4509 dated December 5, 1995
TOPIC: <Accountability of Public Officers: Impeachment>
Bea Crisostomo

FACTS:
This case is a resolution of the Court En Banc to the letter-complaint signed by Cpt. Jose
Rene Jarque for disbarment against Ombudsman Aniano Desierto for immorality and involvement
in various illegal and immoral activities. The letter alleges that Aniano Desierto has an illegitimate
daughter as shown by a confirmation certificate annexed in the letter-complaint. Other allegations
against Desierto were also made without any substantiation offered.

ISSUE: Whether the allegations made by the petitioner make out a prima facie case for disbarment
against Aniano Desierto

PETITIONER (NAME): RESPONDENT (NAME):

Cpt. Jose Rene N. Jarque Ombudsman Aniano Desierto

SC RULING:
No, the Court believes that the letter-complaint with its one (1) annex consisting of a
supposed “certificate of confirmation” does not make out a prima facie case for disbarment against
Aniano Desierto.
The Court found as basis the doctrine set out in Administrative Matter No. 88-4-5433, to wit:
A public officer who under the Constitution is required to be Member of the Philippine Bar as
a qualification for the office held by him and who may be removed from office only by impeachment,
cannot be charged with disbarment during the incumbency of such public officer. Further, such
public officer, during his incumbency, cannot be charged criminally before the Sandiganbayan or
any other court with any offense which carries with it the penalty of removal from office, or any
penalty service of which would amount to removal from office.
The Constitution provides for the removal by impeachment of constitutional officers in Article
XI of the 1987 Constitution:
“Sec. 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 office,
on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft
and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public offiicers and employees
may be removed from office as provided by law, but not impeachment.
Sec. 3. Xxx xxx xxx
Judgment in cases of impeachemnt shall not extend further than removal from office and
disqualification to hold any office under the Rpeublic of the Philiippines, but the party convicted shall
neverthless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial and punishment according to law.”
The Court ruled in this case that the Ombudsman and other constitutional officers who are
required by the Constitution to be members of the Philippine Bar and are removed only by
impeachment are not immunized from liability for possible criminal acts or for violation of the Code
of Professional Responsibility or other claimed misbehavior. The Court held that the fundamental
procedural requirement must be observed before such liability may be determined and enforced.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 | DIGESTS | 1D

The Ombudsman or his deputies must first be removed from office via the constitutional route
of impeachment under Sections 2 and 3 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. Should the tenure of
the Ombudsman be thus terminated by impeachment, he may then be held to answer wither
criminally or administratively – e.g., in disbarment proceedings – for any wrong or misbehavior which
may be proven against him in appropriate proceedings.
The Court dismissed the letter-complaint.