cornejo mathay

8/19/2019 Cornejo Mathay

1/44

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-16887 November 17, 1920

MIGUEL R. CORNEJO, petitioner,vs.N!RES G"RIEL, #rov$%&$'( )over%or o* R$+'(, '% e PRO/INCIL "OR!O RIL, &om#oe o* N!RES G"RIEL, PE!RO MGSLIN '% CTLINOS. CRU, respondents.

Gregorio Perfecto for petitioner.

MLCOLM, J.:

The petitioner in this case, the suspended municipal president of Pasay, Rial, see!sby these proceedin"s inmandamus to have the provincial "overnor and the provincialboard of the Province of Rial temporarily restrained from "oin" ahead #ithinvesti"ation of the char"es filed a"ainst him pendin" resolution of the case, and tohave an order issue directed to the provincial "overnor commandin" him to return thepetitioner to his position as municipal president of Pasay. The members of theprovincial board have interposed a demurrer based on the "round that this court hasno ri"ht to !eep them from complyin" #ith the provisions of the la#. The provincial"overnor has filed an ans#er to the petition, in #hich he alle"es as a special defensethat numerous complaints have been received by him a"ainst the conduct of Mi"uelR. Corne$o, municipal president of Pasay% that these complaints #ere investi"ated byhim% that he came to the conclusion that a"reeable to the po#ers conferred uponprovincial "overnors, the municipal president should be temporarily suspended, andthat an investi"ation is no# bein" conducted by the provincial board.

Counsel for petitioner has ar"ued, #ith much elo&uence, that his client has beendeprived of an office, to #hich he #as elected by popular vote, #ithout havin" anopportunity to be heard in his o#n defense. The respondents reply that all that theprovincial "overnor and the provincial board have done in this case is to comply #iththe re&uirements of the la# #hich they are s#orn to enforce. 'bviously, therefore, #eshould first have before us the applicable provisions of the Philippine la# bearin" onthe sub$ect of suspension of public officers.

(nder the title of )Provincial supervision over municipal officers,) Article *+ of Chapter- of the Administrative Code, provides

The provincial "overnor shall receive and investi"ate complaints a"ainstmunicipal officers for ne"lect of duty, oppression, corruption, or other form of

maladministration in office. for minor delin&uency he may reprimand theoffender% and if a more severe punishment seems to be desirable, he shallsubmit #ritten char"es touchin" the matter to the provincial board, and hemay in such case suspend the officer /not bein" the municipal treasurer0pendin" action by the board, if in his opinion the char"e be one affectin" theofficial inte"rity of the officer in &uestion. 1here suspension is thus effected,the #ritten char"es a"ainst the officer shall be filed #ith the board #ithin tendays.

Trial of municipal officer by provincial board . 2 1hen #ritten char"es arepreferred by a provincial "overnor a"ainst a municipal officer, the provincialboard shall, at its ne3t meetin", re"ular or special, furnish a copy of saidchar"es to the accused official, #ith a notification of the time and place ofhearin" thereon% and at the time and place appointed, the board shallproceed to hear and investi"ate the truth or falsity of said char"es, "ivin" theaccused official full opportunity to be heard. The hearin" shall occur as soonas may be practicable, and in case suspension has been effected, not laterthan fifteen days from the date the accused is furnished a copy of thechar"es, unless the suspended official shall, on sufficient "rounds, re&uestan e3tension of time to prepare his defense.

Action by provincial board . 2 *f, upon due consideration, the provincial

board shall ad$ud"e that the char"es are not sustained, the proceedin"sshall be dismissed% if it shall ad$ud"e that the accused has been "uilty ofmisconduct #hich #ould be sufficiently punished by reprimand, or furtherreprimand, it shall direct the provincial "overnor to deliver such reprimand inpursuance of its $ud"ment% and in either case the official, if previouslysuspended, shall be reinstated.

*f in the opinion of the board the case is one re&uirin" more severediscipline, it shall #ithout unnecessary delay for#ard to the Chief of theE3ecutive Bureau certified copies of the record in the case, includin" thechar"es, the evidence, and the findin"s of the board, to #hich shall beadded the recommendation of the board as to #hether the official ou"ht tobe suspended, further suspended, or finally dismissed from office% and in

such case the board may e3ercise its discretion to reinstate the official, ifalready suspended, or to suspend him or continue his suspension pendin"final action.

The trial of a suspended municipal official and the proceedin"s incidentthereto shall be "iven preference over the current and routine business ofthe board.

Action by Chief of Executive Bureau. 2 (pon receivin" the papers in anysuch proceedin" the Chief of the E3ecutive Bureau shall revie# the case#ithout unnecessary delay and shall ma!e such order for the reinstatement,dismissal, suspension, or further suspension of the official, as the facts shall#arrant. 4isciplinary suspension made upon order of the chief of the

E3ecutive Bureau shall be #ithout pay and in duration shall not e3ceed t#o

1


2/44

months. No final dismissal hereinunder shall ta!e effect until recommendedby the 4epartment 5ead and approved by the 6overnor76eneral.

1ith the fore"oin" le"al provisions in mind, certain aspects of the case can bedisposed of #ithout difficulty. Thus it cannot be seriously contended that the courtsshould interfere #ith an orderly investi"ation #hich is about to be conducted by theprovincial board. Nor can there be any doubt as to the meanin" of the la#. A veryminute and e3tensive procedure is provided by the 8e"islature for central andprovincial supervision of municipal officers. The provincial "overnor, in receivin" and

investi"atin" complaints a"ainst such officers, may ta!e three courses. 9or a minordelin&uency he may reprimand the offender% but if the maladministration in office ismore serious he may temporarily suspend the officer, and thereafter may file #rittenchar"es a"ainst the officer #ith the provincial board. The procedure follo#ed beforethe provincial board and later on appeal to the Chief of the E3ecutive Bureau, #hileinterestin", does not concern us. The important fact is that the la#, in permittin" aprovincial "overnor temporarily to suspend a municipal officer, ma!es no mention of aformal hearin" of the char"es.

*n the e3ercise of this disciplinary po#er by the provincial "overnor, all that he can dobefore the presentation of formal char"es is either to reprimand the officer or tosuspend him temporarily from office. *n the latter case the provincial "overnor:s actionis not a finality. The la# is especially careful to "uard the ri"hts of officer char"ed #ith

maladministration in office. But the point is made that, not#ithstandin" the provisionsof the la# and not#ithstandin" lon" official practice, the temporary suspension of amunicipal officer, #ithout an opportunity to be heared in his o#n defense, is incontravention of the provisions of the Philippine Bill of Ri"hts concernin" due processof la#.

;o much has been #ritten on the sub$ect of due process of la# that is #ould be futileto enter into its intricate maes. *t is self7evident, ho#ever, that, in ordinary cases, tocondemn #ithout a hearin" violates the due process of la# clause of the AmericanConstitution and of the Philippine Bill of Ri"hts. *t is for this reason that #e can #ellunderstand the lo"ic of those #ho clin" to this throu"h and to #hom a contemplatedviolation of the Constitution is most repu"nant. *t is but fair, in ordinary cases, that apublic official should not be removed or suspended #ithout notice, char"es, a trial,

and an opportunity for e3planation. But not permittin" our $ud"ment to be undulys#ayed by sympathy for the petitioner:s brave fi"ht, and recallin" a"ain that thecourts have ordinarily to "ive effect to le"islative purposes, it is further only fair tomention certain e3ceptions to the due process of la# rule, #hich #ould seem toinclude the instant case.

The fact should not be lost si"ht of that #e are dealin" #ith an administrativeproceedin" and not #ith a $udicial proceedin". As ?FF, >-?, (. ;., @?0, Mr. Chief of the e3ecutive article of the Constitution, suspendan officer for ne"lect of duty in office #ithout "ivin" previous notice to the officer of thechar"e made a"ainst him.

A later compilation of the pertinent authorities is to be found in DD Rulin" Case 8a#,pp. @, . 'n the sub$ect of suspension of public officers it is heared said

The suspension of an officer pendin" his trial for misconduct, so as to tie hishands for the time bein", seems to be universally accepted as fair, and oftennecessary. . . . Notice and hearin" are not prere&uisite to suspension unlessre&uired by statute and therefore suspension #ithout such notice does notdeprive the officer of property #ithout due process of la#. Nor is asuspension #antin" in due process of la# or a denial of the e&ual protectionof the la#s because the evidence a"ainst the officer is not produced and heis not "iven an opportunity to confront his accusers and cross7e3amine the

#itnesses.lawphl.net

2


3/44

The case to support the first sentence in the above enunciation of the rule is;tate vs. Me"aarden /? Minn., @>0, #hich in turn is predicated on ;tate vs. Peterson/=>?FD, Minn., DF0. *n a discussion of the sub$ect more "eneral than specific, it#as said

The safety of the state, #hich is the hi"hest la#, imperatively re&uires thesuspension, pendin" his trial, of a public officer, 2 especially a custodian ofpublic funds, 2 char"ed #ith malfeasance or nonfeasance in office.;uspension does not remove the officer, but merely prevents him, for the

time bein", from performin" the functions of his office% and from the verynecessities of the case must precede a trial or hearin". ;uch temporarysuspension #ithout previous hearin" is fully in accordance #ith theanalo"ies of the la#. *t is a constitutional principle that no person shall bedeprived of his liberty or property e3cept by due process of la#, #hichincludes notice and a hearin", yet it #as never claimed that in criminalprocedure a person could not be arrested and deprived of his liberty until atrial could reasonably be had, or that in civil actions ex parte and temporaryin$unctions mi"ht not be issued and retained in proper case, until a trial couldbe had, and the ri"hts of the parties determined. 1e have no doubt,therefore, of the authority of the le"islature to vest the "overnor #ith po#erto temporarily suspend a county treasurer pendin" the investi"ation of thechar"es a"ainst him, of official misconduct.

The case cited by the editors of Rulin" Case 8a# as authority for their secondsentence is that of 6riner vs.Thomas /=>F-, >> Te3as, % > Ann. Cas., F@@0. Theholdin" of the court here #as that it is #ithin the po#er of the le"islature to authoriethe temporary suspension of a public officer durin" the pendency of valid proceedin"sto remove such officer and as an incident to such proceedin"s, not#ithstandin" thefact that the constitution has "iven po#er to remove such officer only for cause andafter a hearin". Notice and hearin" are not prepre&uisites to the suspension of apublic officer under a statute #hich does not provide for such notice and hearin".

The third case cited by Rulin" Case 8a# comes from the (nited ;tates ;upremeCourt. /1ilson vs. North Carolina =>?F-, >F (.;, ?.0 An e3amination of thedecision, ho#ever, sho#s that #hile it tends to substantiate the rule, the facts are not

e3actly on all fours #ith those before us. 1ithout, therefore, stoppin" to set forth thefacts, only the follo#in" from the body of the decisioned be noted, vi.

*n spea!in" of the statute and the purpose of this particular provision the;upreme Court of the ;tate said )The duty of suspension #as imposedupon the 6overnor from the hi"hest motives of public policy to prevent thedan"er to the public interests #hich mi"ht arise from leavin" such "reatpo#ers and responsibilities in the hands of men le"ally dis&ualified. To leavethem in full char"e of their office until the ne3t biennial session of thele"islature, or pendin" liti"ation #hich mi"ht be continued for year, #oulddestroy the very ob$ect of the la#. As the 6overnor #as, therefore, by thevery and spirit of the la#, re&uired to act and act promptly, necessarily uponhis o#n findin"s of fact, #e are compelled to hold that such official action

#as, under the circumstances, due process of la#. Even if it #ere proper, the6overnor #ould have no po#er to direct an issue li!e a chancellor.)

The hi"hest court of the ;tate has held that this statue #as not a violation ofthe constitution of the ;tate% that the hearin" before the 6overnor #assufficient% that the office #as substantially an administrative one, althou"hthe commission #as desi"ned by a statute subse&uent to that #hich createdit, a court of record% that the officer ta!in" office under the statute #as boundto ta!e it on the terms provided for therein% that he #as la#fully suspendedfrom office% and that he #as not entitled to a trial by $ury upon the hearin" ofthis case in the trial court. As a result the court held that the defendant hadnot been deprived of his property #ithout due process of la#, nor had he

been denied the e&ual protection of the la#s.

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

1e are of opinion the plaintiff in error #as not deprived of any ri"ht"uaranteed to him by the 9ederal Constitution, by reason of the proceedin"sbefore the 6overnor under the statute above mentioned, and resultin" in hissuspension from office.

The procedure #as in accordance #ith the constitution and la#s of the;tate. *t #as ta!en under a valid statute creatin" a state office in aconstitutional manner, as the state court has held. 1hat !ind and ho# muchof a hearin" the officer should have before suspension by the 6overnor #as

a matter for the state le"islature to determine, havin" re"ard to theconstitution of the ;tate. /There can also be cited as supportin" authority;tate ex rel . 1endlin" vs. Board of Police and 9ire Commissioners =>F>,>F 1is., DF% ;umpter vs. ;tate G>F, ?> Ar!., % 6ray vs. Mc8endon=>F>, >@ 6a., DD@% ;tate vs. Police Commissioners, > Mo. App., F@-%Preston vs. City of Chica"o =>F>, D@ ***., D% and People vs. 4raper=>F>, >D@ N.H.;., -?, #here it #as held that the le"islature has the ri"ht toauthorie an officer to remove an appointive or elective officer #ithout noticeor hearin".0

Certain intimations have been made that under the procedure prescribed by the la#an in$ustice mi"ht be done municipal officers. ;uch suppositions are not unusual evenas to cases before the courts, but in this as in all other instances, the presumption

al#ays is that the la# #ill be follo#ed and that the investi"ation and the hearin" #illbe impartial. *n the lan"ua"e of F>, > Phil., , @D0, )the presumption is $ust as conclusive in favor ofe3ecutive action, as to its correctness and $ustness, as it is in favor of $udicial action.)1e entertain no doubt that the provincial "overnor, fully conscious of the trustreposed in him by the la#, #ill act only in cases #here stron" reasons e3ist fore3ercisin" the po#er of suspension and upon a hi"h consideration of his duty.

The su""estion that an unfriendly "overnor mi"ht unduly delay the hearin" is also#ithout much force. The same mi"ht be said of any administrative officer, or in fact ofany $udicial officer. The presumption, a"ain, is that every officer #ill do his dutypromptly, and if he does not, certainly a remedy can be found to ma!e him do so. Notonly this, but the la# before us e3pedites the proceedin"s by fi3in" a short period of

ten days #ithin #hich the provincial "overnor must lay the char"es before theprovincial board, #hich must be heard by the latter body #ithin fifteen days. 'f more

3


4/44

compellin" force is the su""estion from the other side that the public interest mi"htsuffer detriment by postponin" the temporary suspension until after the hearin".

'ur holdin", after most thou"htful consideration, is that the provisions of section D>??of the Administrative Code are clear and that they do not offend the due process ofla# clause of the Philippine Bill of Ri"hts. Accordin"ly, it is our duty to apply the la##ithout fear or favor.

Petition denied #ith costs. ;o ordered.

!apa" C.#." $treet" Avance%a and &illamor" ##." concur.

Se#'r'e O#$%$o%

JO3NSON, J., dissentin"

This is an ori"inal action for the #rit of mandamus to re&uire the respondents toreinstate the petitioner to his office as president of the municipality of Pasay, Provinceof Rial.

The facts upon #hich the petition is based are not in dispute. They are not onlyadmitted by the demurrer of the respondent Andres 6abriel buy #ere e3presslyadmitted by him in open court. They are

/>0 That the petitioner #as duly elected by the people of the municipality of Pasay aspresident for the period of three years from the >th day of 'ctober, >F>F%

/D0 That the petitioner #as suspended from said office on the >th day of ;eptember,>FD, by the respondent Andres 6abriel, without notice" without a hearing" andwithout an opportunity to present any proof whatsoever in his defense.

The facts havin" been admitted, #e have only a &uestion of la# to decide, to #it *sthe "overnor of a province authoried under the la# to suspend a municipal presidentfrom his office, to #hich he has been legally elected for a period fixed by the law"without notice" without a hearing and without an opportunity to present proof in hisdefenseI

;ection /first para"raph0 of the ?? provides for a suspension, it ma!es noprovision for the procedure in such cases. *n the absence of a procedure prescribedby the statute, #e are of the opinion that the procedure mar!ed by the Constitution/DF (.;., >>@, >D@%

5ulin" vs. Ja#, etc. Ry. Co., > (.;., F% ;cott vs. Neal, >@ (.;., @% Ne#'rleans 1ater#or!s vs. Ne# 'rleans, >@ (.;., @->% T#inin" vs. Ne# > (.;., -?, >>% 5addoc! vs. 5addoc!, D> (.;., D, -, Michi"an Trust Co. vs. 9erry,>- fed., -% Bunton vs. 8yford, - N.5., >D =- Am. 4ec., >@@% 9oster vs. Jansas,>>D (.;., D>.0

The po#er to remove an officer #ho has been duly elected for a specified period canbe e3ercised only , and for $ust cause, after the officer has had an opportunity fordefense.

*n the absence of e3press po#er, "iven in e3press #ords, the presumption must be,in vie# of the provisions of the


5/44

himself. /> 4illon, Mun. Corporations, sec. D% 9ields vs. Common#ealth, D Pa.,@-?% ;tadler vs. 4etroit, > Mich., @% ;tate vs. Bryce, - 'hio ;t., D% Ba"":s Case, >>Co!e, F% 5obo!an vs. 6ear, D- 5.?-% Robbinson vs. Miner, ? Mich., @F.0

*t seems to me that if the hero of the 9ilipino people, >D (. ;., D>% Jenard vs. 8ouisiana, FD (.;., @?.0

The constitution and la#s of the Philippine *slands havin" created the office ofpresident of the different municipalities and havin" fi3ed definitely the tenure of saidoffice, the le"islature, by virtue of the provisions of the %Common#ealth vs. 6amble, D Pa., @D% ;tate vs. 4raper, Mo., %;tate vs.Thoman, > Jansas, >F>% ;tate vs. McMeely, D@ 8a. Ann., >F% Cooley,Const. 8im., th ed., p. -?% People

vs.4raper, > N.H., D% ;tate

vs. 1illiams, 1is.,

?% ;tate vs. Ba!er, ? 1is., ->% ;tate vs. 5e#itt, > 8. R. A., @>.0

*n the case of ;tate vs. 5e#itt /> 8. R. A., @>0 the attorney7"eneral of the ;tate of;outh 4a!ota admitted in open court )that it is true, as contended by the relator, thatthe preponderance of authorities is a"ainst the removal of the officer for cause,#hose term of office is fixed by law" without formal charges and a hearing thereon ontimely notice.)

Mr.


6/44

*n the case of 5an vs. Boston />@D Mass., F0 it #as held that no po#er to remove orsuspend an officer could be e3ercised until after notice and an opportunity by theofficial in &uestion to be heard in his o#n defense.

*n the case of ;tate vs. ;t. 8ouis /F Mo., >F0 the ;upreme Court said )1hen theremoval is not discretionary, but must be for a cause, . . . and nothin" is said as to theprocedure, a specification of the char"es, notice, and an opportunity to be heard areessential.)

Mr. 4illon, in his valuable #or! on Municipal Corporations /sec. D0 says )1here theri"ht of removal or suspension is confined to specific causes, such po#er cannot bee3ercised until there have been formulated char"es a"ainst the officer, notice thereof,and an opportunity for defense.) /Bi""s vs. McBride, >- 're., @% ;tate vs. 5a#!ins,@@ 'hio ;t., F?.0

*n the case of ;tate vs. 5astin"s /> 8. R. A., -F>, -F-0 the ;upreme Court ofNebras!a, after citin" and commentin" not only upon the cases cited above but alsoupon other cases, said )*t seems plain to us that the doctrine of these cases is inaccord #ith the #ei"ht of authority and is supported by the soundest reasons.)

*t is true that a fe# cases can be found #hich hold that an officer may be suspendedunder a statute, #ithout notice and #ithout a hearin". But it is believed that ane3aminations of each of such cases #ill sho# that such statues are authoried by theconstitution of the particular state. /6rines vs. 4istrict ?? refers, #ould be a penaltyimposed upon the officer #ithout due process of la#.

*f this is true, it is also true that the officer sub$ected to investi"ation should be notifiedof the complaint and should be heard in said investi"ation for, if such investi"ationshould end in a char"e #hich the provincial "overnor may consider proper to presenta"ainst him to the provincial board, such investi"ation #ould be the basis of thechar"e a"ainst the officer and the provincial board should ta!e co"niance of suchinvesti"ation in the correspondin" proceedin". *f the most vul"ar criminal is notified ofthe complaint presented a"ainst him before a $ustice of the peace and is heard in thepreliminary investi"ation #hich this $udicial officer must hold before the correspondin"information is filed by the fiscal in a court of first instance, and if in that investi"ationhe is "iven the opportunity to plead "uilty or not "uilty as #ell as to defend himself inorder that the $ustice of peace holdin" the investi"ation may consider the merits of thecomplaint and the result thereof, so that he may determine #hether or not reasonablemotives e3ist for him to believe that the accused is "uilty and also to determine, as aconse&uence, #hether sufficient motives e3ist to present a"ainst the accused thecorrespondin" information in the Court of 9irst *nstance 2 these bein" facts #hichthe fiscal in turn should consider before filin" the correspondin" information 2 it isunreasonable, un$ust and ille"al that, in a preliminary investi"ation such as that heldby the provincial "overnor in the second case referred to in section D>?? by virtue ofthe complaint presented to him a"ainst a municipal officer, such municipal officershould not be notified of the complaint or head or "iven the opportunity to defend

himself in order that the provincial "overnor may duly determine #hether it is properto impose upon said officer a more severe punishment or #hether the abuse or

6


7/44


8/44


Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-20487 J'%5'r 41, 1968

JESUS P. MORE, plaintiff7appellee,vs.MELITO R. MUTUC, ' Ee&5$ve Se&re'r, ET L., e*e%'%-'##e(('%.

#esus P. !orfe for and his own behalf as plaintiff(appellee.)ffice of the $olicitor General for defendants(appellants.

ERNN!O, J.:

Con"ress in >F enacted the Anti76raft and Corrupt Practices Act > to deter publicofficials and employees from committin" acts of dishonesty and improve the tone ofmorality in public service. *t #as declared to be the state policy )in line #ith theprinciple that a public office is a public trust, to repress certain acts of public officers

and private persons ali!e #hich constitute "raft or corrupt practices or #hich may leadthereto.) D Nor #as it the first statute of i ts !ind to deal #ith such a "rave problem inthe public service that unfortunately has afflicted the Philippines in the post7#ar era. An earlier statute decrees the forfeiture in favor of the ;tate of any property found tohave been unla#fully ac&uired by any public officer or employee.

'ne of the specific provisions of the Anti76raft and Corrupt Practices Act of >F isthat every public officer, either #ithin thirty /0 days after its approval or after hisassumption of office )and #ithin the month of . The reversal could be predicated on the absence of evidence to rebut thepresumption of validity. 9or in this action for declaratory relief filed #ith the Court of9irst *nstance of Pan"asinan on , >FD, plaintiff, after assertin" his belief)that it #as a reasonable re&uirement for employment that a public officer ma!e ofrecord his assets and liabilities upon assumption of office and thereby ma!e itpossible thereafter to determine #hether, after assumin" his position in the publicservice, he accumulated assets "rossly disproportionate to his reported incomes, theherein plaintiff =havin" filed #ithin the period of time fi3ed in the aforesaid Administrative 'rder No. @ the prescribed s#orn statement of financial condition,assets, income and liabilities, . . .) maintained that the provision on the )periodicalfilin" of s#orn statement of financial condition, assets, income and liabilities after anofficer or employee had once bared his f inancial condition, upon assumption of office,is oppressive and unconstitutional.)

As earlier noted, both the protection of due process and the assurance of the privacyof the individual as may be inferred from the prohibition a"ainst unreasonable searchand seiure and self7incrimination #ere relied upon. There #as also the alle"ationthat the above re&uirement amounts to )an insult to the personal inte"rity and officialdi"nity) of public officials, premised as it is )on the un#arranted and dero"atoryassumption) that they are )corrupt at heart) and unless thus restrained by thisperiodical submission of the statements of )their financial condition, income, ande3penses, they cannot be trusted to desist from committin" the corrupt practicesdefined. . . .) - *t #as further asserted that there #as no need for such a provision as)the income ta3 la# and the ta3 census la# also re&uire statements #hich can serveto determine #hether an officer or employee in this Republic has enriched himself outof proportion to his reported income.) ?

Then on 9ebruary >@, >FD, came an Ans#er of the then E3ecutive ;ecretary and thethen ;ecretary of . That #hen a "overnment official, li!e plaintiff,accepts a public position, he is deemed to have voluntarily assumed the obli"ation to"ive information about his personal affair, not only at the time of his assumption ofoffice but durin" the time he continues to dischar"e public trust. The private life of anemployee cannot be se"re"ated from his public life. . . .) F The ans#er li!e#ise deniedthat there #as a violation of his constitutional ri"hts a"ainst self7incrimination as #ellas unreasonable search and seiure and maintained that )the provision of la# in&uestion cannot be attac!ed on the "round that i t impairs plaintiff:s normal andle"itimate en$oyment of his life and liberty because said provision merely see!s toadopt a reasonable measure of insurin" the interest or "eneral #elfare in honest andclean public service and is therefore a le"itimate e3ercise of the police po#er.) >

'n 9ebruary D-, >FD, plaintiff filed a Motion for $ud"ment on the pleadin"s as in hisopinion all his material alle"ations #ere admitted. Then on March >, >FD, an order#as issued "ivin" the parties thirty days #ithin #hich to submit memoranda, but #ithor #ithout them, the case #as deemed submitted for decision the lo#er court bein" of the belief that )there is no &uestion of facts, . . . the defendants =havin" admitted allthe material alle"ations of the complaint.) >>

8


9/44

The decision, no# on appeal, came on F, >FD, the lo#er court declarin")unconstitutional, null and void ;ection -, Republic Act No. >F, insofar as itre&uired periodical submittal of s#orn statements of financial conditions, assets andliabilities of an official or employee of the "overnment after he had once submittedsuch a s#orn statement upon assumin" office% . . . .) >D

*n Ermita(!alate *otel and !otel )perators Association v. The !ayor of !anila, > it#as the holdin" of this Court that in the absence of a factual foundation, the lo#ercourt decidin" the matter purely )on the pleadin"s and the stipulation of facts, the

presumption of validity must prevail.) *n the present case li!e#ise there #as nofactual foundation on #hich the nullification of this section of the statute could bebased. 5ence as noted the decision of the lo#er court could be reversed on that"round.

A more e3tended consideration is not inappropriate ho#ever, for as li!e#ise madeclear in the above Ermita7Malate 5otel case )1hat cannot be stressed sufficiently isthat if the liberty involved #ere freedom of the mind or the person, the standard forthe validity of "overnmental acts is much more ri"orous and e3actin", but #here theliberty curtailed affects at the most ri"hts of property, the permissible scope ofre"ulatory measure is #ider.)

Moreover, in the Resolution denyin" the Motion for Reconsideration in the above

case, #e e3pressly affirmed )This is not to discount the possibility of a situation#here the nullity of a statute, e3ecutive order, or ordinance may not be readilyapparent but the threat to constitutional ri"hts, especially those involvin" the f reedomof the mind, present and ominous.) >@ *n such an event therefore, )there should not bea ri"id insistence on the re&uirement that evidence be presented.) Also, in the sameResolution, Professor 9reund #as &uoted thus )*n short, #hen freedom of the mind isimperiled by la#, it is freedom that commands a momentum of respect% #hen propertyis imperiled, it is the la#ma!ers: $ud"ment that commands respect. This dual standardmay not precisely reverse the presumption of constitutionality in civil liberties cases,but obviously it does set up a hierarchy of values #ithin the due process clause. >

D. 1e in&uire first #hether or not by virtue of the above re&uirement for a periodicalsubmission of s#orn statement of assets and liabilities, there is an invasion of liberty

protected by the due process clause.

(nder the Anti76raft Act of >F, after the statement of policy, > and definition ofterms, >- there is an enumeration of corrupt practices declared unla#ful in addition toacts or omissions of public officers already penalied by e3istin" la#. They includepersuadin", inducin", or influencin" another public officer to perform an actconstitutin" a violation of rules and re"ulations duly promul"ated by competentauthority or an offense in connection #ith the official duties of the latter, or allo#in"himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense%re&uestin" or receivin" directly or indirectly any "ift, present, share, percenta"e, orbenefit, for himself, or for any other person, in connection #ith any contract ortransaction bet#een the "overnment and any other party, #herein the public officer inhis official capacity, has to intervene under the la#% re&uestin" or receivin" directly or

indirectly any "ift, present, or other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or foranother, from any person for #hom the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has

secured or obtained, or #ill secure or obtain, any 6overnment permit or license, inconsideration for the help "iven or to be "iven% acceptin" or havin" any member of hisfamily accept employment in a private enterprise #hich has pendin" official business#ith him durin" the pendency thereof or #ithin one year after its termination% causin"any undue in$ury to any party, includin" the 6overnment, or "ivin" any private partyany un#arranted benefits, advanta"e or preference in the dischar"e of his officialadministrative or $udicial functions throu"h manifest partiality, evident bad faith or"ross ine3cusable ne"li"ence% ne"lectin" or refusin", after due demand or re&uest,#ithout sufficient $ustification, to act #ithin a reasonable time on any matter pendin"before him for the purpose of obtainin", directly or indirectly, from any personinterested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advanta"e, or for thepurpose of favorin" his o#n interest or "ivin" undue advanta"e in favor of ordiscriminatin" a"ainst any other interested party% enterin", on behalf of the6overnment, into any contract or transaction manifestly and "rossly disadvanta"eousto the same, #hether or not the public officer profited or #ill profit thereby% havin"directly or indirectly financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract ortransaction in connection #ith #hich he intervenes or ta!es part in his official capacityor in #hich he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any la# f rom havin" anyinterests% becomin" interested directly or indirectly, for personal "ain, or havin" amaterial interest in any transaction or act re&uirin" the approval of a board, panel or"roup of #hich he is a member, and #hich e3ercises discretion in such approval,even if he votes a"ainst the same or does not participate in such action% approvin" or"rantin" !no#in"ly any license, permit, privile"e or benefit in favor of any person not

&ualified for or not le"ally entitled to such license, permit, privile"e or advanta"e, or of a mere representative or dummy of one #ho is not so &ualified or entitled anddivul"in" valuable information of a confidential character, ac&uired by his office or byhim on account of his official position to unauthoried persons, or releasin" suchinformation in advance of its authoried release date. >?

After #hich come the prohibition on private individuals, >F prohibition on certainrelatives, D and prohibition on Members of Con"ress. D> Then there is this re&uirementof a statement of assets and liabilities, that portion re&uirin" periodical submissionbein" challen"ed here. DD The other sections of the Act deal #ith dismissal due toune3plained #ealth, reference bein" made to the previous statute, D penalties forviolation, D@ the vestin" of ori"inal $urisdiction in the Court of 9irst *nstance as thecompetent court, D the prescription of offenses, D the prohibition a"ainst any

resi"nation or retirement pendin" investi"ation, criminal or administrative or pendin" aprosecution, D- suspension and loss of benefits, D? e3ception of unsolicited "ifts orpresents of small or insi"nificant value as #ell as reco"nition of le"itimate practice ofone:s profession or trade or occupation, DF the separability clause, and itseffectivity. >

Nothin" can be clearer therefore than that the Anti76raft Act of >F li!e the earlierstatute D #as precisely aimed at curtailin" and minimiin" the opportunities for officialcorruption and maintainin" a standard of honesty in the public service. *t is intendedto further promote morality in public administration. A public office must indeed be apublic trust. Nobody can cavil at its ob$ective% the "oal to be pursued commands theassent of all. The conditions then prevailin" called for norms of such character. Thetimes demanded such a remedial device.

9


10/44

The statute #as framed #ith that end in vie#. *t is comprehensive in character,sufficiently detailed and e3plicit to ma!e clear to all and sundry #hat practices #ereprohibited and penalied. More than that, an effort #as made, so evident from even acursory perusal thereof, to avoid evasions and plu" loopholes. 'ne such feature isthe challen"ed section. Thereby it becomes much more difficult by those disposed tota!e advanta"e of their positions to commit acts of "raft and corruption.

1hile in the attainment of such public "ood, no infrin"ement of constitutional ri"hts ispermissible, there must be a sho#in", clear, cate"orical, and undeniable, that #hat

the Constitution condemns, the statute allo#s. More specifically, since that is the only&uestion raised, is that portion of the statute re&uirin" periodical submission of assetsand liabilities, after an officer or employee had previously done so upon assumin"office, so infected #ith infirmity that it cannot be upheld as validI

'r, in traditional terminolo"y, is this re&uirement a valid e3ercise of the police po#erI*n the aforesaid Ermita7Malate 5otel decision, there is a reaffirmation of its natureand scope as embracin" the po#er to prescribe re"ulations to promote the health,morals, education, "ood order, safety, or the "eneral #elfare of the people. *t hasbeen ne"atively put forth by

1hat is under consideration is a statute enacted under the police po#er of the stateto promote morality in public service necessarily limited in scope to officialdom. May apublic official claimin" to be adversely affected rely on the due process clause to

annul such statute or any portion thereofI The ans#er must be in the affirmative. *fthe police po#er e3tends to re"ulatory action affectin" persons in public or private life,

then anyone #ith an alle"ed "rievance can invo!e the protection of due process#hich permits deprivation of property or liberty as lon" as such re&uirement isobserved.

1hile the soundness of the assertion that a public office is a public trust and as suchnot amountin" to property in its usual sense cannot be denied, there can be nodisputin" the proposition that from the standpoint of the security of tenure "uaranteedby the Constitution the mantle of protection afforded by due process could ri"htfullybe invo!ed. *t #as so implicitly held in +acson v. ,omero, @D in line #ith the then

pertinent statutory provisions @

that procedural due process in the form of aninvesti"ation at #hich he must be "iven a fair hearin" and an opportunity to defendhimself must be observed before a civil service officer or employee may be removed.There #as a reaffirmation of the vie# in even stron"er lan"ua"e #hen this Courtthrou"h


11/44

constitutional principle of due process cannot be allo#ed to #ea!en by sanctionin"cancellation) of an employee:s eli"ibility or )of his dismissal from service 2 #ithouthearin" 2 upon a doubtful assumption that he has admitted his "uilt for an offensea"ainst Civil ;ervice rules.) E&ually emphatic is this observation from the same case)A civil service employee should be heard before he is condemned. liberty as "uaranteed by the Constitution #as defined by


12/44

they are so fundamental that they are the basis on #hich his civic obli"ations arebuilt. 5e cannot abandon the conse&uences of his isolation, #hich are, broadlyspea!in", that his e3perience is private, and the #ill built out of that e3periencepersonal to himself. *f he surrenders his #ill to others, he surrenders his personality. *f his #ill is set by the #ill of others, he ceases to be master of himself. * cannot believethat a man no lon"er master of himself is in any real sense free.) F

Nonetheless, in vie# of the fact that there is an e3press reco"nition of privacy,specifically that of communication and correspondence #hich )shall be inviolable

e3cept upon la#ful order of Court or #hen public safety and order)

may other#isere&uire, and implicitly in the search and seiure clause, > and the liberty ofabode D the alle"ed repu"nancy of such statutory re&uirement of further periodicalsubmission of a s#orn statement of assets and liabilities deserves to be furtherloo!ed into.

*n that respect the &uestion is one of first impression, no previous decision havin"been rendered by this Court. *t is not so in the (nited ;tates #here, in the leadin"case of 6ris#old v. Connecticut, F@ statute. ? 5e #as convicted both in thelo#er court and in the Circuit Court of Appeals over the ob$ection that there #as anunla#ful search #hich resulted in the seiure of the coupons and that their use at thetrial #as in violation of ;upreme Court decisions.F *n the 4istrict Court, there #as afindin" that he consented to the search and seiure. The Circuit Court of Appeals didnot disturb that findin" althou"h e3pressed doubt concernin" it, affirmin" ho#everunder the vie# that such seied coupons #ere properly introduced in evidence, thesearch and seiure bein" incidental to an arrest, and therefore reasonable re"ardlessof petitioner:s consent.

*n affirmin" the conviction the (nited ;tates ;upreme Court, throu"h


13/44

#hich in this particular case "ave approval )to #hat #as done by arrestin" officers)and e3pressin" the re"ret that the Court mi"ht be )in dan"er of for"ettin" #hat the Billof Ri"hts reflects e3perience #ith police e3cesses.)

Even this opinion, ho#ever, concerned that the constitutional "uarantee a"ainstunreasonable search and seiure )does not "ive freedom from testimonialcompulsion. ;ub$ect to familiar &ualifications every man is under obli"ation to "ivetestimony. But that obli"ation can be e3acted only under $udicial sanctions #hich aredeemed precious to An"lo7American civiliation. Merely because there may be the

duty to ma!e documents available for liti"ation does not mean that police officers mayforcibly or fraudulently obtain them. This protection of the ri"ht to be let alone e3ceptunder responsible $udicial compulsion is precisely #hat the 9ourth Amendment meantto e3press and to safe"uard.) -D

*t #ould appear then that a reliance on that case for an alle"ation that this statutoryprovision offends a"ainst the unreasonable search and seiure clause #ould be futileand unavailin". This is the more so in the li"ht of the latest decision of this Court in;tonehill v. 4io!no, - #here this Court, throu"h Chief


14/44

Concepcion" C.#." ,eyes" #.B.+." !a4alintal" Beng3on" #.P." 5aldivar and Angeles" ##."concur.$anche3" #." reserves his vote.Castro" #." concurs in the result.

oo%oe

>Republic Act No. >F, approved Au"ust >-, >F'.

D;ection >, ;tatement of Policy.

Republic Act >-F, approved ?, >F.

@;ec. -. $tatement of assets and liabilities. 2 Every public officer, #ithinthirty days after the approval of this Act or after assumin" office, and #ithinthe month of


15/44

(. ;. v. 6ome Phil. D>?, DD />F>0.

-(. ;. v. Pompeya, > Phil. D@, D@ />F>0.

?4ue Process of 8a#, >.

F6ibbons v. '"den F 1heat, D? />?D@0 and Bro#n v. Maryland, >D 1heat.@>F />?D-0.

@8icense Cases, 5o#. @, ? />?@-0.

@>D Cooley, Constitutional 8imitations, p. >DD />FD-0. Burdic!, The 8a# ofthe American Constitution />FDD0.

@D?@ Phil. -@ />F@F0.

@;ecs. @, F@ Rev. Administrative Code.

@@FD Phil. @, @-> />F0.

@F- Phil. ?-, ? />F0.

@F? Phil. ?, ? />F0.

@-FF Phil. D, D />F0.

@?>> Phil. >>@F, >>@ />F-0.

@FPiero v. 5echanova, 87DDD, 'ct. DD, >F.

87D@>, 4ecember >-, >F.

>F Phil. />F>F0.

D1est Coast 5otel v. Parrish, (.;. -F />F-0.

Chica"o, B. L '. Ry. Co. v. Mc6uire, D>F (. ;. @F />F>0.

@The *ndividual, Culture and ;ociety, p. >- />F@0.

Parado3es of 8e"al ;cience, p. F? />FD?0.

Ermita7Malate 5otel, etc., et al. vs. 5on. City Mayor of Manila, 87D@F,

, >F-.

-Public (tilities Commission v. Polla! @ (. ;. @>, @- />FD0. *n thiscase the American ;upreme Court re$ected the claim that radio pro"ram onbuses and street cars of a private company re"ulated by the 4istrictColumbia invaded the ri"hts of privacy of passen"ers in violation of the dueprocess clause. Mr.


16/44

tric!ery.) 6uerrero7Na!pil, Consensus of 'ne, ;unday Times Ma"aine,;ept. D@, >F-, at pa. >?.

-D? (.;. ?D />F@0.

?@ ;tat. - as amended by the Act of May >, >F@% ;tat. D.

F1ee!s v. (nited ;tates, DD (.;. ? and (nited ;tates v. 8ef!o#it D?(.;. @D.

-6d . at p. ??.

->6d . at p. F>.

-D6d . at p. F.

-87>F, F, >F-.

-@ Art. ***, ;ec. >, Clause >?.

-People v. Carillo, -- Phil. -D />F@0.

-(. ;. v. Tan Ten", D Phil. >@ />F>D0 (. ;. v. 'n" ;iu 5on", Phil. -/>F>-0% +illaflor v. ;ummers, @> Phil. D />FD0% and D-F, Au". >, >F.

--Bermude v. Castillo, @ Phil. @? />F-0.

-?Boyd v. (nited ;tates, >> (.;. > />??0, but see 1arden v. 5ayden >?8. ed. Dd >?D />F-0.

-FPeople v. Carillo, -- Phil. -D />F@0.

?;uare v. Ten"co, 87>->>, May D, >F>.

?>Ex parte Jneedler >@- ;. 1. F?, F?@ />F>D0

?D An"ara v. Electoral Commission, Phil. >F />F0.

?People vs. Carlos, -? Phil. , @? />F@-0.

?@uintos v. 8acson, F- Phil. DF, DF />F0.

?

*chon" v. 5ernande, >> Phil. >>, >> />F-0.

?87D?>F, Nov. F, >F-. There is nothin" in the separate opinion of


17/44


Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 11618 M'r& 7, 199

SL/!OR C. ERNN!E '% NICI M. !E LIM,petitioners,vs.3ON. PTRICI . STO. TOMS, C'$rm'%, '% 3ON. RMON ". ERENET,Comm$$o%er, C$v$( Serv$&e Comm$$o%,respondents.

ELICINO, J.:

*n this Petition for Certiorari , Prohibition and !andamus #ith Prayer for a TemporaryRestrainin" 'rder, petitioners ;alvador C. 9ernande and Anicia M. de 8ima assailthe validity of Resolution No. F@7-> of the Civil ;ervice Commission/)Commission)0 and the authority of the Commission to issue the same.

Petitioner 9ernande #as servin" as 4irector of the 'ffice of Personnel *nspectionand Audit /)'P*A)0 #hile petitioner de 8ima #as servin" as 4irector of the 'ffice ofthe Personnel Relations /)'PR)0, both at the Central 'ffice of the Civil ;erviceCommission in ueon City, Metropolitan Manila. 1hile petitioners #ere so servin",Resolution No. F@7-> si"ned by public respondents Patricia A.. ;to. Tomas andRamon Ereneta, needs to be &uoted in full

RE;'8(T*'N N'. 78(9:/;

15EREA;, ;ection >- of Boo! + of E3ecutive 'rder DFD providesthat ). . . as an independent constitutional body, the Commissionmay effect chan"es in the or"aniation as the need arises%)

15EREA;, the Commission finds it imperative to effect chan"es inthe or"aniation to streamline its operations and improve delivery of public service%

15EREA;, the Commission finds it necessary to immediatelyeffect chan"es in the or"aniation of the Central 'ffices in vie# ofthe need to implement ne# pro"rams in lieu of those functions#hich #ere transferred to the Re"ional 'ffices%

15ERE9'RE, fore"oin" premises considered, the Commissionhereby RE;'8+E; to effect the follo#in" chan"es in i tsor"aniation, specifically in the Central 'ffices

>. The 'C;; ='ffice of Career ;ystems and ;tandards, 'P*A='ffice of Personnel *nspection and Audit and 'PR ='ffice ofPersonnel Relations are mer"ed to form the Research and4evelopment 'ffice /R4'0.

D. The 'ffice for 5uman Resource 4evelopment /'5R40 isrenamed 5uman Resource 4evelopment 'ffice /5R4'0.

. The follo#in" functions and the personnel assi"ned to the unitperformin" said functions are hereby transferred to 5R4'

a. Administration of the 5onor and A#ardspro"ram under 'C;;%

b. Re"istration and Accreditation of (nions under 'PR% and

c. Accreditation of A"encies to ta!e final action onappointments under 'P*A.

@. The 'ffice for Central Personnel Records /'CPR0 is renamedMana"ement *nformation 'ffice /M*'0.

. The *nformation technolo"y functions of 'PM and the personnelassi"ned to the unit are transferred to M*'.

. The follo#in" functions of 'PM and the personnel assi"ned tothe unit performin" said functions are hereby transferred to the'ffice of the E3ecutive 4irector

a. 9inancial Audit and Evaluation%

b. *nternal Mana"ement and *mprovement%

c. Research and ;tatistics% and

d. Plannin" and Pro"rammin".

-. The library service and its personnel under 'CPR aretransferred to the Central Administrative 'ffice.

17


18/44

?. The bud"et allocated for the various functions shall betransferred to the 'ffices #here the functions are transferred.Records, fi3tures and e&uipment that "o #ith the functions shall bemoved to #here the functions are transferred.

Anne3 A contains the mannin" list for all the offices, e3cept the'CE;.

The chan"es in the or"aniation and in operations shall ta!e place

before end of FF@.

4one in ueon City, FF@.

/;i"ned0Patricia A. ;to. Tomas

Chairman

/;i"ned0 4id not participateRamon P. Ereneta, unless restrained by hi"her authority.

Petitioners then instituted this Petition. *n a Resolution dated D Au"ust >FF@, theCourt re&uired public respondents to file a Comment on the Petition. 'n D>;eptember >FF@, petitioners filed an (r"ent Motion for *ssuance of a Temporary

Restrainin" 'rder, alle"in" that petitioners had received 'ffice 'rders from theCommission assi"nin" petitioner 9ernande to Re"ion + at 8e"aspi City andpetitioner de 8ima to Re"ion *** in ;an 9ernando, Pampan"a and prayin" that publicrespondents be restrained from enforcin" these 'ffice 'rders. The Court, in aResolution dated D- ;eptember >FF@, "ranted this Motion and issued the TemporaryRestrainin" 'rder prayed for by petitioners.

The Commission filed its o#n Comment, dated >D ;eptember >FF@, on the Petitionand then moved to lift the Temporary Restrainin" 'rder. The 'ffice of the ;olicitor6eneral filed a separate Comment dated D? November >FF@, defendin" the validity of Resolution No. F@7-> and ur"in" dismissal of the Petition. Petitioners filed separateReplies to these Comments. The Commission in turn filed a Re$oinder /denominated)Comment =on the Reply)0.

The principal issues raised in this Petition are the follo#in"

/>0 1hether or not the Civil ;ervice Commission had le"al authorityto issue Resolution No. F@7-> to the e3tent it mer"ed the 'C;;='ffice of Career ;ystems and ;tandards, the 'P*A ='ffice ofPersonnel *nspection and Audit and the 'PR ='ffice of PersonnelRelations, to form the R4' =Research and 4evelopment 'ffice%and

/D0 1hether or not Resolution No. F@7-> violated petitioners:constitutional ri"ht to security of tenure.

*.

The Revised Administrative Code of >F?- /E3ecutive 'rder No. DFD dated D F?-0 sets out, in Boo! +, Title *, ;ubtitle A, Chapter , the internal structure andor"aniation of the Commission in the follo#in" terms

;ec. >. )ffices in the Commission 2 The Commission shall havethe follo#in" offices

/>0 The )ffice of the Executive


19/44

/>>0 The )ffice of Personnel 6nspection and Audit shall developpolicies, standards, rules and re"ulations for the effective conductof inspection and audit of personnel and personnel mana"ementpro"rams and the e3ercise of dele"ated authority% provide technicaland advisory services to Civil ;ervice Re"ional 'ffices and"overnment a"encies in the implementation of their personnelpro"rams and evaluation systems.

/>D0 The )ffice of Personnel ,elations shall provide leadership and

assistance in the development and implementation of policies,standards, rules and re"ulations "overnin" corporate officials andemployees in the areas of recruitment, e3amination, placement,career development, merit and a#ards systems, positionclassification and compensation, performance appraisal, employee#elfare and benefits, discipline and other aspects of personnelmana"ement on the basis of comparable industry practices.

/>0 The )ffice of the Corporate Affairs 2 . . .

/>@0 The )ffice of ,etirement Administration 2 . . .

/>0 The ,egional and =ield )ffices. 2 . . . /Emphases in the

ori"inal0

*mmediately after the fore"oin" listin" of offices of the Commission and theirrespective functions, the >F?- Revised Administrative Code "oes on to provide asfollo#s

;ec. >-. )rgani3ational $tructure. 2 Each office of theCommission shall be headed by a 4irector #ith at least one />0 Assistant 4irector, and may have such divisions as are necessaryto carry out their respective functions. As an independentconstitutional body" the Commission may effect chances in theorgani3ation as the need arises.

333 333 333 4

/Emphasis supplied0

E3amination of the fore"oin" statutory provisions reveals that the 'C;;, 'P*A and'PR, and as #ell each of the other 'ffices listed in ;ection > above, consist ofa""re"ations of 4ivisions, each of #hich 4ivisions is in turn a "roupin" of ;ections.Each ;ection, 4ivision and 'ffice comprises a "roup of positions #ithin the a"encycalled the Civil ;ervice Commission, each "roup bein" entrusted #ith a more or lessdefinable function or functions. These functions are related to one another, each ofthem bein" embraced by a common or "eneral sub$ect matter. Clearly, each 'ffice isan internal department or or"aniational unit #ithin the Commission and that

accordin"ly, the 'C;;, 'P*A and 'PR, as #ell as all the other 'ffices #ithin the

Commission constitute administrative subdivisions of the C;C. Put a little differently,these offices relate to the internal structure of the Commission.

1hat did Resolution No. F@7-> of the Commission doI E3amination of ResolutionNo. F@7-> sho#s that thereby the Commission re(arranged some of theadministrative units /i .e., 'ffices0 #ithin the Commission and, amon" other thin"s,mer"ed three /0 of them /'C;;, 'P*A and 'PR0 to form a ne# "roupin" called the)Research and 4evelopment 'ffice /R4'0.) The same Resolution renamed some ofthe 'ffices of the Commission, e.g ., the 'ffice for 5uman Resource 4evelopment

/'5R40 #as renamed 5uman Resource 4evelopment 'ffice /5R4'0% the 'ffice forCentral Personnel Records /'CPR0 #as renamed Mana"ement *nformation 'ffice/M*'0. The Commission also re(allocated certain functions movin" some functionsfrom one 'ffice to another% e.g ., the information technolo"y function of 'PM /'ffice of Plannin" and Mana"ement0 #as transferred to the ne#ly named Mana"ement*nformation 'ffice /M*'0. This re7allocation or re7assi"nment of some functionscarried #ith it the transfer of the bud"et earmar!ed for such function to the 'ffice#here the function #as transferred. Moreover, the personnel, records, fi3tures ande&uipment that #ere devoted to the carryin" out of such functions #ere moved to the'ffices to #here the functions #ere transferred.

The ob$ectives sou"ht by the Commission in enactin" Resolution No. F@7-> #eredescribed in that Resolution in broad terms as )effect=in" chan"es in the or"aniation

to streamline =the Commission:s operations and improve delivery of service.) Thesechan"es in internal or"aniation #ere rendered necessary by, on the one hand, thedecentraliation and devolution of the Commission:s functions effected by the creationof fourteen />@0 Re"ional 'ffices and ninety7five /F0 9ield 'ffices of the Commissionthrou"hout the country, to the end that the Commission and its staff may be brou"htcloser physically to the "overnment employees that they are mandated to serve. *nthe past, its functions had been centralied in the 5ead 'ffice of the Commission inMetropolitan Manila and Civil ;ervice employees all over the country #ere compelledto come to Manila for the carryin" out of personnel transactions. (pon the other hand,the dispersal of the functions of the Commission to the Re"ional 'ffices and the 9ield'ffices attached to various "overnmental a"encies throu"hout the country ma!espossible the implementation of ne# pro"rams of the Commission at its Central 'fficein Metropolitan Manila.

The Commission:s 'ffice 'rder assi"nin" petitioner de 8ima to the C;C Re"ional'ffice No. #as precipitated by the incumbent Re"ional 4irector filin" an applicationfor retirement, thus "eneratin" a need to find a replacement for him. Petitioner de8ima #as bein" assi"ned to that Re"ional 'ffice #hile the incumbent Re"ional4irector #as still there to facilitate her ta!e over of the duties and functions of theincumbent 4irector. Petitioner de 8ima:s prior e3perience as a labor la#yer #as also afactor in her assi"nment to Re"ional 'ffice No. #here public sector unions havebeen very active. Petitioner 9ernande:s assi"nment to the C;C Re"ional 'ffice No. had, upon the other hand, been necessitated by the fact that the then incumbent4irector in Re"ion + #as under investi"ation and needed to be transferredimmediately to the Central 'ffice. Petitioner 9ernande #as deemed the most li!elydesi"nee for 4irector of Re"ional 'ffice No. considerin" that the functionspreviously assi"ned to him had been substantially devolved to the Re"ional 'ffices

such that his reassi"nment to a Re"ional 'ffice #ould result in the least disruption ofthe operations of the Central 'ffice.

19


20/44

*t thus appears to the Court that the Commission #as moved by &uite le"itimateconsiderations of administrative efficiency and convenience in promul"atin" andimplementin" its Resolution No. F@7-> and in assi"nin" petitioner ;alvador C.9ernande to the Re"ional 'ffice of the Commission in Re"ion + in 8e"aspi City andpetitioner Anicia M. de 8ima to the Commission:s Re"ional 'ffice in Re"ion *** in ;an9ernando, Pampan"a. *t is also clear tothe Court that the chan"es introduced and formalied throu"h Resolution No. F@7-> 2 re7namin" of e3istin" 'ffices% re7arran"ement of the "roupin"s of 4ivisionsand ;ections composin" particular 'ffices% re7allocation of e3istin" functions /andrelated personnel% bud"et, etc.0 amon" the re7arran"ed 'ffices 2 are precisely the

!ind of internal chan"es #hich are referred to in ;ection >- /Boo! +, Title *, ;ubtitle A,Chapter 0 of the >F?- Revised Administrative Code0, &uoted above, as )chances inthe organi3ation) of the Commission.

Petitioners ar"ue that Resolution No. F@7-> effected the )abolition) of public offices,somethin" #hich may be done only by the same le"islative authority #hich hadcreated those public offices in the first place.

The Court is unable, in the circumstances of this case, to accept this ar"ument. Theterm )public office) is fre&uently used to refer to the ri"ht, authority and duty, createdand conferred by la#, by #hich, for a "iven period either fi3ed by la# or endurin" atthe pleasure of the creatin" po#er, an individual is invested #ith some portion of the

soverei"n functions of "overnment, to be e3ercised by that individual for the benefit of the public. 1e consider that Resolution No. F@7-> has not abolished any publicoffice as that term is used in the la# of public officers. 6*t is essential to note that noneof the )chan"es in or"aniation) introduced by Resolution No. F@7-> carried #ith itor necessarily involved the termination of the relationship of public employmentbetween the Commission and any of its officers and employees. 1e find it verydifficult to suppose that the >F?- Revised Administrative Code havin" mentionedfourteen />@0 different )'ffices) of the Civil ;ervice Commission, meant to freeethose 'ffices and to cast in concrete, as it #ere, the internal or"aniation of thecommission until it mi"ht please Con"ress to chan"e such internal or"aniationre"ardless of the ever chan"in" needs of the Civil ;ervice as a #hole. To the contrary,the le"islative authority hadexpressly authoried the Commission to carry out)chan"es in the or"aniation,) as the need >for such changes? arises.) 7 Assumin", forpurposes of ar"ument merely, that le"islative authority #as necessary to carry out the

!inds off chan"es contemplated in Resolution No. F@7-> /and the Courtis not sayin" that such authority is necessary0, such le"islative authority #as validlydele"ated to the Commission by ;ection >- earlier &uoted. The le"islative standardsto be observed and respected in the e3ercise of such dele"ated authority are set outnot only in ;ection >- itself / i .e., )as the need arises)0, but also in the 4eclaration ofPolicies found in Boo! +, Title *, ;ubtitle A, ;ection > of the >F?- Revised Administrative Code #hich re&uired the Civil ;ervice Commission

as the central personnel a"ency of the 6overnment =to establish acareer service, adopt measures to promote 2 efficiency 2=and responsiveness . . . in the civil service . . . and that personnelfunctions shall be decentrali3ed" delegating the correspondingauthority to the departments" offices and agencies where such

functions can be effectively performed . /Emphasis supplied0

**.

1e turn to the second claim of petitioners that their ri"ht to security of tenure #asbreached by the respondents in promul"atin" Resolution No. F@7-> and orderin"petitioners: assi"nment to the Commission:s Re"ional 'ffices in Re"ions *** and +.;ection D/0 of Article *O/B0 of the >F?- Constitution declared that )no officer oremployee of the Civil ;ervice shall be removed or suspended e3cept for causeprovided by la#.) Petitioners in effect contend that they #ere unla#fully removed fromtheir positions in the 'P*A and 'PR by the implementation of Resolution No. F@7->

and that they cannot, #ithout their consent, be moved out to the Re"ional 'ffices ofthe Commission.

1e note, firstly, that appointments to the staff of the Commission are notappointments to a specified public office but rather appointments to particularpositions or ran!s. Thus, a person may be appointed to the position of 4irector *** or4irector *+% or to the position of Attorney *+ or Attorney +% or to the position ofRecords 'fficer * or Records 'fficer **% and so forth. *n the instant case, petitioners#ere each appointed to the position of F?- Revised Administrative Code

reco"nies reassi"nment as a mana"ement prero"ative vested in the Commissionand, for that matter, in any department or a"ency of "overnment embraced in the civilservice

;ec. D. Personnel Actions. 2 . . .

333 333 333

As used in this Title, any action denotin" the movement or pro"ressof personnel in the civil service shall be !no#n as personnel action.;uch action shall include appointment throu"h certification,promotion, transfer, re7instatement, re7employment, detail,reassi"nment, demotion, and separation. All personnel actions shall be in accordance with such rules" standards" and regulations asmay be promulgated by the Commission.

333 333 333

/-0 ,eassignment . An employee may be re(assigned from oneorgani3ational unit to another in the same agency , Provided , Thatsuch re7assi"nment shall not involve a reduction in ran4 status andsalary. /Emphasis supplied0

*t follo#s that the reassi"nment of petitioners 9ernande and de 8ima from theirprevious positions in 'P*A and 'PR, respectively, to the Research and 4evelopment

'ffice /R4'0 in the Central 'ffice of the Commission in Metropolitan Manila and theirsubse&uent assi"nment from the R4' to the Commission:s Re"ional 'ffices in

20


21/44

Re"ions + and *** had been effected #ith e3press statutory authority and did notconstitute removals #ithout la#ful cause. *t also follo#s that such re7assi"nmentdid not involve any violation of the constitutional ri"ht of petitioners to security oftenure considerin" that they retained their positions of 4irector *+ and #ould continueto en$oy the same ran!, status and salary at their ne# assi"ned stations #hich theyhad en$oyed at the 5ead 'ffice of the Commission in Metropolitan Manila. Petitionershad not, in other #ords, ac&uired a vested ri"ht to serve at the Commission:s 5ead'ffice.

;econdly, the above conclusion is compelled not only by the statutory provisionsrelevant in the instant case, but also by a lon" line of cases decided by this Court inrespect of different a"encies or offices of "overnment.

*n one of the more recent of these cases, F-% >F ;CRA >D =>F-0%

That security of tenure is anessential and constitutionally"uaranteed feature of our Civil;ervice ;ystem, is not open todebate. The mantle of its

protection e3tends not onlya"ainst removals #ithout cause

but also a"ainst unconsentedtransfer #hich, as repeatedlyenunciatEd, are tantamount toremovals #hich are #ithin theambit of the fundamental"uarantee.*owever" theavailability of that security oftenure necessarily depends" inthe first instance" upon thenature of the

appointment /5o$illa vs.Marino, >D> Phil. D? =>F.0;uch that the rule which proscribes transfers withoutconsent as anathema to thesecurity of tenure is predicatedupon the theory that the officerinvolved is appointed 2 notmerely assigned 2 to a particular station /Miclat v.6anaden, et al., >? Phil. @F=>F% >? Phil. -D? =>F0.

=Brillantes v. 6uevarra, D-;CRA >? />FF0

The appointment of Navarro as principal does not refer to any particular station or school . As such" she could be assigned to anystation and she is not entitled to stay permanently at any specificschool . /Bon"bon" v. Parado, - ;CRA D0 1hen she #asassi"ned to the Carlos Albert 5i"h ;chool, it could not have been#ith the intention to let her stay in said school permanently.'ther#ise, her appointment #ould have so stated.Conse&uently, she may be assigned to any station or school inue3on City as the exigencies of public service re-uire evenwithout consent . As this Court ruled in Brillantes v . Guevarra, D-

;CRA >?,>@ 2

Plaintiff:s confident stride falters. ;he too! tooloose a vie# of the applicable $urisprudence. *errefuge behind the mantle of security of tenureguaranteed by the Constitution is notimpenetrable. ;he proceeds upon theassumption that she occupies her station in;inalan" Elementary ;chool by appointment. Buther first appointment as Principal merely readsthus )Hou are hereby appointed a Principal/Elementary ;chool0 in the Bureau of Public

;chools, 4epartment of Education), withoutmentioning her station. ;he cannot therefore

21


22/44

claim security of tenure as Principal of ;inalan"Elementary ;chool or any particular station. $hemay be assigned to any station as exigency of public service re-uires" even without herconsent . $he thus has no right ofchoice. 9 /Emphasis supplied% citation omitted0

*n the very recent case of =ernando" et al . v . *on. $to. Tomas" etc ." eta/., 10 the Court addressed appointments of petitioners as )Mediators7Arbiters in the

National Capital Re"ion) in dismissin" a challen"e on certiorari to resolutions of theC;C and orders of the ;ecretary of 8abor. The Court said

Petitioners #ere appointed as Mediator Arbiters in the NationalCapital Re"ion. They were not" however" appointed to a specificstation or particular unit of the


23/44

the demands of student activists #ho #ere boycottin" their classes in the (.P.Colle"e of Education. 4ean ;ta. Maria assailed his transfer as an ille"al andunconstitutional removal from office. *n upholdin" 4ean ;ta. Maria:s claim, the Court,spea!in" throu"h Mr. />F-@0% 9ernande vs. 8edesma, >>- Phil. />F0% Alba vs. Evan"elista, > Phil. ? />F-0.

The dual reference of the term )office) or )public office) is brou"htout in the definition of the term found in ;ection D/F0, *ntroductoryProvisions of the Revised Administrative Code of >F?-

'ffice refers, within the framewor4 ofgovernmental organi3ation" to any ma'orfunctional unit of a department or bureauincludin" re"ional offices. *t may also refer to any

position held or occupied by individual persons,#hose functions are defined by la# or re"ulation./Emphasis supplied0

- The Civil ;ervice Commission is not the only a"ency of"overnment that has been e3pressly vested #ith this authority toeffect chan"es in internal or"aniation. Comparable authority hasbeen lod"ed in, e.g ., the Commission on Elections and the 'ffice of the President. *n respect of Comelec, ;ection >, Chapter ,;ubtitle C, Title *, Boo! +, >F?- Revised Administrative Code readsas follo#s

The Commission may ma!e changes in the composition"

distribution" and assignment of field offices" as well its personnel"

23


24/44

whenever the exigencies of the service and the interest of free"orderly" honest" peaceful" and credible election sore-uire Provided , That such chan"es shall be effective andenforceable only for the duration of the election period concernedand shall not constitute a demotion, either in ran! or salary, norresult in a chan"e of status% and Provided further that there shall beno chan"es in the composition, distribution, or assi"nment #ithinthirty days before the election, e3cept for cause, and after duenotice and hearin", and that in no case shall a re"ional or assistantre"ional director be assi"ned to a re"ion, provincial election

supervisor to a province, or municipality, #here he andor hisspouse are related to any candidate #ithin the fourth civil de"ree or consan"uinity or affinity as the case may be. /;ection >, Chapter, ;ubtitle C, Title >, Boo! +, Revised Administrative Code of >F?-%Emphasis supplied0

1ith respect to the 'ffice of the President, ;ection >, Chapter >,Title ***, Boo! ***, Revised Administrative Code of >F?-, vested thePresident #ith the follo#in" authority

The President sub$ect to the policy in the E3ecutive 'ffice and inorder to achieve simplicity, economy, and efficiency, shall havecontinuin" authority to reorgani3e the administrative structure of the)ffice of the President . 9or this purpose, he may ta!e any of thefollo#in" actions

/>0 ,estructure the internal organi3ation of the )ffice of thePresident Proper , includin" the immediate offices, the Presidential;pecial Assistant Adviser ;ystem and the Common ;taff ;upport;ystem, by abolishin", consolidatin", or mer"in" units thereof, ortransferrin" functions from one unit to another%

333 333 333

/;ection >, Chapter >, Title , Boo! *** Revised

Administrative Code of >F?-% Emphasis supplied0

? >? ;CRA />FF0.

F >? ;CRA at >7D.

> D@ ;CRA @ />FF@0.

>> D@ ;CRA at .

>D >F ;CRA D />FF>0.

> >F ;CRA at D. $ee also Brillantes v. 6uevarra, D- ;CRA>? />FF0, #here petitioner Brillantes had an appointment as /a0Principal, Elementary ;chool, in the Bureau of Public ;chools4epartment of Education and #here the Court reached the sameconclusion.

>@ >F ;CRA >D />F-0.

> 9or other cases involvin" election re"istrars and applyin" the

same rule, see Bra"ana v. Commission on Elections, D ;CRA>D />F-0% Real, ;CRA> />F-0.

> >F ;CRA at >>D7>>.

>- >? Phil. @F />F0.

>? >>? Phil. -D? />F0.

>F $ee also Bon"bon" v. Parade et al., - ;CRA D />F-@0 #hichinvolved petitioner:s appointment as )rural health physician in the

Bureau of Rural 5ealth (nits Pro$ects.)

D > ;CRA - />F-0.

D> > ;CRA at D7@.

24


25/44


Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-24226 M'r& , 192

/ICENTE SEGO/I, petitioner7appellee,vs.PE!RO NOEL, respondent7appellant.

Provincial =iscal of Act No. >- isunconstitutional in that it impairs the contractual ri"ht of the petitioner to an office. * t isa fundamental principle that a public office cannot be re"arded as the property of theincumbent, and that a public office is not a contract.

*t #ill ne3t be noted that, #hile the respondent as appellant assi"ns three errors in thiscourt, the first t#o relatin" to preliminary matters are ultimately renounced by him in

order that there may be an authoritative decision on the main issue. The third errorspecified and ar"ued #ith ability by the provincial fiscal of Cebu, is that the trial $ud"eerred in declarin" that the limitation re"ardin" the a"e of $ustices of the peaceprovided by section > of Act No. >- is not applicable to $ustices of the peace andau3iliary $ustices of the peace appointed and actin" before said la# #ent into effect.

Comin" no# to the la#, #e find on investi"ation the ori"inal provision pertinent to theappointment and term of office of $ustices of the peace, in section - of Act No. >,#herein it #as provided that $ustices of the peace shall hold office durin" the pleasureof the Commission. Act No. >@, in force #hen +icente ;e"ovia #as ori"inallyappointed $ustice of the peace, amended section - of the and D>-, the la# #as ultimately codified in sections D and D of the Administrative Code.

Codal section D in its first para"raph provides that )one $ustice of the peace andone au3iliary $ustice of the peace shall be appointed by the 6overnor76eneral for theCity of Manila, the City of Ba"uio, and for each municipality, to#nship, and municipaldistrict in the Philippine *slands, and if the public interests shall so re&uire, for anyother minor political division or unor"anied territory in said *slands.) *t #as thissection #hich section > of Act No. >- amended by addin" at the end thereof thefollo#in" proviso )Provided , That $ustices and au3iliary $ustices of the peace shall beappointed to serve until they have reached the a"e of si3ty7five years.) But sectionD of the Administrative Code entitled )Tenure of office,) and readin" )a $ustice of thepeace havin" the re&uisite le"al &ualifications shall hold office durin" "ood behaviorunless his office be la#fully abolished or mer"ed in the $urisdiction of some other $ustice,) #as left unchan"ed by Act No. >-.

A sound canon of statutory construction is that a statute operates prospectively onlyand never retroactively, unless the le"islative intent to the contrary is made manifesteither by the e3press terms of the statute or by necessary implication. 9ollo#in" thelead of the (nited ;tates ;upreme Court and puttin" the rule more stron"ly, a statuteou"ht not to receive a construction ma!in" it act retroactively, unless the #ords usedare so clear, stron", and imperative that no other meanin" can be anne3ed to them,or unless the intention of the le"islature cannot be other#ise satisfied. No court #illhold a statute to be retroactive #hen the le"islature has not said so. As our Civil Code

has it in article , )8a# shall not have a retroactive effect unless therein other#ise

25


26/44

provided.) /9arrel vs. Pin"ree =>???, (tah, @@% > Pac., ?@% 6reer vs. City of Asheville =>?F@, >>@ N.C., @F% (nited ;tates 9idelity and 6uaranty Co. vs. ;truthers1ells Co. =>F-, DF (.;., % Montilla vs. A"ustinian Corporation =>F>, D@ Phil.,DD% 6n re #ill of Riosa =>F>?, F Phil., D.0

The same rule is follo#ed by the courts #ith reference to public offices. A #ell7!no#nNe# Hor! decision held that )thou"h there is no vested ri"ht in an office, #hich maynot be disturbed by le"islation, yet the incumbent has, in a sense, a ri"ht to his office.*f that ri"ht is to be ta!en a#ay by statute, the terms should be clear in #hich thepurpose is stated.) /People

ex rel . Ryan

vs. 6reen =>?-@, ? N.H., DF.0 *n another

case, a ne# constitutional provision as to the advanced a"e #hich should prevent theincumbents of certain $udicial offices from retainin" them #as held prospective% it didnot apply to persons in office at the time of its ta!in" effect. /People vs. 6ardner, FBarb., >F?% ** 8e#is: ;utherland ;tatutory Construction, Chap. O+**, particularly pa"es>>>, >>D% Mechem on Public 'fficers, sec. ?F.0

The case at bar is not the same as the case of Chanco vs. *mperial / =>F>, @ Phil.,DF0. *n that case, the &uestion #as as to the validity of section - of Act No. [email protected] la# under consideration not only provided that - amendatory of section D of the Administrative Code,"ives no indication of retroactive effect. The la# si"nifies no purpose of operatin"upon e3istin" ri"hts. A proviso #as merely tac!ed on to section D of the Administrative Code, #hile leavin" intact section D of the same Code #hich permits $ustices of the peace to hold office durin" "ood behavior. *n the absence of provisionse3pressly ma!in" the la# applicable to $ustices of the peace then in office, and in theabsence of provisions impliedly indicative of such le"islative intent, the courts #ouldnot be $ustified in "ivin" the la# an interpretation #hich #ould le"islate faithful publicservants out of office.

Ans#erin" the &uestion #ith #hich #e be"an our decision, #e hold that the provisoadded to section D of the Administrative Code by section > of Act No. >-,providin" that $ustices and au3iliary $ustices of the peace shall be appointed to serveuntil they have reached the a"e of si3ty7five years, should be "iven prospective effectonly, and so is not applicable to $ustices of the peace and au3iliary $ustices of thepeace appointed before Act No. >- #ent into force. Conse&uently, it results that thedecision of the trial court is correct in its findin"s of fact and la# and in its dispositionof the case.


27/44


Manila

9*R;T 4*+*;*'N

G.R. No. 1468 #r$( 12, 2002

SL/!OR 3. LUREL, petitioner,vs.3ON. NINO . !ESIERTO, $% $ &'#'&$ ' Omb5m'%, respondent.

:PUNN, J .

'n , >FF>, President Coraon C. A&uino issued Administrative 'rder No. DD)constitutin" a Committee for the preparation of the National Centennial Celebrationin >FF?.) The Committee #as mandated )to ta!e char"e of the nation#idepreparations for the National Celebration of the Philippine Centennial of the4eclaration of Philippine *ndependence and the *nau"uration of the MalolosCon"ress.)>

;ubse&uently, President 9idel +. Ramos issued E3ecutive 'rder No. >D?,)reconstitutin" the Committee for the preparation of the National CentennialCelebrations in >F??.) *t renamed the Committee as the )National CentennialCommission.) Appointed to chair the reconstituted Commission #as +ice7President;alvador 5. 8aurel. Presidents 4iosdado M. Macapa"al and Coraon C. A&uino #erenamed 5onorary Chairpersons.D

Characteried as an )i body,) the e3istence of the Commission )shall terminate uponthe completion of all activities related to the Centennial Celebrations.) 8i!e itspredecessor Committee, the Commission #as tas!ed to )ta!e char"e of thenation#ide preparations for the National Celebration of the Philippine Centennial ofthe 4eclaration of Philippine *ndependence and the *nau"uration of the MalolosCon"ress.)

Per ;ection of the E3ecutive 'rder, the Commission #as also char"ed #ith theresponsibility to )prepare, for approval of the President, a Comprehensive Plan for theCentennial Celebrations #ithin si3 /0 months from the effectivity of) the E3ecutive'rder.

E.'. No. >D? also contained provisions for staff support and fundin"

;ec. . The Commission shall be provided #ith technical and administrativestaff support by a ;ecretariat to be composed of, amon" others, detailedpersonnel from the Presidential Mana"ement ;taff, the National Commissionfor Culture and the Arts, and the National 5istorical *nstitute. ;aid ;ecretariatshall be headed by a full time E3ecutive 4irector #ho shall be desi"nated bythe President.

;ec. @. The Commission shall be funded #ith an initial bud"et to be dra#nfrom the 4epartment of Tourism and the presidentQs Contin"ent 9und, in anamount to be recommended by the Commission, and approved by thePresident. Appropriations for succeedin" years shall be incorporated in thebud"et of the 'ffice of the President.

;ubse&uently, a corporation named the Philippine Centennial E3po QF? Corporation/E3pocorp0 #as created.@Petitioner #as amon" the nine /F0 E3pocorp incorporators,#ho #ere also its first nine /F0 directors. Petitioner #as elected E3pocorp ChiefE3ecutive 'fficer.

'n Au"ust , >FF?, ;enator Ana 4omini&ue Coseten" delivered a privile"e speech inthe ;enate denouncin" alle"ed anomalies in the construction and operation of theCentennial E3position Pro$ect at the Clar! ;pecial Economic one. (pon motion of;enator 9ran!lin 4rilon, ;enator Coseten"Qs privile"e speech #as referred to the

Committee on Accountability of Public 'fficers and *nvesti"ation /The Blue RibbonCommittee0 and several other ;enate Committees for investi"ation.

'n 9ebruary D@, >FFF, President FFF, the ;enate Blue Ribbon Committee filed #ith the ;ecretary of the;enate its Committee 9inal Report No. dated 9ebruary D, >FFF. Amon" theCommitteeQs recommendations #as )the prosecution by the 'mbudsman4'< of 4r.;alvador 8aurel, chair of NCC and of EOP'C'RP for violatin" the rules on public

biddin", relative to the a#ard of centennial contracts to AJ /Asia Construction L4evelopment Corp.0% for e3hibitin" manifest bias in the issuance of the NTP /Notice toProceed0 to AJ to construct the 9R /9reedom Rin"0 even in the absence of a validcontract that has caused material in$ury to "overnment and for participatin" in thescheme to preclude audit by C'A of the funds infused by the "overnment for theimplementation of the said contracts all in violationS of the anti7"raft la#.)

8ater, on November , >FFF, the ;a"uisa" Committee issued its o#n report. *trecommended )the further investi"ation by the 'mbudsman, and indictment, inproper cases of,) amon" others, NCC Chair ;alvador 5. 8aurel for violations of;ection /e0 of R.A. No. >F, ;ection @/a0 in relation to ;ection >> of R.A. No. ->,and Article D>- of the Revised Penal Code.

27

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_145368_2002.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_145368_2002.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_145368_2002.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_145368_2002.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_145368_2002.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_145368_2002.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_145368_2002.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_145368_2002.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_145368_2002.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_145368_2002.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_145368_2002.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_145368_2002.html#fnt1


28/44

The Reports of the ;enate Blue Ribbon and the ;a"uisa" Committee #ereapparently referred to the 9act7findin" and *ntelli"ence Bureau of the 'ffice of the'mbudsman. 'n , D, Pela"io ;. Apostol, '*C74irector of the Evaluationand Preliminary *nvesti"ation Bureau, directed petitioner to submit his counter7affidavit and those of his #itnesses.

'n April D@, D, petitioner filed #ith the 'ffice of the 'mbudsman a Motion to4ismiss &uestionin" the $urisdiction of said office.

*n an 'rder dated , D, the 'mbudsman denied petitionerQs motion todismiss.

'n @, D, the Evaluation and Preliminary *nvesti"ation Bureau issued aresolution findin" )probable cause to indict respondents ;A8+A4'R 5. 8A(RE8 andTE'4'R' . PEA before the ;andi"anbayan for conspirin" to violate ;ection /e0of Republic Act No. >F, in relation to Republic Act No. >F@.) The resolution also

directed that an information for violation of the said la# be fi led a"ainst 8aurel andPea. 'mbudsman Aniano A. 4esierto approved the resolution #ith respect to 8aurelbut dismissed the char"e a"ainst Pea.

*n a Resolution dated ;eptember D@, D>, the Court issued a temporary restrainin"order, commandin" respondents to desist f rom filin" any information before the;andi"anbayan or any court a"ainst petitioner for alle"ed violation of ;ection /e0 ofthe Anti76raft and Corrupt Practices Act.

'n November >@, D>, the Court, upon motion of petitioner, heard the parties in oralar"ument.

Petitioner assails the $urisdiction of the 'mbudsman on the "round that he is not apublic officer because

A.

EOP'C'RP, T5E C'RP'RAT*'N C5A*RE4 BH PET*T*'NER 8A(RE8 15*C5(N4ERT''J T5E 9REE4'M R*N6 PR'> /@a0 of R.A. -- #hich emphasies thatthe 'ffice of the ;pecial Prosecutor shall have the po#er to )conductpreliminary investi"ation and prosecute criminal cases within the 'urisdictionof the $andiganbayan.) Thus, repeated references to the ;andi"anbayanQs $urisdiction clearly serve to limit the 'mbudsmanQs and ;pecial ProsecutorQsauthority to cases co"niable by the ;andi"anbayan. =Emphasis in the

ori"inal.

28

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_145368_2002.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_145368_2002.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_145368_2002.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_145368_2002.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_145368_2002.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_145368_2002.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_145368_2002.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_145368_2002.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_145368_2002.html#fnt9


29/44

The fore"oin" rulin" in (y, ho#ever, #as short7lived. (pon motion for clarification bythe 'mbudsman in the same case, the Court set aside the fore"oin" pronouncementin its Resolution dated March D, D>. The Court e3plained the rationale for thisreversal

The po#er to investi"ate and to prosecute "ranted by la# to the'mbudsman is plenary and un&ualified. *t pertains to any act or omission ofany public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to beillegal" un'ust" improper or inefficient . The la# does not ma!e a distinctionbet#een cases co"niable by the ;andi"anbayan and those co"niable byre"ular courts. *t has been held that the clause )any ille"al act or omission of any public official) is broad enou"h to embrace any crime committed by apublic officer or employee.

The reference made by RA -- to cases co"niable by the;andi"anbayan, particularly in ;ection >/>0 "ivin" the 'mbudsman primary $urisdiction over cases co"niable by the ;andi"anbayan, and ;ection >>/@0"rantin" the ;pecial Prosecutor the po#er to conduct preliminaryinvesti"ation and prosecute criminal cases #ithin the $urisdiction of the;andi"anbayan, should not be construed as confinin" the scope of theinvesti"atory and prosecutory po#er of the 'mbudsman to such cases.

;ection > of RA -- "ives the 'mbudsman primary $urisdiction over casesco"niable by the

cornejo mathay

Documents