ESTHER S. PAGANO, Province of Benguet, but the records are devoid of any moot and academic.

s are devoid of any moot and academic.[14] The dispositive part of the said
Petitioner, documents to support her claim.[8] Decision reads:
- versus - WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
JUAN NAZARRO, Jr., ROSALINE Q. ELAYDA, On 19 February 1998, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the rendered in favor of petitioner Esther Sison Pagano and against
RODRIGO P. KITO and ERNESTO M. CELINO, administrative case on the ground that the committee created to herein respondents:
Respondents. investigate her case had no jurisdiction over the subject of the
G.R. No. 149072 action and over her person.[9] The respondents denied the said 1. Finding that the Committee of which the respondents are
Promulgated: motion on 21 May 1998.[10] Petitioner filed a motion for members has no longer jurisdiction to conduct any investigation
September 21, 2007 reconsideration, which was again denied on 1 July 1998.[11] or proceedings under civil service rules and regulations relative
to the administrative case filed against the petitioner;
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, assailing the Decision[1] dated 7 March 2001, On 14 August 1998, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari and
rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 53323. In Prohibition with prayer for issuance of a Temporary Restraining 2. Finding that the Committee has acted with grave abuse of
reversing the Decision,[2] dated 4 January 1999, rendered by Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction before Branch 10 of discretion and without jurisdiction in denying the Motion to
Branch 10 of the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet, the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet. The trial court Dismiss filed by the petitioner in Administrative Case No. 98-
the Court of Appeals declared that the petitioner, Esther S. issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction on 7 September 1998. 01;
Pagano, may still be held administratively liable for dishonesty, [12]
grave misconduct and malversation of public funds through In the course of the audit and examination of the petitioners 3. Declaring as null and void all acts, orders, resolutions and
falsification of official documents. collection accounts, the Commission on Audit (COA) proceedings of the Committee in Administrative Case No. 98-
discovered that the petitioner was unable to account for 01;
P4,080,799.77, and not just the initial cash shortage of
While the petitioner was employed as Cashier IV of the Office P1,424,289.99. Thus, the COA Provincial Auditor, Getulio B.
of the Provincial Treasurer of Benguet, it was discovered that in Santos, reported these findings to the Office of the Ombudsman 4. Ordering the respondents, their agents, representatives and all
her accountabilities she had incurred a shortage of in a letter dated 11 September 1998 with the recommendation persons acting on their behalf, to desist from proceeding with
P1,424,289.99. On 12 January 1998, the Provincial Treasurer that civil, criminal and administrative cases be filed against Administrative Case No. 98-01; and
wrote a letter directing petitioner to explain why no petitioner.[13]
administrative charge should be filed against her in connection 5. Declaring the writ of preliminary injunction dated September
with the cash shortage.[3] Petitioner submitted her explanation 07, 1998 as permanent.
on 15 January 1998.[4] In its Decision, dated 4 January 1999, the trial court ruled in
favor of the petitioner. It noted that the most severe penalty
which may be imposed on the petitioner is removal from No pronouncement as to costs.[15]
On 16 January 1998, petitioner filed her Certificate of service, and that under Section 66 of the Omnibus Election
Candidacy for the position of Councilor in Baguio City.[5] Code, petitioner was already deemed resigned when she filed
her Certificate of Candidacy on 16 January 1998. Section 66 of
Respondents filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals. In
On 22 January 1998, the Office of the Provincial Governor of the Omnibus Election Code provides that:
reversing the Decision of the trial court, the appellate court
Benguet found the existence of a prima facie case for
pronounced that even though petitioners separation from service
dishonesty, grave misconduct and malversation of public funds Any person holding a public appointive office or position, already bars the imposition upon her of the severest
through falsification of official documents and directed the including active members of the Armed Forces of the administrative sanction of separation from service, other
petitioner to file an answer.[6] The Provincial Governor also Philippines, and officers and employees in government-owned imposable accessory penalties such as disqualification to hold
issued Executive Order No. 98-02, creating an ad hoc committee or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto government office and forfeiture of benefits may still be
composed of herein respondents to investigate and submit resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of imposed.[16]
findings relative to the administrative charges against petitioner. candidacy.
[7]
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of
the Court of Appeals, which was denied in a Resolution dated 10
On 10 February 1998, petitioner filed her Answer before the
Thus, it declared that even if the committee created by the July 2001.[17]
Office of the Provincial Governor. Petitioner alleged that she
had merely acted under the express direction of her supervisor, Provincial Governor had the jurisdiction to hear the
Mr. Mauricio B. Ambanloc. She further claimed that the funds administrative case against the petitioner, such case was now Hence, in the present Petition, the sole issue is being raised:
and checks were deposited in the depository banks of the
04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 1 | 36
WHETHER OR NOT A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE WHO supposedly in her custody on 12 January 1998. In her Director of the National Police Commission, Regional Office
HAS BEEN SEPARATED FROM THE CIVIL SERVICE BY explanation, dated 15 January 1998, petitioner failed to render a XI, Davao City,[27] this Court pronounced the respondent judge
OPERATION OF LAW PURSUANT TO SECTION 66 OF proper accounting of the amount that was placed in her custody; guilty of grave misconduct, despite his resignation:
BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 881 (THE OMNIBUS instead, she tried to shift the blame on her superior. Thus, the
ELECTION CODE) MAY STILL BE ADMINISTRATIVELY hasty filing of petitioners certificate of candidacy on 16 January Verily, the resignation of Judge Quitain which was accepted by
CHARGED UNDER CIVIL SERVICE LAWS, RULES AND 1998, a mere four days after the Provincial Treasurer asked her the Court without prejudice does not render moot and academic
REGULATIONS[18] to explain irregularities in the exercise of her functions appears the instant administrative case. The jurisdiction that the Court
to be a mere ploy to escape administrative liability. had at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint is
not lost by the mere fact that the respondent judge by his
Petitioner argues that a government employee who has been Public service requires utmost integrity and discipline. A public resignation and its consequent acceptance without prejudice by
separated from service, whether by voluntary resignation or by servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and this Court, has ceased to be in office during the pendency of this
operation of law, can no longer be administratively charged. integrity for no less than the Constitution mandates the principle case. x x x. A contrary rule would be fraught with injustice and
Such argument is devoid of merit.[19] that a public office is a public trust and all public officers and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications. Indeed, if
employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve innocent, the respondent official merits vindication of his name
them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and and integrity as he leaves the government which he has served
In Office of the Court Administrator v. Juan,[20] this Court efficiency.[24] The Courts cannot overemphasize the need for well and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive the
categorically ruled that the precipitate resignation of a honesty and accountability in the acts of government officials. In corresponding censure and a penalty proper and imposable
government employee charged with an offense punishable by Baquerfo v. Sanchez,[25] this Court reproached a government under the situation.
dismissal from the service does not render moot the employee for the theft of two unserviceable desk fans and one
administrative case against him. Resignation is not a way out to unserviceable stove. Moreover, the Court refused to take into
evade administrative liability when facing administrative account the subsequent resignation of the said government
sanction. The resignation of a public servant does not preclude employee. In the aforecited case, this Court emphatically This Court cannot countenance the petitioners puerile pretext
the finding of any administrative liability to which he or she declared that: that since no administrative case had been filed against her
shall still be answerable.[21] during her employment, she can no longer be administratively
charged. Section 48, Chapter 6, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of
Cessation from office of respondent by resignation or retirement Executive Order No. 292, also known as the Administrative
A case becomes moot and academic only when there is no more neither warrants the dismissal of the administrative complaint
actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can Code of 1987, provides for the initiation of administrative
filed against him while he was still in the service nor does it proceedings by the proper personalities as part of the procedural
be served in passing upon the merits of the case.[22] The instant render said administrative case moot and academic. The
case is not moot and academic, despite the petitioners separation process in administrative cases:
jurisdiction that was this Courts at the time of the filing of the
from government service. Even if the most severe of administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the
administrative sanctions - that of separation from service - may respondent public official had ceased in office during the Section 48. Procedures in Administrative Cases Against Non-
no longer be imposed on the petitioner, there are other penalties pendency of his case. Respondents resignation does not preclude Presidential Appointees. (1) Administrative proceedings may be
which may be imposed on her if she is later found guilty of the finding of any administrative liability to which he shall still commenced against a subordinate officer or employee by the
administrative offenses charged against her, namely, the be answerable.[26] Secretary or head of office of equivalent rank, or head of local
disqualification to hold any government office and the forfeiture government, or chiefs of agencies, or regional directors, or upon
of benefits. sworn, written complaint of any other person.

Moreover, this Court views with suspicion the precipitate act of Unlike the previously discussed case (Baquerfo), the present one
a government employee in effecting his or her separation from does not involve unserviceable scraps of appliances. The
petitioner was unable to account for an amount initially At the time petitioner filed her certificate of candidacy,
service, soon after an administrative case has been initiated petitioner was already notified by the Provincial Treasurer that
against him or her. An employees act of tendering his or her computed at P1,424,289.99, and later recomputed by the COA at
P4,080,799.77. With all the more reason, this Court cannot she needed to explain why no administrative charge should be
resignation immediately after the discovery of the anomalous filed against her, after it discovered the cash shortage of
transaction is indicative of his or her guilt as flight in criminal declare petitioner immune from administrative charges, by
reason of her running for public office. P1,424,289.99 in her accountabilities. Moreover, she had
cases.[23] already filed her answer. To all intents and purposes, the
administrative proceedings had already been commenced at the
In the present case, the Provincial Treasurer asked petitioner to In the very recent case, In re: Non-disclosure before the Judicial time she was considered separated from service through her
explain the cash shortage of P1,424,289.99, which was and Bar Council of the Administrative Case Filed Against Judge precipitate filing of her certificate of candidacy. Petitioners bad
Jaime V. Quitain, in His Capacity as the then Assistant Regional
04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 2 | 36
faith was manifest when she filed it, fully knowing that The Court did not exculpate him from administrative liability, employees in Zamudio v. Penas, Jr.[43] and Pardo v. Cunanan,
administrative proceedings were being instituted against her as despite his retirement. The Court unequivocally declared: The [44] were not absolved of their administrative liability; rather,
part of the procedural due process in laying the foundation for jurisdiction of the Court over this case was, therefore, not lost the Court merely mitigated the penalty it imposed upon them. In
an administrative case. when the respondent retired from the judiciary and, in the Mendoza v. Tiongson,[45] the Court emphatically denounced
exercise of its power over the respondent as a member of the the contemptible attempt of government employees to elude the
To support her argument that government employees who have bar, the Court may compel him to support his illegitimate consequences of their wrongdoings by quitting their jobs. It is
been separated can no longer be administratively charged, daughters.[36] The Court merely mitigated the penalty when it clear that this Court had dismissed administrative cases, taking
petitioner cites the following cases: Diamalon v. Quintillian,[28] took into account the fact that respondents dishonorable conduct into consideration the resignation or retirement of the civil
Vda. de Recario v. Aquino,[29] Zamudio v. Penas, Jr.,[30] occurred before his appointment as a judge, along with the fact servants who presented meritorious defenses and, in certain
Pardo v. Cunanan,[31] and Mendoza v. Tiongson.[32] A that he had reached compulsory retirement age during the cases, even mitigated the penalties of those who were later
piecemeal reference to these cases is too insubstantial to support pendency of the administrative case.[37] found guilty of the administrative charge. But this Court has
the petitioners allegation that her separation from government never abetted government employees who deliberately set out to
service serves as a bar against the filing of an administrative In Pardo v. Cunanan,[38] the Court did not dismiss the effect their separation from service as a means of escaping
case for acts she committed as an appointive government administrative case against the respondent government administrative proceedings that would be instituted against
official. In order to understand the Courts pronouncement in employee, but merely imposed a lesser penalty of one-month them.
these cases, they must be examined in their proper contexts. suspension for her failure to disclose the fact that she had a
pending administrative case when she applied for another Petitioner relies on Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code to
In Diamalon v. Quintillian,[33] a complaint for serious government post. In mitigating the penalty, the Court considered exculpate her from an administrative charge. The
misconduct was filed against the respondent judge questioning her good faith, as well as her resignation from her previous post. aforementioned provision reads:
his issuance of a warrant of arrest without the presence of the The Court took into account the notice of acceptance of her
accused. A cursory review of the facts in this case shows that the resignation, stating that her services while employed in this Any person holding a public appointive officer or position,
administrative complaint lacks basis, as there is nothing office have been satisfactory and your future application for including active members of the Armed Forces of the
irregular in the act of the respondent judge in issuing a warrant reinstatement may be favorably considered.[39] Philippines, and officers and employees in government-owned
of arrest without the presence of the accused during the hearing or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto
for such issuance. After the case was filed, the respondent judge In Mendoza v. Tiongson,[40] this Court refused to accept the resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of
became seriously ill and his application for retirement gratuity resignations filed by the respondents, which were intended candidacy.
could not be acted upon because of the pending administrative solely to allow them to evade the penalties this Court would
case against him. Thus, the Court, out of Christian justice, impose against them. This ruling cannot be construed as a bar
dismissed the administrative case against the respondent who against filing administrative cases against government
was to retire and desperately needed his retirement benefits. employees who have been separated from their employment, for Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code should be read in
what would stop the latter from merely abandoning their posts to connection with Sections 46(b)(26) and 55, Chapters 6 and 7,
evade administrative charges against them? To the contrary, this Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987:
In Vda. de Recario v. Aquino,[34] an administrative case was
filed against the respondent judge for failure to immediately act ruling can only strengthen this Courts resolve to diligently
on a case for prohibition. In dismissing the complaint against the continue hearing administrative cases against erring government Section 44. Discipline: General Provisions:
judge, the Court ruled that there are no indications of bad faith employees, even after they are separated from employment.
on the part of the respondent judge when he set for hearing in xxxx
due course Civil Case No. 13335. If the complainants were To summarize, none of the rulings in the aforecited cases can
prejudiced at all x x x, it was because of complainants own error justify the dismissal of the administrative case filed against (b) The following shall be grounds for disciplinary action:
in not asking for a writ of preliminary injunction or restraining herein petitioner simply because she had filed her certificate of
order and not due to respondents error or delay in taking action candidacy. The circumstances of the instant case are vastly
xxxx
or any other fault. It was only an aside that the Court even different from those in Diamalon v. Quintillian[41] and Vda. de
mentioned that the respondent judge had already resigned. Thus, Recario v. Aquino,[42] in which the respondent judges were
this case cannot be the basis for enjoining the administrative able to present valid and meritorious defenses in the (26) Engaging directly or indirectly in partisan political
case against herein petitioner. administrative complaints filed against them. Petitioner in this activities by one holding a non-political office.
case did not even attempt to properly account for the cash
In Zamudio v. Penas, Jr.,[35] an administrative complaint for shortage of P4,080,799.77 from the checks and funds that were xxxx
dishonorable conduct was filed against the respondent judge. in her custody. On the other hand, the respondent government

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 3 | 36

Section 55. Political Activity. No officer or employee in the CORRUPTION, GRAFT FREE PHILIPPINES
Civil Service including members of the Armed Forces, shall FOUNDATION, INC., LEONARD DE VERA, DENNIS The House of Representatives did no less. The House
engage directly or indirectly in any partisan political activity or FUNA, ROMEO CAPULONG and ERNESTO B. Committee on Public Order and Security, then headed by
take part in any election except to vote nor shall he use his FRANCISCO, JR., respondent. Representative Roilo Golez, decided to investigate the expos of
official authority or influence to coerce the political activity of [G.R. No. 146738. March 2, 2001] Governor Singson. On the other hand, Representatives Heherson
any other person or body. Alvarez, Ernesto Herrera and Michael Defensor spearheaded the
JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, petitioner, vs. GLORIA move to impeach the petitioner.
MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, respondent.
Calls for the resignation of the petitioner filled the air. On
Clearly, the act of filing a Certificate of Candidacy while one is On the line in the cases at bar is the office of the President. October 11, Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin issued a pastoral
employed in the civil service constitutes a just cause for Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada alleges that he is the President statement in behalf of the Presbyteral Council of the
termination of employment for appointive officials. Section 66 on leave while respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo claims she Archdiocese of Manila, asking petitioner to step down from the
of the Omnibus Election Code, in considering an appointive is the President. The warring personalities are important enough presidency as he had lost the moral authority to govern.[3] Two
official ipso facto resigned, merely provides for the immediate but more transcendental are the constitutional issues embedded days later or on October 13, the Catholic Bishops Conference of
implementation of the penalty for the prohibited act of engaging on the parties dispute. While the significant issues are many, the the Philippines joined the cry for the resignation of the
in partisan political activity. This provision was not intended, jugular issue involves the relationship between the ruler and the petitioner.[4] Four days later, or on October 17, former President
and should not be used, as a defense against an administrative ruled in a democracy, Philippine style. Corazon C. Aquino also demanded that the petitioner take the
case for acts committed during government service. supreme self-sacrifice of resignation.[5] Former President Fidel
First, we take a view of the panorama of events that precipitated Ramos also joined the chorus. Early on, or on October 12,
Section 47[46] of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides for the crisis in the office of the President. respondent Arroyo resigned as Secretary of the Department of
the authority of heads of provinces to investigate and decide Social Welfare and Services[6] and later asked for petitioners
matters involving disciplinary actions against employees under In the May 11, 1998 elections, petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada resignation.[7] However, petitioner strenuously held on to his
their jurisdiction. Thus, the Provincial Governor acted in was elected President while respondent Gloria Macapagal- office and refused to resign.
accordance with law when it ordered the creation of an Arroyo was elected Vice-President. Some (10) million Filipinos
independent body to investigate the administrative complaint voted for the petitioner believing he would rescue them from The heat was on. On November 1, four (4) senior economic
filed against petitioner for dishonesty, grave misconduct and lifes adversity. Both petitioner and the respondent were to serve advisers, members of the Council of Senior Economic Advisers,
malversation of public funds through falsification of official a six-year term commencing on June 30, 1998. resigned. They were Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala, former
documents in connection with acts committed while petitioner Prime Minister Cesar Virata, former Senator Vicente Paterno
was employed as Cashier IV in the Office of the Provincial From the beginning of his term, however, petitioner was plagued and Washington Sycip.[8] On November 2, Secretary Mar
Treasurer of Benguet. by a plethora of problems that slowly but surely eroded his Roxas II also resigned from the Department of Trade and
popularity. His sharp descent from power started on October 4, Industry.[9] On November 3, Senate President Franklin Drilon,
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition is 2000. Ilocos Sur Governos, Luis Chavit Singson, a longtime and House Speaker Manuel Villar, together with some 47
DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in friend of the petitioner, went on air and accused the petitioner, representatives defected from the ruling coalition, Lapian ng
CA-G.R. SP No. 53323, promulgated on 7 March 2001, is his family and friends of receiving millions of pesos from Masang Pilipino.[10]
AFFIRMED. The Office of the Provincial Governor of Benguet jueteng lords.[1]
is hereby DIRECTED to proceed with Administrative Case No. The month of November ended with a big bang. In a tumultuous
98-01 against the petitioner, Esther S. Pagano, for dishonesty, The expos immediately ignited reactions of rage. The next day, session on November 13, House Speaker Villar transmitted the
grave misconduct and malversation of public funds through October 5, 2000, Senator Teofisto Guingona Jr, then the Senate Articles of Impeachment[11] signed by 115 representatives, or
falsification of official documents. Costs against the petitioner. Minority Leader, took the floor and delivered a fiery privilege more than 1/3 of all the members of the House of
speech entitled I Accuse. He accused the petitioner of receiving Representatives to the Senate. This caused political convulsions
some P220 million in jueteng money from Governor Singson in both houses of Congress. Senator Drilon was replaced by
SO ORDERED.
from November 1998 to August 2000. He also charged that the Senator Pimentel as Senate President. Speaker Villar was
petitioner took from Governor Singson P70 million on excise unseated by Representative Fuentabella.[12] On November 20,
[G.R. Nos. 146710-15. March 2, 2001] tax on cigarettes intended for Ilocos Sur. The privilege speech the Senate formally opened the impeachment trial of the
was referred by then Senate President Franklin Drilon, to the petitioner. Twenty-one (21) senators took their oath as judges
JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, petitioner, vs. ANIANO Blue Ribbon Committee (then headed by Senator Aquilino with Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.,
DESIERTO, in his capacity as Ombudsman, RAMON Pimentel) and the Committee on Justice (then headed by Senator presiding.[13]
GONZALES, VOLUNTEERS AGAINST CRIME AND Renato Cayetano) for joint investigation.[2]

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 4 | 36

The political temperature rose despite the cold December. On the impeachment tribunal.[19] Senator Raul Roco quickly represented by now Executive Secretary Renato de Villa, now
December 7, the impeachment trial started.[14] the battle royale moved for the indefinite postponement of the impeachment Secretary of Finance Alberto Romulo and now Secretary of
was fought by some of the marquee names in the legal proceedings until the House of Representatives shall have Justice Hernando Perez.[27] Outside the palace, there was a
profession. Standing as prosecutors were then House Minority resolved the issue of resignation of the public prosecutors. Chief brief encounter at Mendiola between pro and anti-Estrada
Floor Leader Feliciano Belmonte and Representatives Joker Justice Davide granted the motion.[20] protesters which resulted in stone-throwing and caused minor
Arroyo, Wigberto Taada, Sergio Apostol, Raul Gonzales, Oscar injuries. The negotiations consumed all morning until the news
Moreno, Salacnib Baterina, Roan Libarios, Oscar Rodriguez, January 18 saw the high velocity intensification of the call for broke out that Chief Justice Davide would administer the oath to
Clavel Martinez and Antonio Nachura. They were assisted by a petitioners resignation. A 10-kilometer line of people holding respondent Arroyo at high noon at the EDSA Shrine.
battery of private prosecutors led by now Secretary of Justice lighted candles formed a human chain from the Ninoy Aquino
Hernando Perez and now Solicitor General Simeon Marcelo. Monument on Ayala Avenue in Makati City to the EDSA Shrine At about 12:00 noon, Chief Justice Davide administered the oath
Serving as defense counsel were former Chief Justice Andres to symbolize the peoples solidarity in demanding petitioners to respondent Arroyo as President of the Philippines.[28] At
Narvasa, former Solicitor General and Secretary of Justice resignation. Students and teachers walked out of their classes in 2:30 p.m., petitioner and his family hurriedly left Malacaang
Estelito P. Mendoza, former City Fiscal of Manila Jose Metro Manila to show their concordance. Speakers in the Palace.[29] He issued the following press statement:[30]
Flamiano, former Deputy Speaker of the House Raul Daza, Atty. continuing rallies at the EDSA Shrine, all masters of the physics
Siegfried Fortun and his brother, Atty. Raymund Fortun. The of persuasion, attracted more and more people.[21] 20 January 2001
day to day trial was covered by live TV and during its course
enjoyed the highest viewing rating. Its high and low points were On January 19, the fall from power of the petitioner appeared STATEMENT FROM
the constant conversational piece of the chattering classes. The inevitable. At 1:20 p.m., the petitioner informed Executive
dramatic point of the December hearings was the testimony of Secretary Edgardo Angara that General Angelo Reyes, Chief of PRESIDENT JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA
Clarissa Ocampo, senior vice president of Equitable-PCI Bank. Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, had defected. At
She testified that she was one foot away from petitioner Estrada 2:30 p.m., petitioner agreed to the holding of a snap election for At twelve oclock noon today, Vice President Gloria Macapagal-
when he affixed the signature Jose Velarde on documents President where he would not be a candidate. It did not diffuse Arroyo took her oath as President of the Republic of the
involving a P500 million investment agreement with their bank the growing crisis. At 3:00 p.m., Secretary of National Defense Philippines. While along with many other legal minds of our
on February 4, 2000.[15] Orlando Mercado and General Reyes, together with the chiefs of country, I have strong and serious doubts about the legality and
all the armed services went to the EDSA Shrine.[22] In the constitutionality of her proclamation as President, I do not wish
After the testimony of Ocampo, the impeachment trial was presence of former Presidents Aquino and Ramos and hundreds to be a factor that will prevent the restoration of unity and order
adjourned in the spirit of Christmas. When it resumed on of thousands of cheering demonstrators, General Reyes declared in our civil society.
January 2, 2001, more bombshells were exploded by the that on behalf of your Armed Forces, the 130,000 strong
prosecution. On January 11, Atty. Edgardo Espiritu who served members of the Armed Forces, we wish to announce that we are It is for this reason that I now leave Malacaang Palace, the seat
as petitioners Secretary of Finance took the witness stand. He withdrawing our support to this government.[23] A little later, of the presidency of this country, for the sake of peace and in
alleged that the petitioner jointly owned BW Resources PNP Chief, Director General Panfilo Lacson and the major order to begin the healing process of our nation. I leave the
Corporation with Mr. Dante Tan who was facing charges of service commanders gave a similar stunning announcement.[24] Palace of our people with gratitude for the opportunities given to
insider trading.[16] Then came the fateful day of January 16, Some Cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries, me for service to our people. I will not shirk from any future
when by a vote of 11-10[17] the senator-judges ruled against the and bureau chiefs quickly resigned from their posts.[25] Rallies challenges that may come ahead in the same service of our
opening of the second envelop which allegedly contained for the resignation of the petitioner exploded in various parts of country.
evidence showing that petitioner held P3.3 billion in a secret the country. To stem the tide of rage, petitioner announced he
bank account under the name Jose Velarde. The public and was ordering his lawyers to agree to the opening of the highly I call on all my supporters and followers to join me in the
private prosecutors walked out in protest of the ruling. In controversial second envelop.[26] There was no turning back the promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and
disgust, Senator Pimentel resigned as Senate President.[18] The tide. The tide had become a tsunami. solidarity.
ruling made at 10:00 p.m. was met by a spontaneous outburst of
anger that hit the streets of the metropolis. By midnight, January 20 turned to be the day of surrender. At 12:20 a.m., the May the Almighty bless our country and beloved people.
thousands had assembled at the EDSA Shrine and speeches full first round of negotiations for the peaceful and orderly transfer
of sulphur were delivered against the petitioner and the eleven of power started at Malacaangs Mabini Hall, Office of the MABUHAY!
(11) senators. Executive Secretary. Secretary Edgardo Angara, Senior Deputy
Executive Secretary Ramon Bagatsing, Political Adviser (Sgd.) JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA
On January 17, the public prosecutors submitted a letter to Angelito Banayo, Asst. Secretary Boying Remulla, and Atty.
Speaker Fuentebella tendering their collective resignation. They Macel Fernandez, head of the presidential Management Staff, It also appears that on the same day, January 20, 2001, he signed
also filed their Manifestation of Withdrawal of Appearance with negotiated for the petitioner. Respondent Arroyo was the following letter:[31]

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 5 | 36

 60% in Metro Manila, by also 60% in the balance of Luzon, by
Sir: On January 24, Representative Feliciano Belmonte was elected 71% in the Visayas, and 55% in Mindanao. Her trust rating
new Speaker of the House of Representatives.[37] The House increased to 52%. Her presidency is accepted by majorities in all
By virtue of the provisions of Section 11, Article VII of the then passed Resolution No. 175 expressing the full support of social classes:
Constitution, I am hereby transmitting this declaration that I am the House of Representatives to the administration of Her
unable to exercise the powers and duties of my office. By Excellency Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the 58% in the ABC or middle-to-upper classes, 64% in the D or
operation of law and the Constitution, the Vice-President shall Philippines.[38] It also approved Resolution No. 176 expressing mass, and 54% among the Es or very poor class.[50]
be the Acting President. the support of the House of Representatives to the assumption
into office by Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as After his fall from the pedestal of power, the petitioners legal
(Sgd.) JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA President of the Republic of the Philippines, extending its problems appeared in clusters. Several cases previously filed
congratulations and expressing its support for her administration against him in the Office of the Ombudsman were set in motion.
A copy of the letter was sent to former Speaker Fuentebella at as a partner in the attainment of the nations goals under the These are: (1) OMB Case No. 0-00-1629, filed by Ramon A.
8:30 a.m., on January 20.[32] Another copy was transmitted to Constitution.[39] Gonzales on October 23, 2000 for bribery and graft and
Senate President Pimentel on the same day although it was corruption; (2) OMB Case No. 0-00-1754 filed by the
received only at 9:00 p.m.[33] On January 26, the respondent signed into law the Solid Waste Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption on November 17,
Management Act.[40] A few days later, she also signed into law 2000 for plunder, forfeiture, graft and corruption, bribery,
On January 22, the Monday after taking her oath, respondent the Political Advertising Ban and Fair Election Practices Act. perjury, serious misconduct, violation of the Code of Conduct
Arroyo immediately discharged the powers and duties of the [41] for government Employees, etc; (3) OMB Case No. 0-00-1755
Presidency. On the same day, this Court issued the following filed by the Graft Free Philippines Foundation, Inc. on
Resolution in Administrative Matter No. 01-1-05-SC, to wit: On February 6, respondent Arroyo nominated Senator Teofisto November 24, 2000 for plunder, forfeiture, graft and corruption,
Guingona, Jr., as her Vice President.[42] the next day, February bribery, perjury, serious misconduct; (4) OMB Case No. 0-00-
A.M. No. 01-1-05-SC In re: Request of Vice President Gloria 7, the Senate adopted Resolution No. 82 confirming the 1756 filed by Romeo Capulong, et al., on November 28, 2000
Macapagal-Arroyo to Take her Oath of Office as President of nomination of Senator Guingona, Jr.[43] Senators Miriam for malversation of public funds, illegal use of public funds and
the Republic of the Philippines before the Chief Justice Acting Defensor-Santiago, Juan Ponce Enrile, and John Osmea voted property, plunder, etc., (5) OMB Case No. 0-00-1757 filed by
on the urgent request of Vice-President Gloria Macapagal- yes with reservations, citing as reason therefore the pending Leonard de Vera, et al., on November 28, 2000 for bribery,
Arroyo to be sworn in as President of the Republic of the challenge on the legitimacy of respondent Arroyos presidency plunder, indirect bribery, violation of PD 1602, PD 1829, PD 46,
Philippines, addressed to the Chief Justice and confirmed by a before the Supreme Court. Senators Teresa Aquino-Oreta and and RA 7080; and (6) OMB Case No. 0-00-1758 filed by
letter to the Court, dated January 20, 2001, which request was Robert Barbers were absent.[44] The House of Representatives Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr. on December 4, 2000 for plunder, graft
treated as an administrative matter, the court Resolved also approved Senator Guingonas nomination in Resolution No. and corruption.
unanimously to confirm the authority given by the twelve (12) 178.[45] Senator Guingona took his oath as Vice President two
members of the Court then present to the Chief Justice on (2) days later.[46] A special panel of investigators was forthwith created by the
January 20, 2001 to administer the oath of office to Vice respondent Ombudsman to investigate the charges against the
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the On February 7, the Senate passed Resolution No. 83 declaring petitioner. It is chaired by Overall Deputy Ombudsman
Philippines, at noon of January 20, 2001. that the impeachment court is functus officio and has been Margarito P. Gervasio with the following as members, viz:
terminated.[47] Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago stated for the Director Andrew Amuyutan, Prosecutor Pelayo Apostol, Atty.
This resolution is without prejudice to the disposition of any record that she voted against the closure of the impeachment Jose de Jesus and Atty. Emmanuel Laureso. On January 22, the
justiciable case that maybe filed by a proper party. court on the grounds that the Senate had failed to decide on the panel issued an Order directing the petitioner to file his counter-
impeachment case and that the resolution left open the question affidavit and the affidavits of his witnesses as well as other
Respondent Arroyo appointed members of her Cabinet as well of whether Estrada was still qualified to run for another elective supporting documents in answer to the aforementioned
as ambassadors and special envoys.[34] Recognition of post.[48] complaints against him.
respondent Arroyos government by foreign governments swiftly
followed. On January 23, in a reception or vin d honneur at Meanwhile, in a survey conducted by Pulse Asia, President Thus, the stage for the cases at bar was set. On February 5,
Malacaang, led by the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps, Papal Arroyos public acceptance rating jacked up from 16% on petitioner filed with this Court GR No. 146710-15, a petition for
Nuncio Antonio Franco, more than a hundred foreign diplomats January 20, 2001 to 38% on January 26, 2001.[49] In another prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. It
recognized the government of respondent Arroyo.[35] US survey conducted by the ABS-CBN/SWS from February 2-7, sought to enjoin the respondent Ombudsman from conducting
President George W. Bush gave the respondent a telephone call 2001, results showed that 61% of the Filipinos nationwide any further proceedings in Case Nos. OMB 0-00-1629, 1754,
from the White House conveying US recognition of her accepted President Arroyo as replacement of petitioner Estrada. 1755, 1756, 1757 and 1758 or in any other criminal complaint
government.[36] The survey also revealed that President Arroyo is accepted by that may be filed in his office, until after the term of petitioner as

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 6 | 36

President is over and only if legally warranted. Thru another petitioner Joseph E. Estrada seven (7) days after the hearing held
counsel, petitioner, on February 6, filed GR No. 146738 for Quo on February 15, 2001, which action will make the cases at bar We reject private respondents submission. To be sure, courts
Warranto. He prayed for judgment confirming petitioner to be moot and academic.[53] here and abroad, have tried to lift the shroud on political
the lawful and incumbent President of the Republic of the question but its exact latitude still splits the best of legal minds.
Philippines temporarily unable to discharge the duties of his The parties filed their replies on February 24. On this date, the Developed by the courts in the 20th century, the political
office, and declaring respondent to have taken her oath as and to cases at bar were deemed submitted for decision. question doctrine which rests on the principle of separation of
be holding the Office of the President, only in an acting capacity powers and on prudential considerations, continue to be refined
pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution. Acting on GR The bedrock issues for resolution of this Court are: in the mills constitutional law.[55] In the United States, the most
Nos. 146710-15, the Court, on the same day, February 6, authoritative guidelines to determine whether a question is
required the respondents to comment thereon within a non- I political were spelled out by Mr. Justice Brennan in the 1962
extendible period expiring on 12 February 2001. On February case of Baker v. Carr,[56] viz:
13, the Court ordered the consolidation of GR Nos. 146710-15 Whether the petitions present a justiciable controversy.
and GR No. 146738 and the filing of the respondents comments x x x Prominent on the surface on any case held to involve a
on or before 8:00 a.m. of February 15. II political question is found a textually demonstrable
constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political
On February 15, the consolidated cases were orally argued in a Assuming that the petitions present a justiciable controversy, department or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable
four-hour hearing. Before the hearing, Chief Justice Davide, Jr., whether petitioner Estrada is a President on leave while standards for resolving it, or the impossibility of deciding
[51] and Associate Justice Artemio Panganiban[52] recused respondent Arroyo is an Acting President. without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for
themselves on motion of petitioners counsel, former Senator nonjudicial discretions; or the impossibility of a courts
Rene A. Saguisag. They debunked the charge of counsel III undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of
Saguisag that they have compromised themselves by indicating the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an
that they have thrown their weight on one side but nonetheless Whether conviction in the impeachment proceedings is a unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision
inhibited themselves. Thereafter, the parties were given the short condition precedent for the criminal prosecution of petitioner already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from
period of five (5) days to file their memoranda and two (2) days Estrada. In the negative and on the assumption that petitioner is multifarious pronouncements by various departments on
to submit their simultaneous replies. still President, whether he is immune from criminal prosecution. question. Unless one of these formulations is inextricable from
the case at bar, there should be no dismissal for non justiciability
In a resolution dated February 20, acting on the urgent motion IV on the ground of a political questions presence. The doctrine of
for copies of resolution and press statement for Gag Order on which we treat is one of political questions, not of political
respondent Ombudsman filed by counsel for petitioner in G.R. Whether the prosecution of petitioner Estrada should be cases.
No. 146738, the Court resolved: enjoined on the ground of prejudicial publicity.
In the Philippine setting, this Court has been continuously
(1) to inform the parties that the Court did not issue a resolution We shall discuss the issues in seriatim. confronted with cases calling for a firmer delineation of the
on January 20, 2001 declaring the office of the President vacant inner and outer perimeters of a political question.[57] Our
and that neither did the Chief Justice issue a press statement I leading case is Tanada v. Cuenco,[58] where this Court, through
justifying the alleged resolution; former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, held that political
Whether or not the cases at bar involve a political question questions refer to those questions which, under the Constitution,
(2) to order the parties and especially their counsel who are are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in
officers of the Court under pain of being cited for contempt to Private respondents[54] raise the threshold issue that the cases at regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated
refrain from making any comment or discussing in public the bar pose a political question, and hence, are beyond the to the legislative or executive branch of the government. It is
merits of the cases at bar while they are still pending decision by jurisdiction of this Court to decide. They contend that shorn of concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality
the Court, and its embroideries, the cases at bar assail the legitimacy of the of a particular measure. To a great degree, the 1987 Constitution
Arroyo administration. They stress that respondent Arroyo has narrowed the reach of the political question doctrine when it
(3) to issue a 30-day status quo order effective immediately ascended the presidency through people power; that she has expanded the power of judicial review of this court not only to
enjoining the respondent Ombudsman from resolving or already taken her oath as the 14th President of the Republic; that settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
deciding the criminal cases pending investigation in his office she has exercised the powers of the presidency and that she has demandable and enforceable but also to determine whether or
against petitioner Joseph E. Estrada and subject of the cases at been recognized by foreign governments. They submit that these not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
bar, it appearing from news reports that the respondent realities on ground constitute the political thicket which the or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
Ombudsman may immediately resolve the cases against Court cannot enter. instrumentality of government.[59] Heretofore, the judiciary has

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 7 | 36

focused on the thou shalt nots of the Constitution directed of judicial review, but EDSA II is intra constitutional and the making by all members of society; and fourth, it is a method of
against the exercise of its jurisdiction.[60] With the new resignation of the sitting President that it caused and the achieving a more adaptable and hence, a more stable community
provision, however, courts are given a greater prerogative to succession of the Vice President as President are subject to of maintaining the precarious balance between healthy cleavage
determine what it can do to prevent grave abuse of discretion judicial review. EDSA I presented political question; EDSA II and necessary consensus.[69] In this sense, freedom of speech
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any involves legal questions. A brief discourse on freedom of speech and of assembly provides a framework in which the conflict
branch or instrumentality of government. Clearly, the new and of the freedom of assembly to petition the government for necessary to the progress of a society can take place without
provision did not just grant the Court power of doing nothing. In redress of grievance which are the cutting edge of EDSA People destroying the society.[70] In Hague v. Committee for Industrial
sync and symmetry with this intent are other provisions of the Power II is not inappropriate. Organization,[71] this function of free speech and assembly was
1987 Constitution trimming the so called political thicket. echoed in the amicus curiae brief filed by the Bill of Rights
Prominent of these provisions is section 18 of Article VII which Freedom of speech and the right of assembly are treasured by Committee of the American Bar Association which emphasized
empowers this Court in limpid language to x x x review, in an Filipinos. Denial of these rights was one of the reasons of our that the basis of the right of assembly is the substitution of the
appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of 1898 revolution against Spain. Our national hero, Jose P. Rizal, expression of opinion and belief by talk rather than force; and
the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the raised the clarion call for the recognition of freedom of the press this means talk for all and by all.[72] In the relatively recent
suspension of the privilege of the writ (of habeas corpus) or the of the Filipinos and included it as among the reforms sine quibus case of Subayco v. Sandiganbayan,[73] this Court similarly
extension thereof x x x. non.[65] The Malolos Constitution, which is the work of the stressed that "... it should be clear even to those with intellectual
revolutionary Congress in 1898, provided in its Bill of Rights deficits that when the sovereign people assemble to petition for
Respondents rely on the case of Lawyers League for a Better that Filipinos shall not be deprived (1) of the right to freely redress of grievances, all should listen. For in a democracy, it is
Philippines and/or Oliver A. Lozano v. President Corazon C. express his ideas or opinions, orally or in writing, through the the people who count; those who are deaf to their grievances are
Aquino, et al.[61] and related cases[62] to support their thesis use of the press or other similar means; (2) of the right of ciphers.
that since the cases at bar involve the legitimacy of the association for purposes of human life and which are not
government of respondent Arroyo, ergo, they present a political contrary to public means; and (3) of the right to send petitions to Needless to state, the cases at bar pose legal and not political
question. A more cerebral reading of the cited cases will show the authorities, individually or collectively. These fundamental questions. The principal issues for resolution require the proper
that they are inapplicable. In the cited cases, we held that the rights were preserved when the United States acquired interpretation of certain provisions in the 1987 Constitution,
government of former President Aquino was the result of a jurisdiction over the Philippines. In the instruction to the Second notably section 1 of Article II,[74] and section 8[75]of Article
successful revolution by the sovereign people, albeit a peaceful Philippine Commission of April 7, 1900 issued by President VII, and the allocation of governmental powers under section
one. No less than the Freedom Constitution[63] declared that the McKinley, it is specifically provided that no law shall be passed 11[76] of Article VII. The issues likewise call for a ruling on the
Aquino government was installed through a direct exercise of abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of the rights scope of presidential immunity from suit. They also involve the
the power of the Filipino people in defiance of the provisions of of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the correct calibration of the right of petitioner against prejudicial
the 1973 Constitution, as amended. It is familiar learning that Government for redress of grievances. The guaranty was carried publicity. As early as the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison,[77]
the legitimacy of a government sired by a successful revolution over in the Philippine Bill, the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902 the doctrine has been laid down that it is emphatically the
by people power is beyond judicial scrutiny for that government and the Jones Law, the Act of Congress of August 29, 1966.[66] province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law
automatically orbits out of the constitutional loop. In checkered is . . . Thus, respondents invocation of the doctrine of political is
contrast, the government of respondent Arroyo is not Thence on, the guaranty was set in stone in our 1935 but a foray in the dark.
revolutionary in character. The oath that she took at the EDSA Constitution,[67] and the 1973[68] Constitution. These rights
Shrine is the oath under the 1987 Constitution.[64] In her oath, are now safely ensconced in section 4, Article III of the 1987 II
she categorically swore to preserve and defend the 1987 Constitution, viz:
Constitution. Indeed, she has stressed that she is discharging the Whether or not the petitioner resigned as President
powers of the presidency under the authority of the 1987 Sec. 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech,
Constitution. of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people We now slide to the second issue. None of the parties considered
peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress this issue as posing a political question. Indeed, it involves a
In fine, the legal distinction between EDSA People Power I and of grievances. legal question whose factual ingredient is determinable from the
EDSA People Power II is clear. EDSA I involves the exercise of records of the case and by resort to judicial notice. Petitioner
the people power of revolution which overthrew the whole The indispensability of the peoples freedom of speech and of denies he resigned as President or that he suffers from a
government. EDSA II is an exercise of people power of freedom assembly to democracy is now self-evident. The reasons are well permanent disability. Hence, he submits that the office of the
of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the government put by Emerson: first, freedom of expression is essential as a President was not vacant when respondent Arroyo took her oath
for redress of grievances which only affected the office of the means of assuring individual fulfillment; second, it is an as president.
President. EDSA I is extra constitutional and the legitimacy of essential process for advancing knowledge and discovering
the new government that resulted from it cannot be the subject truth; third, it is essential to provide for participation in decision-

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 8 | 36

The issue brings under the microscope of the meaning of section Representatives. Soon, petitioners powerful political allies began never leave the country.[84] At 10:00 p.m., petitioner revealed
8, Article VII of the Constitution which provides: deserting him. Respondent Arroyo quit as Secretary of Social to Secretary Angara, Ed, Angie (Reyes) guaranteed that I would
Welfare. Senate President Drilon and Former Speaker Villar have five days to a week in the palace.[85] This is proof that
Sec. 8. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from defected with 47 representatives in tow. Then, his respected petitioner had reconciled himself to the reality that he had to
office or resignation of the President, the Vice President shall senior economic advisers resigned together with his Secretary of resign. His mind was already concerned with the five-day grace
become the President to serve the unexpired term. In case of Trade and Industry. period he could stay in the palace. It was a matter of time.
death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation
of both the President and Vice President, the President of the As the political isolation of the petitioner worsened, the peoples The pressure continued piling up. By 11:00 p.m., former
Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of call for his resignation intensified. The call reached a new President Ramos called up Secretary Angara and requested, Ed,
Representatives, shall then acts as President until President or crescendo when the eleven (11) members of the impeachment magtulungan tayo para magkaroon tayo ng (lets cooperate to
Vice President shall have been elected and qualified. tribunal refused to open the second envelope. It sent the people ensure a) peaceful and orderly transfer of power.[86] There was
to paroxysms of outrage. Before the night of January 16 was no defiance to the request. Secretary Angara readily agreed.
x x x. over, the EDSA Shrine was swarming with people crying for Again, we note that at this stage, the problem was already about
redress of their grievance. Their number grew exponentially. a peaceful and orderly transfer of power. The resignation of the
The issue then is whether the petitioner resigned as President or Rallies and demonstration quickly spread to the countryside like petitioner was implied.
should be considered resigned as of January 20, 2001 when a brush fire.
respondent took her oath as the 14th President of the Republic. The first negotiation for a peaceful and orderly transfer of power
Resignation is not a high level legal abstraction. It is a factual As events approached January 20, we can have an authoritative immediately started at 12:20 a.m. of January 20, that fateful
question and its elements are beyond quibble: there must be an window on the state of mind of the petitioner. The window is Saturday. The negotiation was limited to three (3) points: (1) the
intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of provided in the Final Days of Joseph Ejercito Estrada, the diary transition period of five days after the petitioners resignation; (2)
relinquishment.[78] The validity of a resignation is not governed of Executive Secretary Angara serialized in the Philippine Daily the guarantee of the safety of the petitioner and his family, and
by any formal requirement as to form. It can be oral. It can be Inquirer.[79] The Angara Diary reveals that in morning of (3) the agreement to open the second envelope to vindicate the
written. It can be express. It can be implied. As long as the January 19, petitioners loyal advisers were worried about the name of the petitioner.[87] Again, we note that the resignation
resignation is clear, it must be given legal effect. swelling of the crowd at EDSA, hence, they decided to crate an of petitioner was not a disputed point. The petitioner cannot
ad hoc committee to handle it. Their worry would worsen. At feign ignorance of this fact. According to Secretary Angara, at
In the cases at bar, the facts shows that petitioner did not write 1:20 p.m., petitioner pulled Secretary Angara into his small 2:30 a.m., he briefed the petitioner on the three points and the
any formal letter of resignation before he evacuated Malacaang office at the presidential residence and exclaimed: Ed, seryoso following entry in the Angara Diary shows the reaction of the
Palace in the Afternoon of January 20, 2001 after the oath- na ito. Kumalas na si Angelo (Reyes) (Ed, this is serious. petitioner, viz:
taking of respondent Arroyo. Consequently, whether or not Angelo has defected.)[80] An hour later or at 2:30, p.m., the
petitioner resigned has to be determined from his acts and petitioner decided to call for a snap presidential election and xxx
omissions before, during and after January 20, 2001 or by the stressed he would not be a candidate. The proposal for a snap
totality of prior, contemporaneous and posterior facts and election for president in May where he would not be a candidate I explain what happened during the first round of negotiations.
circumstantial evidence bearing a material relevance on the is an indicium that petitioner had intended to give up the The President immediately stresses that he just wants the five-
issue. presidency even at that time. At 3:00 p.m., General Reyes joined day period promised by Reyes, as well as to open the second
the sea of EDSA demonstrators demanding the resignation of envelope to clear his name.
Using this totality test, we hold that petitioner resigned as the petitioner and dramatically announced the AFPs withdrawal
President. of support from the petitioner and their pledge of support to If the envelope is opened, on Monday, he says, he will leave by
respondent Arroyo. The seismic shift of support left petitioner Monday.
To appreciate the public pressure that led to the resignation of weak as a president. According to Secretary Angara, he asked
the petitioner, it is important to follow the succession of events Senator Pimentel to advise petitioner to consider the option of The President says. Pagod na pagod na ako. Ayoko na masyado
after the expos of Governor Singson. The Senate Blue Ribbon dignified exit or resignation.[81] Petitioner did nor disagree but nang masakit. Pagod na ako sa red tape, bureaucracy, intriga. (I
Committee investigated. The more detailed revelations of listened intently.[82] The sky was falling fast on the petitioner. am very tired. I dont want any more of this its too painful. Im
petitioners alleged misgovernance in the Blue Ribbon At 9:30 p.m., Senator Pimentel repeated to the petitioner the tired of the red tape, the bureaucracy, the intrigue.)
investigation spiked the hate against him. The Articles of urgency of making a graceful and dignified exit. He gave the
Impeachment filed in the House of Representatives which proposal a sweetener by saying that petitioner would allowed to I just want to clear my name, then I will go.[88]
initially was given a near cipher chance of succeeding go abroad with enough funds to support him and his family.[83]
snowballed. In express speed, it gained the signatures of 115 Significantly, the petitioner expressed no objection to the
representatives or more than 1/3 of the House of suggestion for a graceful and dignified exit but said he would

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 9 | 36

Again, this is high grade evidence that the petitioner has 1. A transition will occur and take place on Wednesday, 24 According to Secretary Angara, the draft agreement which was
resigned. The intent to resign is clear when he said x x x Ayoko January 2001, at which time President Joseph Ejercito Estrada premised on the resignation of the petitioner was further refined.
na masyado nang masakit. Ayoko na are words of resignation. will turn over the presidency to Vice President Gloria It was then signed by their side and he was ready to fax it to
Macapagal-Arroyo. General Reyes and Senator Pimentel to await the signature of
The second round of negotiation resumed at 7:30 a.m. the United Opposition. However, the signing by the party of the
According to the Angara Diary, the following happened: 2. In return, President Estrada and his families are guaranteed respondent Arroyo was aborted by her oath-taking. The Angara
security and safety of their person and property throughout their Diary narrates the fateful events, viz:[90]
Oppositions deal natural lifetimes. Likewise, President Estrada and his families
are guaranteed freedom from persecution or retaliation from xxx
7:30 a.m. Rene arrives with Bert Romulo and (Ms. Macapagals government and the private sector throughout their natural
spokesperson) Rene Corona. For this round, I am accompanied lifetimes. 11:00 a.m. Between General Reyes and myself, there is a firm
by Dondon Bagatsing and Macel. agreement on the five points to effect a peaceful transition. I can
This commitment shall be guaranteed by the Armed Forces of hear the general clearing all these points with a group he is with.
Rene pulls out a document titled Negotiating Points. It reads: the Philippines (AFP) through the Chief of Staff, as approved by I hear voices in the background.
the national military and police authorities Vice President
1. The President shall sign a resignation document within the (Macapagal). Agreement
day, 20 January 2001, that will be effective on Wednesday, 24
January 2001, on which day the Vice President will assume the 3. Both parties shall endeavor to ensure that the Senate siting as The agreement starts: 1. The President shall resign today, 20
Presidency of the Republic of the Philippines. an impeachment court will authorize the opening of the second January 2001, which resignation shall be effective on 24 January
envelope in the impeachment trial as proof that the subject 2001, on which day the Vice President will assume the
2. Beginning today, 20 January 2001, the transition process for savings account does not belong to President Estrada. presidency of the Republic of the Philippines.
the assumption of the new administration shall commence, and
persons designated by the Vice president to various positions 4. During the five-day transition period between 20 January xxx
and offices of the government shall start their orientation 2001 and 24 January 2001 (the Transition Period), the incoming
activities in coordination with the incumbent officials Cabinet members shall receive an appropriate briefing from the The rest of the agreement follows:
concerned. outgoing Cabinet officials as part of the orientation program.
2. The transition process for the assumption of the new
3. The Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine During the Transition Period, the AFP and the Philippine administration shall commence on 20 January 2001, wherein
National Police shall function under the Vice President as National Police (PNP) shall function under Vice President persons designated by the Vice President to various government
national military and police effective immediately. (Macapagal) as national military and police authorities. positions shall start orientation activities with incumbent
officials.
4. The Armed Forces of the Philippines, through its Chief of Both parties hereto agree that the AFP chief of staff and PNP
Staff, shall guarantee the security of the president and his family director general shall obtain all the necessary signatures as 3. The Armed Forces of the Philippines through its Chief of
as approved by the national military and police authority (Vice affixed to this agreement and insure faithful implementation and Staff, shall guarantee the safety and security of the President and
President). observance thereof. his families throughout their natural lifetimes as approved by the
national military and police authority Vice President.
5. It is to be noted that the Senate will open the second envelope Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo shall issue a public
in connection with the alleged savings account of the President statement in the form and tenor provided for in Annex A 4. The AFP and the Philippine National Police (PNP) shall
in the Equitable PCI Bank in accordance with the rules of the heretofore attached to this agreement.[89] function under the Vice President as national military and police
Senate, pursuant to the request to the Senate President. authorities.
The second round of negotiation cements the reading that the
Our deal petitioner has resigned. It will be noted that during this second 5. Both parties request the impeachment court to open the
round of negotiation, the resignation of the petitioner was again second envelope in the impeachment trial, the contents of which
We bring out, too, our discussion draft which reads: treated as a given fact. The only unsettled points at that time shall be offered as proof that the subject savings account does
were the measures to be undertaken by the parties during and not belong to the President.
The undersigned parties, for and in behalf of their respective after the transition period.
principals, agree and undertake as follows:

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 10 | 36

The Vice President shall issue a public statement in the form and 12:20 p.m. The PSG distributes firearms to some people inside the Republic albeit with the reservation about its legality; (2) he
tenor provided for in Annex B heretofore attached to this the compound. emphasized he was leaving the Palace, the seat of the
agreement. presidency, for the sake of peace and in order to begin the
The President is having his final meal at the Presidential healing process of our nation. He did not say he was leaving the
xxx Residence with the few friends and Cabinet members who have Palace due to any kind of inability and that he was going to re-
gathered. assume the presidency as soon as the disability disappears; (3)
11:20 a.m. I am all set to fax General Reyes and Nene Pimentel he expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to
our agreement, signed by our side and awaiting the signature of By this time, demonstrators have already broken down the first serve them. Without doubt, he was referring to the past
the United Opposition. line of defense at Mendiola. Only the PSG is there to protect the opportunity given him to serve the people as President; (4) he
Palace, since the police and military have already withdrawn assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge that may
And then it happens. General Reyes calls me to say that the their support for the President. come ahead in the same service of our country. Petitioners
Supreme Court has decided that Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is reference is to a future challenge after occupying the office of
President and will be sworn in at 12 noon. 1 p.m. The Presidents personal staff is rushing to pack as many the president which he has given up; and (5) he called on his
of the Estrada familys personal possessions as they can. supporters to join him in the promotion of a constructive
Bakit hindi naman kayo nakahintay? Paano na ang agreement national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity. Certainly, the
(Why couldnt you wait? What about the agreement)? I asked. During lunch, Ronie Puno mentions that the President needs to national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity could not be
release a final statement before leaving Malacaang. attained if he did not give up the presidency. The press release
Reyes answered: Wala na, sir (Its over, sir). was petitioners valedictory, his final act of farewell. His
The statement reads: At twelve oclock noon today, Vice presidency is now in the past tense.
I asked him: Di yung transition period, moot and academic na? President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo took her oath as President
of the Republic of the Philippines. While along with many other It is, however, urged that the petitioner did not resign but only
And General Reyes answer: Oo nga, i-delete na natin, sir (Yes, legal minds of our country, I have strong and serious doubts took a temporary leave of absence due to his inability to govern.
were deleting that part). about the legality and constitutionality of her proclamation as In support of this thesis, the letter dated January 20, 2001 of the
president, I do not wish to be a factor that will prevent the petitioner sent to Senate President Pimentel and Speaker
Contrary to subsequent reports, I do not react and say that there restoration of unity and order in our civil society. Fuentebella is cited. Again, we refer to the said letter, viz:
was a double cross.
It is for this reason that I now leave Malacaang Palace, the seat Sir
But I immediately instruct Macel to delete the first provision on of the presidency of this country, for the sake of peace and in
resignation since this matter is already moot and academic. order to begin the healing process of our nation. I leave the By virtue of the provisions of Section II, Article VII of the
Within moments, Macel erases the first provision and faxes the Palace of our people with gratitude for the opportunities given to Constitution, I am hereby transmitting this declaration that I am
documents, which have been signed by myself, Dondon and me for service to our people. I will not shrik from any future unable to exercise the powers and duties of my office. By
Macel to Nene Pimentel and General Reyes. challenges that may come ahead in the same service of our operation of law and the Constitution, the Vice President shall
country. be the Acting President.
I direct Demaree Ravel to rush the original document to General
Reyes for the signatures of the other side, as it is important that I call on all my supporters and followers to join me in the (Sgd.) Joseph Ejercito Estrada
the provision on security, at least, should be respected. promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and
solidarity. To say the least, the above letter is wrapped in mystery.[91] The
I then advise the President that the Supreme Court has ruled that pleadings filed by the petitioner in the cases at bar did not
Chief Justice Davide will administer the oath to Gloria at 12 May the Almighty bless our country and our beloved people. discuss, nay even intimate, the circumstances that led to its
noon. preparation. Neither did the counsel of the petitioner reveal to
MABUHAY! the Court these circumstances during the oral argument. It
The president is too stunned for words. strikes the Court as strange that the letter, despite its legal value,
It was curtain time for the petitioner. was never referred to by the petitioner during the week-long
Final meal crisis. To be sure, there was not the slightest hint of its existence
In sum, we hold that the resignation of the petitioner cannot be when he issued his final press release. It was all too easy for him
12 noon Gloria takes her oath as President of the Republic of the doubted. It was confirmed by his leaving Malacaang. In the to tell the Filipino people in his press release that he was
Philippines. press release containing his final statement, (1) he temporarily unable to govern and that he was leaving the reins
acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President of of government to respondent Arroyo for the time being. Under

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 11 | 36

any circumstance, however, the mysterious letter cannot negate and insisted that the Presidents immunity should extend even judges voted against the opening of the second envelope, the
the resignation of the petitioner. If it was prepared before the after his tenure. public and private prosecutors walked out, the public
press release of the petitioner clearly showing his resignation prosecutors filed their Manifestation of Withdrawal of
from the presidency, then the resignation must prevail as a later Senate Bill No. 571, which was substantially similar to Senate Appearance, and the proceedings were postponed indefinitely.
act. If, however, it was prepared after the press release, still, it Bill No. 293, was thereafter passed. Section 15 above became There was, in effect, no impeachment case pending against
commands scant legal significance. Petitioners resignation from section 13 under the new bill, but the deliberations on this petitioner when he resigned.
the presidency cannot be the subject of a changing caprice nor of particular provision mainly focused on the immunity of the
a whimsical will especially if the resignation is the result of his President which was one of the reasons for the veto of the III
repudiation by the people. There is another reason why this original bill. There was hardly any debate on the prohibition
Court cannot give any legal significance to petitioners letter and against the resignation or retirement of a public official with Whether or not the petitioner is only temporarily unable to act as
this shall be discussed in issue number III of this Decision. pending criminal and administrative cases against him. Be that President.
as it may, the intent of the law ought to be obvious. It is to
After petitioner contended that as a matter of fact he did not prevent the act of resignation or retirement from being used by a We shall now tackle the contention of the petitioner that he is
resign, he also argues that he could not resign as a matter of law. public official as a protective shield to stop the investigation of a merely temporarily unable to perform the powers and duties of
He relies on section 12 of RA No. 3019, otherwise known as the pending criminal or administrative case against him and to the presidency, and hence is a President on leave. As
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which allegedly prohibits prevent his prosecution under the Anti-Graft Law or prosecution aforestated, the inability claim is contained in the January 20,
his resignation, viz: for bribery under the Revised Penal Code. To be sure, no person 2001 letter of petitioner sent on the same day to Senate President
can be compelled to render service for that would be a violation Pimentel and Speaker Fuentebella.
Sec. 12. No public officer shall be allowed to resign or retire of his constitutional right.[94] A public official has the right not
pending an investigation, criminal or administrative, or pending to serve if he really wants to retire or resign. Nevertheless, if at Petitioner postulates that respondent Arroyo as Vice President
a prosecution against him, for any offense under this Act or the time he resigns or retires, a public official is facing has no power to adjudge the inability of the petitioner to
under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery. administrative or criminal investigation or prosecution, such discharge the powers and duties of the presidency. His
resignation or retirement will not cause the dismissal of the significant submittal is that Congress has the ultimate authority
A reading of the legislative history of RA No. 3019 will hardly criminal or administrative proceedings against him. He cannot under the Constitution to determine whether the President is
provide any comfort to the petitioner. RA No. 3019 originated use his resignation or retirement to avoid prosecution. incapable of performing his functions in the manner provided
from Senate Bill No. 293. The original draft of the bill, when it for in section 11 of Article VII.[95] This contention is the
was submitted to the Senate, did not contain a provision similar There is another reason why petitioners contention should be centerpiece of petitioners stance that he is a President on leave
to section 12 of the law as it now stands. However, in his rejected. In the cases at bar, the records show that when and respondent Arroyo is only an Acting President.
sponsorship speech, Senator Arturo Tolentino, the author of the petitioner resigned on January 20, 2001, the cases filed against
bill, reserved to propose during the period of amendments the him before the Ombudsman were OMB Case Nos. 0-00-1629, 0- An examination of section 11, Article VII is in order. It
inclusion of a provision to the effect that no public official who 00-1755, 0-00-1756, 0-00-1757 and 0-00-1758. While these provides:
is under prosecution for any act of graft or corruption, or is cases have been filed, the respondent Ombudsman refrained
under administrative investigation, shall be allowed to from conducting the preliminary investigation of the petitioner SEC. 11. Whenever the President transmit to the President of the
voluntarily resign or retire.[92] During the period of for the reason that as the sitting President then, petitioner was Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his
amendments, the following provision was inserted as section 15: immune from suit. Technically, the said cases cannot be written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and
considered as pending for the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction to duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written
Sec. 15. Termination of office No public official shall be act on them. Section 12 of RA No. 3019 cannot therefore be declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be
allowed to resign or retire pending an investigation, criminal or invoked by the petitioner for it contemplates of cases whose discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President.
administrative, or pending a prosecution against him, for any investigation or prosecution do not suffer from any insuperable
offense under the Act or under the provisions of the Revised legal obstacle like the immunity from suit of a sitting President. Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit
Penal Code on bribery. to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of
Petitioner contends that the impeachment proceeding is an Representatives their written declaration that the President is
The separation or cessation of a public official from office shall administrative investigation that, under section 12 of RA 3019, unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-
not be a bar to his prosecution under this Act for an offense bars him from resigning. We hold otherwise. The exact nature of President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the
committed during his incumbency.[93] an impeachment proceeding is debatable. But even assuming office as Acting President.
arguendo that it is an administrative proceeding, it can not be
The bill was vetoed by then President Carlos P. Garcia who considered pending at the time petitioner resigned because the Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of the
questioned the legality of the second paragraph of the provision process already broke down when a majority of the senator- Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives his

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 12 | 36

written declaration that no inability exists, he shall reassume the
powers and duties of his office. Meanwhile, should a majority of WHEREAS, upon authority of an en banc resolution of the Speaker
all the Members of the Cabinet transmit within five days to the Supreme Court, Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was
President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of sworn in as President of the Philippines on 20 January 2001 This Resolution was adopted by the House of Representatives
Representatives their written declaration that the President is before Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.; on January 24, 2001.
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the
Congress shall decide the issue. For that purpose, the Congress WHEREAS, immediately thereafter, members of the (Sgd.) ROBERTO P. NAZARENO
shall convene, if it is not in session, within forty-eight hours, in international community had extended their recognition to Her
accordance with its rules and without need of call. Excellency, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Secretary General
Republic of the Philippines;
If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written On February 7, 2001, the House of the Representatives passed
declaration, or, if not in session within twelve days after it is WHEREAS, Her Excellency, President Gloria Macapagal- House Resolution No. 178[98] which states:
required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both Arroyo has espoused a policy of national healing and
Houses, voting separately, that the President is unable to reconciliation with justice for the purpose of national unity and RESOLUTION CONFIRMING PRESIDENT GLORIA
discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President development; MACAPAGAL-ARROYOS NOMINATION OF SENATOR
shall act as President; otherwise, the President shall continue TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. AS VICE PRESIDENT OF
exercising the powers and duties of his office." WHEREAS, it is axiomatic that the obligations of the THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
government cannot be achieved if it is divided, thus by reason of
That is the law. Now the operative facts: the constitutional duty of the House of Representatives as an WHEREAS, there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice
institution and that of the individual members thereof of fealty to President due to the assumption to the Presidency of Vice
(1) Petitioner, on January 20, 2001, sent the above letter the supreme will of the people, the House of Representatives President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo;
claiming inability to the Senate President and Speaker of the must ensure to the people a stable, continuing government and
House; therefore must remove all obstacles to the attainment thereof; WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9, Article VII of the
Constitution, the President in the event of such vacancy shall
(2) Unaware of the letter, respondent Arroyo took her oath of WHEREAS, it is a concomitant duty of the House of nominate a Vice President from among the members of the
office as President on January 20, 2001 at about 12:30 p.m.; Representatives to exert all efforts to unify the nation, to Senate and the House of Representatives who shall assume
eliminate fractious tension, to heal social and political wounds, office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all members of
(3) Despite receipt of the letter, the House of Representative and to be an instrument of national reconciliation and solidarity both Houses voting separately;
passed on January 24, 2001 House Resolution No. 175;[96] as it is a direct representative of the various segments of the
whole nation; WHEREAS, Her Excellency, President Gloria Macapagal-
On the same date, the House of the Representatives passed Arroyo has nominated Senate Minority Leader Teofisto T.
House Resolution No. 176[97]which states: WHEREAS, without surrendering its independence, it is vital Guingona Jr., to the position of Vice President of the Republic
for the attainment of all the foregoing, for the House of of the Philippines;
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SUPPORT OF THE Representatives to extend its support and collaboration to the
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE ASSUMPTION administration of Her Excellency, President Gloria Macapagal- WHEREAS, Senator Teofisto T. Guingona Jr., is a public
INTO OFFICE BY VICE PRESIDENT GLORIA Arroyo, and to be a constructive partner in nation-building, the servant endowed with integrity, competence and courage; who
MACAPAGAL-ARROYO AS PRESIDENT OF THE national interest demanding no less: Now, therefore, be it has served the Filipino people with dedicated responsibility and
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, EXTENDING ITS patriotism;
CONGRATULATIONS AND EXPRESSING ITS SUPPORT Resolved by the House of Representatives, To express its
FOR HER ADMINISTRATION AS A PARTNER IN THE support to the assumption into office by Vice President Gloria WHEREAS, Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. possesses
ATTAINMENT OF THE NATIONS GOALS UNDER THE Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Republic of the sterling qualities of true statesmanship, having served the
CONSTITUTION Philippines, to extend its congratulations and to express its government in various capacities, among others, as Delegate to
support for her administration as a partner in the attainment of the Constitutional Convention, Chairman of the Commission on
WHEREAS, as a consequence of the peoples loss of confidence the Nations goals under the Constitution. Audit, Executive Secretary, Secretary of Justice, Senator of the
on the ability of former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada to Philippines - qualities which merit his nomination to the position
effectively govern, the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Adopted, of Vice President of the Republic: Now, therefore, be it
Philippine National Police and majority of his cabinet had
withdrawn support from him; (Sgd.) FELICIANO BELMONTE JR.

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 13 | 36

Resolved as it is hereby resolved by the House of WHEREAS, there is it vacancy in the Office of the Vice- RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THAT THE
Representatives, That the House of Representatives confirms the President due to the assumption to the Presidency of Vice IMPEACHMENT COURT IS FUNCTUS OFFICIO
nomination of Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. as the Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo;
President of the Republic of the Philippines. Resolved, as it is hereby resolved. That the Senate recognize that
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9 Article VII of the the Impeachment Court is functus officio and has been
Adopted, Constitution, the President in the event of such vacancy shall terminated.
nominate a Vice President from among the members of the
(Sgd) FELICIANO BELMONTE JR. Senate and the House of Representatives who shall assume Resolved, further, That the Journals of the Impeachment Court
office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all members of of Monday, January 15, Tuesday, January 16 and Wednesday,
Speaker both Houses voting separately; January 17, 2001 be considered approved.

This Resolution was adopted by the House of Representatives WHEREAS, Her Excellency, President Gloria Macapagal- Resolved, further, That the records of the Impeachment Court
on February 7, 2001. Arroyo has nominated Senate Minority Leader Teofisto T. including the second envelope be transferred to the Archives of
Guingona, Jr. to the position of Vice President of the Republic the Senate for proper safekeeping and preservation in
(Sgd.) ROBERTO P. NAZARENO of the Phillippines; accordance with the Rules of the Senate. Disposition and
retrieval thereof shall be made only upon written approval of the
Secretary General WHEREAS, Sen. Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. is a public servant Senate President.
endowed with integrity, competence, and courage; who has
(4) Also, despite receipt of petitioners letter claiming inability, served the Filipino people with dedicated responsibility and Resolved, finally. That all parties concerned be furnished copies
some twelve (12) members of the Senate signed the following: patriotism; of this Resolution.

RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Sen. Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. possesses sterling Adopted,

qualities of true statesmanship, having served the government in
WHEREAS, the recent transition in government offers the various capacities, among others, as Delegate to the (Sgd.) AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR.
nation an opportunity for meaningful change and challenge; Constitutional Convention, Chairman of the Commission on
Audit, Executive Secretary, Secretary of Justice. Senator of the President of the Senate
WHEREAS, to attain desired changes and overcome awesome land - which qualities merit his nomination to the position of
challenges the nation needs unity of purpose and resolute Vice President of the Republic: Now, therefore, be it This Resolution was adopted by the Senate on February 7, 2001.
cohesive resolute (sic) will;
Resolved, as it is hereby resolved, That the Senate confirm the (Sgd.) LUTGARDO B. BARBO
WHEREAS, the Senate of the Philippines has been the forum nomination of Sen. Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. as Vice President
for vital legislative measures in unity despite diversities in of the Republic of the Philippines. Secretary of the Senate
perspectives;
Adopted, (5) On February 8, the Senate also passed Resolution No. 84
WHEREFORE, we recognize and express support to the new certifying to the existence of a vacancy in the Senate and calling
government of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and resolve (Sgd.) AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL JR. on the COMELEC to fill up such vacancy through election to be
to discharge our duties to attain desired changes and overcome held simultaneously with the regular election on May 14, 2001
the nations challenges.[99] President of the Senate and the senatorial candidate garnering the thirteenth (13th)
highest number of votes shall serve only for the unexpired term
On February 7, the Senate also passed Senate Resolution No. This Resolution was adopted by the Senate on February 7, 2001. of Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr.
82[100] which states:
(Sgd.) LUTGARDO B. BARBO (6) Both houses of Congress started sending bills to be signed
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING PRESIDENT GLORIA into law by respondent Arroyo as President.
MACAPAGAL-ARROYOS NOMINATION OF SEN. Secretary of the Senate
TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. AS VICE PRESIDENT OF (7) Despite the lapse of time and still without any functioning
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES On the same date, February 7, the Senate likewise passed Senate Cabinet, without any recognition from any sector of
Resolution No. 83[101] which states: government, and without any support from the Armed Forces of
the Philippines and the Philippine National Police, the petitioner

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 14 | 36

continues to claim that his inability to govern is only case law. In the 1910 case of Forbes, etc. vs. Chuoco tiaco and actually used discretion and judgment, that is, the judicial
momentary. Crossfield,[104] the respondent Tiaco, a Chinese citizen, sued faculty, in determining whether he had authority to act or not. In
petitioner W. Cameron Forbes, Governor-General of the other words, he is entitled to protection in determining the
What leaps to the eye from these irrefutable facts is that both Philippine Islands, J.E. Harding and C.R. Trowbridge, Chief of question of his authority. If he decide wrongly, he is still
houses of Congress have recognized respondent Arroyo as the Police and Chief of the Secret Service of the City of Manila, protected provided the question of his authority was one over
President. Implicitly clear in that recognition is the premise that respectively, for damages for allegedly conspiring to deport him which two men, reasonably qualified for that position, might
the inability of petitioner Estrada is no longer temporary. to China. In granting a writ of prohibition, this Court, speaking honestly differ; but he is not protected if the lack of authority to
Congress has clearly rejected petitioners claim of inability. thru Mr. Justice Johnson, held: act is so plain that two such men could not honestly differ over
its determination. In such case, he acts, not as Governor-General
The question is whether this Court has jurisdiction to review the The principle of nonliability, as herein enunciated, does not but as a private individual, and, as such, must answer for the
claim of temporary inability of petitioner Estrada and thereafter mean that the judiciary has no authority to touch the acts of the consequences of his act.
revise the decision of both Houses of Congress recognizing Governor-General; that he may, under cover of his office, do
respondent Arroyo as President of the Philippines. Following what he will, unimpeded and unrestrained. Such a construction Mr. Justice Johnson underscored the consequences if the Chief
Taada v. Cuenco,[102] we hold that this Court cannot exercise would mean that tyranny, under the guise of the execution of the Executive was not granted immunity from suit, viz: x x x.
its judicial power for this is an issue in regard to which full law, could walk defiantly abroad, destroying rights of person Action upon important matters of state delayed; the time and
discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislative x x and of property, wholly free from interference of courts or substance of the chief executive spent in wrangling litigation;
x branch of the government. Or to use the language in Baker vs. legislatures. This does not mean, either, that a person injured by disrespect engendered for the person of one of the highest
Carr,[103] there is a textually demonstrable constitutional the executive authority by an act unjustifiable under the law has officials of the State and for the office he occupies; a tendency
commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department or no remedy, but must submit in silence. On the contrary, it to unrest and disorder; resulting in a way, in a distrust as to the
a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for means, simply, that the Governor-General, like the judges of the integrity of government itself.[105]
resolving it. Clearly, the Court cannot pass upon petitioners courts and the members of the Legislature, may not be
claim of inability to discharge the powers and duties of the personally mulcted in civil damages for the consequences of an Our 1935 Constitution took effect but it did not contain any
presidency. The question is political in nature and addressed act executed in the performance of his official duties. The specific provision on executive immunity. Then came the tumult
solely to Congress by constitutional fiat. It is a political issue judiciary has full power to, and will, when the matter is properly of the martial law years under the late President Ferdinand E.
which cannot be decided by this Court without transgressing the presented to it and the occasion justly warrants it, declare an act Marcos and the 1973 Constitution was born. In 1981, it was
principle of separation of powers. of the Governor-General illegal and void and place as nearly as amended and one of the amendments involved executive
possible in status quo any person who has been deprived his immunity. Section 17, Article VII stated:
In fine, even if the petitioner can prove that he did not resign, liberty or his property by such act. This remedy is assured to
still, he cannot successfully claim that he is a President on leave every person, however humble or of whatever country, when his The President shall be immune from suit during his tenure.
on the ground that he is merely unable to govern temporarily. personal or property rights have been invaded, even by the Thereafter, no suit whatsoever shall lie for official acts done by
That claim has been laid to rest by Congress and the decision highest authority of the state. The thing which the judiciary can him or by others pursuant to his specific orders during his
that respondent Arroyo is the de jure President made by a co- not do is mulct the Governor-General personally in damages tenure.
equal branch of government cannot be reviewed by this Court. which result from the performance of his official duty, any more
that it can a member of the Philippine Commission or the The immunities herein provided shall apply to the incumbent
IV Philippine Assembly. Public policy forbids it. President referred to in Article XVII of this Constitution.

Whether or not the petitioner enjoys immunity from suit. Neither does this principle of nonliability mean that the chief In his second Vicente G. Sinco Professional Chair Lecture
Assuming he enjoys immunity, the extent of the immunity executive may not be personally sued at all in relation to acts entitled, Presidential Immunity And All The Kings Men: The
which he claims to perform as such official. On the contrary, it Law Of Privilege As A Defense To Actions For Damages,[106]
Petitioner Estrada makes two submissions: first, the cases filed clearly appears from the discussion heretofore had, particularly petitioners learned counsel, former Dean of the UP college of
against him before the respondent Ombudsman should be that portion which touched the liability of judges and drew an Law, Atty. Pacifico Agabin, brightlined the modifications
prohibited because he has not been convicted in the analogy between such liability and that of the Governor- effected by this constitutional amendment on the existing law on
impeachment proceedings against him; and second, he enjoys General, that the latter is liable when he acts in a case so plainly executive privilege. To quote his disquisition:
immunity from all kinds of suit, whether criminal or civil. outside of his power and authority that he can not be said to
have exercise discretion in determining whether or not he had In the Philippines, though, we sought to do the Americans one
Before resolving petitioners contentions, a revisit of our legal the right to act. What is held here is that he will be protected better by enlarging and fortifying the absolute immunity
history on executive immunity will be most enlightening. The from personal liability for damages not only when he acts within concept. First, we extended it to shield the President not only
doctrine of executive immunity in this jurisdiction emerged as a his authority, but also when he is without authority, provided he from civil claims but also from criminal cases and other claims.

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 15 | 36

Second, we enlarged its scope so that it would cover even acts of Mr. Suarez. On that understanding, I will not press for any more his criminal prosecution before the Ombudsman that he be
the President outside the scope of official duties. And third, we query, Madam President. convicted in the impeachment proceedings. His reliance in the
broadened its coverage so as to include not only the President case of Lecaroz vs. Sandiganbayan[112] and related
but also other persons, be they government officials or private I thank the Commissioner for the clarification. cases[113]are inapropos for they have a different factual milieu.
individuals, who acted upon orders of the President. It can be
said that at that point most of us were suffering from AIDS (or We shall now rule on the contentions of petitioner in the light of We now come to the scope of immunity that can be claimed by
absolute immunity defense syndrome). this history. We reject his argument that he cannot be prosecuted petitioner as a non-sitting President. The cases filed against
for the reason that he must first be convicted in the impeachment petitioner Estrada are criminal in character. They involve
The Opposition in the then Batasan Pambansa sought the repeal proceedings. The impeachment trial of petitioner Estrada was plunder, bribery and graft and corruption. By no stretch of the
of this Marcosian concept of executive immunity in the 1973 aborted by the walkout of the prosecutors and by the events that imagination can these crimes, especially plunder which carries
Constitution. The move was led by then Member of Parliament, led to his loss of the presidency. Indeed, on February 7, 2001, the death penalty, be covered by the allege mantle of immunity
now Secretary of Finance, Alberto Romulo, who argued that the the Senate passed Senate Resolution No. 83 Recognizing that of a non-sitting president. Petitioner cannot cite any decision of
after incumbency immunity granted to President Marcos the Impeachment Court is Functus Officio.[109] Since the this Court licensing the President to commit criminal acts and
violated the principle that a public office is a public trust. He Impeachment Court is now functus officio, it is untenable for wrapping him with post-tenure immunity from liability. It will
denounced the immunity as a return to the anachronism the king petitioner to demand that he should first be impeached and then be anomalous to hold that immunity is an inoculation from
can do no wrong.[107] The effort failed. convicted before he can be prosecuted. The plea if granted, liability for unlawful acts and omissions. The rule is that
would put a perpetual bar against his prosecution. Such a unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the State and the
The 1973 Constitution ceased to exist when President Marcos submission has nothing to commend itself for it will place him officer who acts illegally is not acting as such but stands in the
was ousted from office by the People Power revolution in 1986. in a better situation than a non-sitting President who has not same footing as any other trespasser.[114] Indeed, a critical
When the 1987 Constitution was crafted, its framers did not been subjected to impeachment proceedings and yet can be the reading of current literature on executive immunity will reveal a
reenact the executive immunity provision of the 1973 object of a criminal prosecution. To be sure, the debates in the judicial disinclination to expand the privilege especially when it
Constitution. The following explanation was given by delegate Constitutional Commission make it clear that when impedes the search for truth or impairs the vindication of a right.
J. Bernas, viz:[108] impeachment proceedings have become moot due to the In the 1974 case of US v. Nixon,[115] US President Richard
resignation of the President, the proper criminal and civil cases Nixon, a sitting President, was subpoenaed to produce certain
Mr. Suarez. Thank you. may already be filed against him, viz:[110] recordings and documents relating to his conversations with aids
and advisers. Seven advisers of President Nixons associates
The last question is with reference to the committees omitting in xxx were facing charges of conspiracy to obstruct justice and other
the draft proposal the immunity provision for the President. I offenses which were committed in a burglary of the Democratic
agree with Commissioner Nolledo that the Committee did very Mr. Aquino. On another point, if an impeachment proceeding National Headquarters in Washingtons Watergate Hotel during
well in striking out this second sentence, at the very least, of the has been filed against the President, for example, and the the 1972 presidential campaign. President Nixon himself was
original provision on immunity from suit under the 1973 President resigns before judgment of conviction has been named an unindicted co-conspirator. President Nixon moved to
Constitution. But would the Committee members not agree to a rendered by the impeachment court or by the body, how does it quash the subpoena on the ground, among others, that the
restoration of at least the first sentence that the President shall be affect the impeachment proceeding? Will it be necessarily President was not subject to judicial process and that he should
immune from suit during his tenure, considering that if we do dropped? first be impeached and removed from office before he could be
not provide him that kind of an immunity, he might be spending made amenable to judicial proceedings. The claim was rejected
all his time facing litigations, as the President-in-exile in Hawaii Mr. Romulo. If we decide the purpose of impeachment to by the US Supreme Court. It concluded that when the ground for
is now facing litigations almost daily? remove one from office, then his resignation would render the asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a
case moot and academic. However, as the provision says, the criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in
Fr. Bernas. The reason for the omission is that we consider it criminal and civil aspects of it may continue in the ordinary confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands
understood in present jurisprudence that during his tenure he is courts. of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal
immune from suit. justice. In the 1982 case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald,[116] the US
This is in accord with our ruling in In re: Saturnino Supreme Court further held that the immunity of the President
Mr. Suarez. So there is no need to express it here. Bermudez[111]that incumbent Presidents are immune from suit from civil damages covers only official acts. Recently, the US
or from being brought to court during the period of their Supreme Court had the occasion to reiterate this doctrine in the
Fr. Bernas. There is no need. It was that way before. The only incumbency and tenure but not beyond. Considering the peculiar case of Clinton v. Jones[117] where it held that the US
innovation made by the 1973 Constitution was to make that circumstance that the impeachment process against the Presidents immunity from suits for money damages arising out
explicit and to add other things. petitioner has been aborted and thereafter he lost the presidency, of their official acts is inapplicable to unofficial conduct.
petitioner Estrada cannot demand as a condition sine qua non to

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 16 | 36

There are more reasons not to be sympathetic to appeals to substantial probability of irreparable harm, strong likelihood, there must be allegation and proof that the judges have been
stretch the scope of executive immunity in our jurisdiction. One clear and present danger, etc. unduly influenced, not simply that they might be, by the barrage
of the great themes of the 1987 Constitution is that a public of publicity. In the case at bar, the records do not show that the
office is a public trust.[118] It declared as a state policy that This is not the first time the issue of trial by publicity has been trial judge developed actual bias against appellant as a
(t)he State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public raised in this Court to stop the trials or annul convictions in high consequence of the extensive media coverage of the pre-trial and
service and take positive and effective measures against graft profile criminal cases.[127] In People vs. Teehankee, Jr.,[128] trial of his case. The totality of circumstances of the case does
and corruption."[119] It ordained that (p)ublic officers and later reiterated in the case of Larranaga vs. Court of Appeals, et not prove that the trial judge acquired a fixed opinion as a result
employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve al.,[129] we laid down the doctrine that: of prejudicial publicity which is incapable if change even by
them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and evidence presented during the trial. Appellant has the burden to
efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. We cannot sustain appellants claim that he was denied the right prove this actual bias and he has not discharged the burden.
[120] It set the rule that (t)he right of the State to recover to impartial trial due to prejudicial publicity. It is true that the
properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees, print and broadcast media gave the case at bar pervasive We expounded further on this doctrine in the subsequent case of
from them or from their nominees or transferees, shall not be publicity, just like all high profile and high stake criminal trials. Webb vs. Hon. Raul de Leon, etc.[130] and its companion cases.
barred by prescription, laches or estoppel.[121] It maintained the Then and now, we now rule that the right of an accused to a fair viz.:
Sandiganbayan as an anti-graft court.[122] It created the office trial is not incompatible to a free press. To be sure, responsible
of the Ombudsman and endowed it with enormous powers, reporting enhances an accuseds right to a fair trial for, as well Again, petitioners raise the effect of prejudicial publicity on
among which is to "(i)nvestigate on its own, or on complaint by pointed out, a responsible press has always been regarded as the their right to due process while undergoing preliminary
any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, handmaiden of effective judicial administration, especially in the investigation. We find no procedural impediment to its early
office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be criminal field x x x. The press does not simply publish invocation considering the substantial risk to their liberty while
illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.[123] The Office of the information about trials but guards against the miscarriage of undergoing a preliminary investigation.
Ombudsman was also given fiscal autonomy.[124] These justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial
constitutional policies will be devalued if we sustain petitioners processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism. xxx
claim that a non-sitting president enjoys immunity from suit for
criminal acts committed during his incumbency. Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an The democratic settings, media coverage of trials of sensational
accused to fair trial. The mere fact that the trial of appellant was cases cannot be avoided and oftentimes, its excessiveness has
V given a day-to-day, gavel-to-gavel coverage does not by itself been aggravated by kinetic developments in the
prove that the publicity so permeated the mind of the trial judge telecommunications industry. For sure, few cases can match the
Whether or not the prosecution of petitioner Estrada should be and impaired his impartiality. For one, it is impossible to seal high volume and high velocity of publicity that attended the
enjoined due to prejudicial publicity the minds of members of the bench from pre-trial and other off- preliminary investigation of the case at bar. Our daily diet of
court publicity of sensational criminal cases. The state of the art facts and fiction about the case continues unabated even today.
Petitioner also contends that the respondent Ombudsman should of our communication system brings news as they happen Commentators still bombard the public with views not too many
be stopped from conducting the investigation of the cases filed straight to our breakfast tables and right to our bedrooms. These of which are sober and sublime. Indeed, even the principal
against him due to the barrage of prejudicial publicity on his news form part of our everyday menu of the facts and fictions of actors in the case the NBI, the respondents, their lawyers and
guilt. He submits that the respondent Ombudsman has life. For another, our idea of a fair and impartial judge is not that their sympathizers have participated in this media blitz. The
developed bias and is all set to file the criminal cases in of a hermit who is out of touch with the world. We have not possibility of media abuses and their threat to a fair trial
violation of his right to due process. installed the jury system whose members are overly protected notwithstanding, criminal trials cannot be completely closed to
from publicity lest they lose their impartiality. x x x x x x x x x. the press and public. Inn the seminal case of Richmond
There are two (2) principal legal and philosophical schools of Our judges are learned in the law and trained to disregard off- Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, it was wisely held:
thought on how to deal with the rain of unrestrained publicity court evidence and on-camera performances of parties to a
during the investigation and trial of high profile cases.[125] The litigation. Their mere exposure to publications and publicity xxx
British approach the problem with the presumption that publicity stunts does not per se fatally infect their impartiality.
will prejudice a jury. Thus, English courts readily stay and stop (a) The historical evidence of the evolution of the criminal trial
criminal trials when the right of an accused to fair trial suffers a At best, appellant can only conjure possibility of prejudice on in Anglo-American justice demonstrates conclusively that the
threat.[126] The American approach is different. US courts the part of the trial judge due to the barrage of publicity that time this Nations organic laws were adopted, criminal trials both
assume a skeptical approach about the potential effect of characterized the investigation and trial of the case. In here and in England had long been presumptively open, thus
pervasive publicity on the right of an accused to a fair trial. They Martelino, et al. v. Alejandro, et al., we rejected this standard of giving assurance that the proceedings were conducted fairly to
have developed different strains of tests to resolve this issue, i.e., possibility of prejudice and adopted the test of actual prejudice all concerned and discouraging perjury, the misconduct of
as we ruled that to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, participants, or decisions based on secret bias or partiality. In

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 17 | 36

addition, the significant community therapeutic value of public Be that as it may, we recognize that pervasive and prejudicial pressures directed at him by the mobs.[132] News reports have
trials was recognized: when a shocking crime occurs, a publicity under certain circumstances can deprive an accused of also been quoted to establish that the respondent Ombudsman
community reaction of outrage and public protest often follows, his due process right to fair trial. Thus, in Martelino, et al. vs. has already prejudged the cases of the petitioner[133]and it is
and thereafter the open processes of justice serve an important Alejandro, et al., we held that to warrant a finding of prejudicial postulated that the prosecutors investigating the petitioner will
prophylactic purpose, providing an outlet for community publicity there must be allegation and proof that the judges have be influenced by this bias of their superior.
concern, hostility, and emotion. To work effectively, it is been unduly influenced, not simply that they might be, by the
important that societys criminal process satisfy the appearance barrage of publicity. In the case at bar, we find nothing in the Again, we hold that the evidence proffered by the petitioner is
of justice, Offutt v. United States, 348 US 11, 14, 99 L Ed 11, 75 records that will prove that the tone and content of the publicity insubstantial. The accuracy of the news reports referred to by the
S Ct 11, which can best be provided by allowing people to that attended the investigation of petitioners fatally infected the petitioner cannot be the subject of judicial notice by this Court
observe such process. From this unbroken, uncontradicted fairness and impartiality of the DOJ Panel. Petitioners cannot especially in light of the denials of the respondent Ombudsman
history, supported by reasons as valid today as in centuries past, just rely on the subliminal effects of publicity on the sense of as to his alleged prejudice and the presumption of good faith and
it must be concluded that a presumption of openness inheres in fairness of the DOJ Panel, for these are basically unbeknown regularity in the performance of official duty to which he is
the very nature of a criminal trial under this Nations system of and beyond knowing. To be sure, the DOJ Panel is composed of entitled. Nor can we adopt the theory of derivative prejudice of
justice, Cf., e.g., Levine v. United States, 362 US 610, 4 L Ed 2d an Assistant Chief State Prosecutor and Senior State petitioner, i.e., that the prejudice of respondent Ombudsman
989, 80 S Ct 1038. Prosecutors. Their long experience in criminal investigation is a flows to his subordinates. In truth, our Revised Rules of
factor to consider in determining whether they can easily be Criminal Procedure, give investigating prosecutors the
(b) The freedoms of speech, press, and assembly, expressly blinded by the klieg lights of publicity. Indeed, their 26-page independence to make their own findings and recommendations
guaranteed by the First Amendment, share a common core Resolution carries no indubitable indicia of bias for it does not albeit they are reviewable by their superiors.[134] They can be
purpose of assuring freedom of communication on matters appear that they considered any extra-record evidence except reversed but they can not be compelled to change their
relating to the functioning of government. In guaranteeing evidence properly adduced by the parties. The length of time the recommendations nor can they be compelled to prosecute cases
freedoms such as those of speech and press, the First investigation was conducted despite its summary nature and the which they believe deserve dismissal. In other words,
Amendment can be read as protecting the right of everyone to generosity with which they accommodated the discovery investigating prosecutors should not be treated like unthinking
attend trials so as give meaning to those explicit guarantees; the motions of petitioners speak well of their fairness. At no slot machines. Moreover, if the respondent Ombudsman
First Amendment right to receive information and ideas means, instance, we note, did petitioners seek the disqualification of any resolves to file the cases against the petitioner and the latter
in the context of trials, that the guarantees of speech and press, member of the DOJ Panel on the ground of bias resulting from believes that the finding of probable cause against him is the
standing alone, prohibit government from summarily closing their bombardment of prejudicial publicity. (emphasis supplied) result of bias, he still has the remedy of assailing it before the
courtroom doors which had long been open to the public at the proper court.
time the First Amendment was adopted. Moreover, the right of Applying the above ruling, we hold that there is not enough
assembly is also relevant, having been regarded not only as an evidence to warrant this Court to enjoin the preliminary VI.
independent right but also as a catalyst to augment the free investigation of the petitioner by the respondent Ombudsman.
exercise of the other First Amendment rights with which it was Petitioner needs to offer more than hostile headlines to discharge Epilogue
deliberately linked by the draftsmen. A trial courtroom is a his burden of proof.[131] He needs to show more weighty social
public place where the people generally and representatives of science evidence to successfully prove the impaired capacity of A word of caution to the hooting throng. The cases against the
the media have a right to be present, and where their presence a judge to render a bias-free decision. Well to note, the cases petitioner will now acquire a different dimension and then move
historically has been thought to enhance the integrity and quality against the petitioner are still undergoing preliminary to a new stage - - - the Office of the Ombudsman. Predictably,
of what takes place. investigation by a special panel of prosecutors in the office of the call from the majority for instant justice will hit a higher
the respondent Ombudsman. No allegation whatsoever has been decibel while the gnashing of teeth of the minority will be more
(c) Even though the Constitution contains no provision which by made by the petitioner that the minds of the members of this threatening. It is the sacred duty of the respondent Ombudsman
its terms guarantees to the public the right to attend criminal special panel have already been infected by bias because of the to balance the right of the State to prosecute the guilty and the
trials, various fundamental rights, not expressly guaranteed, pervasive prejudicial publicity against him. Indeed, the special right of an accused to a fair investigation and trial which has
have been recognized as indispensable to the enjoyment of panel has yet to come out with its findings and the Court cannot been categorized as the most fundamental of all freedoms.[135]
enumerated rights. The right to attend criminal trial is implicit in second guess whether its recommendation will be unfavorable to To be sure, the duty of a prosecutor is more to do justice and
the guarantees of the First Amendment: without the freedom to the petitioner. less to prosecute. His is the obligation to insure that the
attend such trials, which people have exercised for centuries, preliminary investigation of the petitioner shall have a circus-
important aspects of freedom of speech and of the press could be The records show that petitioner has instead charged respondent free atmosphere. He has to provide the restraint against what
eviscerated. Ombudsman himself with bias. To quote petitioners submission, Lord Bryce calls the impatient vehemence of the majority.
the respondent Ombudsman has been influenced by the barrage Rights in a democracy are not decided by the mob whose
of slanted news reports, and he has buckled to the threats and judgment is dictated by rage and not by reason. Nor are rights

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 18 | 36

necessarily resolved by the power of number for in a democracy, recommendations to the President. Pertinent portions of E.O. 12 WHEREAS, the government adopted a policy of streamlining
the dogmatism of the majority is not and should never be the provide: the government bureaucracy to promote economy and efficiency
definition of the rule of law. If democracy has proved to be the in government;
best form of government, it is because it has respected the right Section 4. Jurisdiction, Powers and Functions. –
of the minority to convince the majority that it is wrong. WHEREAS, Section VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
Tolerance of multiformity of thoughts, however offensive they (a) x x x xxx xxx provides that the President shall have control of all the executive
may be, is the key to mans progress from the cave to departments, bureaus and offices;
civilization. Let us not throw away that key just to pander to (b) The Commission, acting as a collegial body, shall have the
some peoples prejudice. authority to investigate or hear administrative cases or WHEREAS, Section 31 Chapter 10, Title III, Book III of
complaints against all presidential appointees in the government Executive Order 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) provides
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petitions of Joseph Ejercito Estrada and any of its agencies or instrumentalities xxx for the continuing authority of the President to reorganize the
challenging the respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as the de administrative structure of the Office of the President;
jure 14th President of the Republic are DISMISSED. xxx xxx xxx
WHEREAS, Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1416 (Granting
SO ORDERED. xxx xxx xxx Continuing Authority to the President of the Philippines to
Reorganize the National Government), as amended by PD 1722,
G.R. No. 196425 July 24, 2012 Section 8. Submission of Report and Recommendations. – After provides that the President of the Philippines shall have
PROSPERO A. PICHAY, JR., Petitioner, completing its investigation or hearing, the Commission en banc continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of
vs. shall submit its report and recommendations to the President. the National Government and may, at his discretion, create,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY The report and recommendations shall state, among others, the abolish, group, consolidate, merge or integrate entities, agencies,
FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATIVE AND factual findings and legal conclusions, as well as the penalty instrumentalities and units of the National Government, as well
ADJUDICATORY DIVISION, HON. PAQUITO N. recommend (sic) to be imposed or such other action that may be as, expand, amend, change or otherwise modify their powers,
OCHOA, JR., in his capacity as Executive Secretary, and taken." functions and authorities;
HON. CESAR V. PURISIMA, in his capacity as Secretary of
Finance, and as an ex-officio member of the Monetary On November 15, 2010, President Benigno Simeon Aquino III WHEREAS, Section 78 of the General Provisions of Republic
Board, Respondents. issued Executive Order No. 13 (E.O. 13), abolishing the PAGC Act No. 9970 (General Appropriations Act of 2010) authorizes
and transferring its functions to the Office of the Deputy the President of the Philippines to direct changes in the
The Case Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs (ODESLA), more organizational units or key positions in any department or
particularly to its newly-established Investigative and agency;
This is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with a prayer for Adjudicatory Division (IAD). The full text of the assailed
the issuance of a temporary restraining order, seeking to declare executive order reads: NOW, THEREFORE, I, BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, President
as unconstitutional Executive Order No. 13, entitled, of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law,
"Abolishing the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission and EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 13 do hereby order the following:
Transferring Its Investigative, Adjudicatory and
Recommendatory Functions to the Office Of The Deputy ABOLISHING THE PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT SECTION 1. Declaration of Policy. It is the policy of the
Executive Secretary For Legal Affairs, Office of the COMMISSION AND TRANSFERRING ITS government to fight and eradicate graft and corruption in the
President",1 and to permanently prohibit respondents from INVESTIGATIVE, ADJUDICATORY AND different departments, bureaus, offices and other government
administratively proceeding against petitioner on the strength of RECOMMENDATORY FUNCTIONS TO THE OFFICE OF agencies and instrumentalities.
the assailed executive order. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOR LEGAL
AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT The government adopted a policy of streamlining the
The Facts government bureaucracy to promote economy and efficiency in
WHEREAS, this administration has a continuing mandate and the government.
On April 16, 2001, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo advocacy to fight and eradicate corruption in the different
issued Executive Order No. 12 (E.O. 12) creating the departments, bureaus, offices and other government agencies SECTION 2. Abolition of Presidential Anti-Graft Commission
Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) and vesting it with and instrumentalities; (PAGC). To enable the Office of the President (OP) to directly
the power to investigate or hear administrative cases or investigate graft and corrupt cases of Presidential appointees in
complaints for possible graft and corruption, among others, the Executive Department including heads of government-
against presidential appointees and to submit its report and owned and controlled corporations, the

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 19 | 36

 inconsistent with the provisions of this Executive Order, are V. E.O. 13 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR VIOLATING THE
Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) is hereby hereby revoked or modified accordingly. GUARANTEE OF DUE PROCESS.
abolished and their vital functions and other powers and
functions inherent or incidental thereto, transferred to the Office SECTION 7. Effectivity. This Executive Order shall take effect VI. E.O. 13 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR VIOLATING
of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs (ODESLA), immediately after its publication in a newspaper of general THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.
OP in accordance with the provisions of this Executive Order. circulation.
Our Ruling
SECTION 3. Restructuring of the Office of the Deputy On April 6, 2011, respondent Finance Secretary Cesar V.
Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs, OP. In addition to the Purisima filed before the IAD-ODESLA a complaint affidavit2 In assailing the constitutionality of E.O. 13, petitioner
Legal and Legislative Divisions of the ODESLA, the for grave misconduct against petitioner Prospero A. Pichay, Jr., asseverates that the President is not authorized under any
Investigative and Adjudicatory Division shall be created. Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Local Water Utilities existing law to create the Investigative and Adjudicatory
Administration (LWUA), as well as the incumbent members of Division, Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal
The newly created Investigative and Adjudicatory Division shall the LWUA Board of Trustees, namely, Renato Velasco, Susana Affairs (IAD-ODESLA) and that by creating a new, additional
perform powers, functions and duties mentioned in Section 2 Dumlao Vargas, Bonifacio Mario M. Pena, Sr. and Daniel and distinct office tasked with quasi-judicial functions, the
hereof, of PAGC. Landingin, which arose from the purchase by the LWUA of President has not only usurped the powers of congress to create
Four Hundred Forty-Five Thousand Three Hundred Seventy a public office, appropriate funds and delegate quasi-judicial
The Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs (DESLA) will Seven (445,377) shares of stock of Express Savings Bank, Inc. functions to administrative agencies but has also encroached
be the recommending authority to the President, thru the upon the powers of the Ombudsman. Petitioner avers that the
Executive Secretary, for approval, adoption or modification of On April 14, 2011, petitioner received an Order3 signed by unconstitutionality of E.O. 13 is also evident when weighed
the report and recommendations of the Investigative and Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr. requiring him and his against the due process requirement and equal protection clause
Adjudicatory Division of ODESLA. co-respondents to submit their respective written explanations under the 1987 Constitution.
under oath. In compliance therewith, petitioner filed a Motion to
SECTION 4. Personnel Who May Be Affected By the Abolition Dismiss Ex Abundante Ad Cautelam manifesting that a case The contentions are unavailing.
of PAGC. The personnel who may be affected by the abolition involving the same transaction and charge of grave misconduct
of the PAGC shall be allowed to avail of the benefits provided entitled, "Rustico B. Tutol, et al. v. Prospero Pichay, et al.", and The President has Continuing Authority to Reorganize the
under existing laws if applicable. The Department of Budget and docketed as OMB-C-A-10-0426-I, is already pending before the Executive Department under E.O. 292.
Management (DBM) is hereby ordered to release the necessary Office of the Ombudsman.
funds for the benefits of the employees. Section 31 of Executive Order No. 292 (E.O. 292), otherwise
Now alleging that no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy is known as the Administrative Code of 1987, vests in the
SECTION 5. Winding Up of the Operation and Disposition of available to him in the ordinary course of law, petitioner has President the continuing authority to reorganize the offices
the Functions, Positions, Personnel, Assets and Liabilities of resorted to the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition upon under him in order to achieve simplicity, economy and
PAGC. The winding up of the operations of PAGC including the the following grounds: efficiency. E.O. 292 sanctions the following actions undertaken
final disposition or transfer of their functions, positions, for such purpose:
personnel, assets and liabilities as may be necessary, shall be in I. E.O. 13 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR USURPING THE
accordance with the applicable provision(s) of the Rules and POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE TO CREATE A PUBLIC (1)Restructure the internal organization of the Office of the
Regulations Implementing EO 72 (Rationalizing the Agencies OFFICE. President Proper, including the immediate Offices, the
Under or Attached to the Office of the President) dated March Presidential Special Assistants/Advisers System and the
15, 2002. The winding up shall be implemented not later than 31 II. E.O. 13 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR USURPING THE Common Staff Support System, by abolishing, consolidating, or
December 2010. POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE TO APPROPRIATE merging units thereof or transferring functions from one unit to
FUNDS. another;
The Office of the Executive Secretary, with the assistance of the
Department of Budget and Management, shall ensure the III. E.O. 13 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR USURPING THE (2)Transfer any function under the Office of the President to any
smooth and efficient implementation of the dispositive actions POWER OF CONGRESS TO DELEGATE QUASI-JUDICIAL other Department or Agency as well as transfer functions to the
and winding-up of the activities of PAGC. POWERS TO ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES. Office of the President from other Departments and Agencies;
and
SECTION 6. Repealing Clause. All executive orders, rules, IV. E.O. 13 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR ENCROACHING
regulations and other issuances or parts thereof, which are UPON THE POWERS OF THE OMBUDSMAN.

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 20 | 36

(3)Transfer any agency under the Office of the President to any Only Section 31(1) gives the President a virtual freehand in The Reorganization Did not Entail the Creation of a New,
other Department or Agency as well as transfer agencies to the dealing with the internal structure of the Office of the President Separate and Distinct Office.
Office of the President from other departments or agencies.4 Proper by allowing him to take actions as extreme as abolition,
consolidation or merger of units, apart from the less drastic The abolition of the PAGC did not require the creation of a new,
In the case of Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Zamora5 the Court move of transferring functions and offices from one unit to additional and distinct office as the duties and functions that
affirmed that the President's authority to carry out a another. Again, in Domingo v. Zamora8 the Court noted: pertained to the defunct anti-graft body were simply transferred
reorganization in any branch or agency of the executive to the ODESLA, which is an existing office within the Office of
department is an express grant by the legislature by virtue of However, the President's power to reorganize the Office of the the President Proper. The reorganization required no more than a
E.O. 292, thus: President under Section 31 (2) and (3) of EO 292 should be mere alteration of the administrative structure of the ODESLA
distinguished from his power to reorganize the Office of the through the establishment of a third division – the Investigative
But of course, the list of legal basis authorizing the President to President Proper. Under Section 31 (1) of EO 292, the President and Adjudicatory Division – through which ODESLA could
reorganize any department or agency in the executive branch can reorganize the Office of the President Proper by abolishing, take on the additional functions it has been tasked to discharge
does not have to end here. We must not lose sight of the very consolidating or merging units, or by transferring functions from under E.O. 13. In Canonizado v. Aguirre,12 We ruled that –
source of the power – that which constitutes an express grant of one unit to another. In contrast, under Section 31 (2) and (3) of
power. Under Section 31, Book III of Executive Order No. 292 EO 292, the President's power to reorganize offices outside the Reorganization takes place when there is an alteration of the
(otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987), "the Office of the President Proper but still within the Office of the existing structure of government offices or units therein,
President, subject to the policy of the Executive Office and in including the lines of control, authority and responsibility
order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency, shall have President is limited to merely transferring functions or agencies between them. It involves a reduction of personnel,
the continuing authority to reorganize the administrative from the Office of the President to Departments or Agencies, consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of
structure of the Office of the President." For this purpose, he and vice versa. economy or redundancy of functions.
may transfer the functions of other Departments or Agencies to
the Office of the President. (Emphasis supplied) The distinction between the allowable organizational actions The Reorganization was Pursued in Good Faith.
under Section 31(1) on the one hand and Section 31 (2) and (3)
And in Domingo v. Zamora,6 the Court gave the rationale on the other is crucial not only as it affects employees' tenurial A valid reorganization must not only be exercised through
behind the President's continuing authority in this wise: security but also insofar as it touches upon the validity of the legitimate authority but must also be pursued in good faith. A
reorganization, that is, whether the executive actions undertaken reorganization is said to be carried out in good faith if it is done
The law grants the President this power in recognition of the fall within the limitations prescribed under E.O. 292. When the for purposes of economy and efficiency.13 It appears in this
recurring need of every President to reorganize his office "to PAGC was created under E.O. 12, it was composed of a case that the streamlining of functions within the Office of the
achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency." The Office of the Chairman and two (2) Commissioners who held the ranks of President Proper was pursued with such purposes in mind.
President is the nerve center of the Executive Branch. To remain Presidential Assistant II and I, respectively,9 and was placed
effective and efficient, the Office of the President must be directly "under the Office of the President."10 On the other In its Whereas clauses, E.O. 13 cites as bases for the
capable of being shaped and reshaped by the President in the hand, the ODESLA, to which the functions of the PAGC have reorganization the policy dictates of eradicating corruption in the
manner he deems fit to carry out his directives and policies. now been transferred, is an office within the Office of the government and promoting economy and efficiency in the
After all, the Office of the President is the command post of the President Proper.11 Since both of these offices belong to the bureaucracy. Indeed, the economical effects of the
President. (Emphasis supplied) Office of the President Proper, the reorganization by way of reorganization is shown by the fact that while Congress had
abolishing the PAGC and transferring its functions to the initially appropriated P22 Million for the PAGC's operation in
Clearly, the abolition of the PAGC and the transfer of its ODESLA is allowable under Section 31 (1) of E.O. 292. the 2010 annual budget,14 no separate or added funding of such
functions to a division specially created within the ODESLA is a considerable amount was ever required after the transfer of the
properly within the prerogative of the President under his Petitioner, however, goes on to assert that the President went PAGC functions to the IAD-ODESLA.
continuing "delegated legislative authority to reorganize" his beyond the authority granted by E.O. 292 for him to reorganize
own office pursuant to E.O. 292. the executive department since his issuance of E.O. 13 did not Apparently, the budgetary requirements that the IAD-ODESLA
merely involve the abolition of an office but the creation of one needed to discharge its functions and maintain its personnel
Generally, this authority to implement organizational changes is as well. He argues that nowhere in the legal definition laid down would be sourced from the following year's appropriation for the
limited to transferring either an office or a function from the by the Court in several cases does a reorganization include the President's Offices under the General Appropriations Act of
Office of the President to another Department or Agency, and act of creating an office. 2011.15 Petitioner asseverates, however, that since Congress did
the other way around.7 not indicate the manner by which the appropriation for the
The contention is misplaced. Office of the President was to be distributed, taking therefrom
the operational funds of the IAD-ODESLA would amount to an

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 21 | 36

illegal appropriation by the President. The contention is without and, by way of exception through an express grant by the
legal basis. legislature, to administrative agencies. He points out that the The IAD-ODESLA does not encroach upon the powers and
name Investigative and Adjudicatory Division is proof itself that duties of the Ombudsman.
There is no usurpation of the legislative power to appropriate the IAD-ODESLA wields quasi-judicial power.
public funds. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the IAD-ODESLA did not
The argument is tenuous. As the OSG aptly explained in its encroach upon the Ombudsman's primary jurisdiction when it
In the chief executive dwell the powers to run government. Comment,21 while the term "adjudicatory" appears part of its took cognizance of the complaint affidavit filed against him
Placed upon him is the power to recommend the budget appellation, the IAD-ODESLA cannot try and resolve cases, its notwithstanding the earlier filing of criminal and administrative
necessary for the operation of the Government,16 which implies authority being limited to the conduct of investigations, cases involving the same charges and allegations before the
that he has the necessary authority to evaluate and determine the preparation of reports and submission of recommendations. E.O. Office of the Ombudsman. The primary jurisdiction of the
structure that each government agency in the executive 13 explicitly states that the IAD-ODESLA shall "perform Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute cases refers to criminal
department would need to operate in the most economical and powers, functions and duties xxx, of PAGC."22 cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and not to administrative
efficient manner.17 Hence, the express recognition under cases. It is only in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction that the
Section 78 of R.A. 9970 or the General Appropriations Act of Under E.O. 12, the PAGC was given the authority to Ombudsman may, at any time, take over the investigation being
2010 of the President’s authority to "direct changes in the "investigate or hear administrative cases or complaints against conducted by another investigatory agency. Section 15 (1) of
organizational units or key positions in any department or all presidential appointees in the government"23 and to "submit R.A. No. 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989, empowers the
agency." The aforecited provision, often and consistently its report and recommendations to the President."24 The IAD- Ombudsman to –
included in the general appropriations laws, recognizes the ODESLA is a fact-finding and recommendatory body to the
extent of the President’s power to reorganize the executive President, not having the power to settle controversies and (1)Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any
offices and agencies under him, which is, "even to the extent of adjudicate cases. As the Court ruled in Cariño v. Commission on person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee,
modifying and realigning appropriations for that purpose."18 Human Rights,25 and later reiterated in Biraogo v. The office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be
Philippine Truth Commission:26 illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction
And to further enable the President to run the affairs of the over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise
executive department, he is likewise given constitutional Fact-finding is not adjudication and it cannot be likened to the of its primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from
authority to augment any item in the General Appropriations judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial any investigatory agency of government, the investigation of
Law using the savings in other items of the appropriation for his agency or office. The function of receiving evidence and such cases. (Emphasis supplied)
office.19 In fact, he is explicitly allowed by law to transfer any ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial
fund appropriated for the different departments, bureaus, offices function. To be considered as such, the act of receiving evidence Since the case filed before the IAD-ODESLA is an
and agencies of the Executive Department which is included in and arriving at factual conclusions in a controversy must be administrative disciplinary case for grave misconduct, petitioner
the General Appropriations Act, to any program, project or accompanied by the authority of applying the law to the factual may not invoke the primary jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to
activity of any department, bureau or office included in the conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or prevent the IAD-ODESLA from proceeding with its
General Appropriations Act or approved after its enactment.20 determined authoritatively, finally and definitively, subject to investigation. In any event, the Ombudsman's authority to
such appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. investigate both elective and appointive officials in the
Thus, while there may be no specific amount earmarked for the government, extensive as it may be, is by no means exclusive. It
IAD-ODESLA from the total amount appropriated by Congress The President's authority to issue E.O. 13 and constitute the is shared with other similarly authorized government
in the annual budget for the Office of the President, the IAD-ODESLA as his fact-finding investigator cannot be agencies.28
necessary funds for the IAD-ODESLA may be properly sourced doubted. After all, as Chief Executive, he is granted full control
from the President's own office budget without committing any over the Executive Department to ensure the enforcement of the While the Ombudsman's function goes into the determination of
illegal appropriation. After all, there is no usurpation of the laws. Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution provides: the existence of probable cause and the adjudication of the
legislature's power to appropriate funds when the President merits of a criminal accusation, the investigative authority of the
simply allocates the existing funds previously appropriated by Section 17. The President shall have control of all the executive IAD- ODESLA is limited to that of a fact-finding investigator
Congress for his office. departments, bureaus and offices. He shall ensure that the laws whose determinations and recommendations remain so until
be faithfully executed. acted upon by the President. As such, it commits no usurpation
The IAD-ODESLA is a fact-finding and recommendatory body of the Ombudsman's constitutional duties.
not vested with quasi-judicial powers. The obligation to see to it that laws are faithfully executed
necessitates the corresponding power in the President to conduct Executive Order No. 13 Does Not Violate Petitioner's Right to
Petitioner next avers that the IAD-ODESLA was illegally vested investigations into the conduct of officials and employees in the Due Process and the Equal Protection of the Laws.
with judicial power which is reserved to the Judicial Department executive department.27

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 22 | 36

Petitioner goes on to assail E.O. 13 as violative of the equal distinctions that exist between elective and appointive public connected to the President. The mere suspicion of partiality will
protection clause pointing to the arbitrariness of limiting the officials, thus: not suffice to invalidate the actions of the IAD-ODESLA. Mere
IAD-ODESLA's investigation only to presidential appointees allegation is not equivalent to proof. Bias and partiality
occupying upper-level positions in the government. The equal Substantial distinctions clearly exist between elective officials
protection of the laws is a guaranty against any form of undue and appointive officials. The former occupy their office by cannot be presumed.38 Petitioner must present substantial proof
favoritism or hostility from the government.29 It is embraced virtue of the mandate of the electorate. They are elected to an to show that the lAD-ODES LA had unjustifiably sided against
under the due process concept and simply requires that, in the office for a definite term and may be removed therefrom only him in the conduct of the investigation. No such evidence has
application of the law, "all persons or things similarly situated upon stringent conditions. On the other hand, appointive been presented as to defeat the presumption of regularity m the
should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and officials hold their office by virtue of their designation thereto performance of the fact-finding investigator's duties. The
responsibilities imposed."30 The equal protection clause, by an appointing authority. Some appointive officials hold their assertion, therefore, deserves scant consideration.
however, is not absolute but subject to reasonable classification office in a permanent capacity and are entitled to security of
so that aggrupations bearing substantial distinctions may be tenure while others serve at the pleasure of the appointing Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality,
treated differently from each other. This we ruled in Farinas v. authority. and to justify its nullification, there must be a clear and
Executive Secretary,31 wherein we further stated that – unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and
xxxx argumentative one.39 Petitioner has failed to discharge the
The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor burden of proving the illegality of E.O. 13, which IS indubitably
and individual or class privilege, as well as hostile An election is the embodiment of the popular will, perhaps the a valid exercise of the President's continuing authority to
discrimination or the oppression of inequality. It is not intended purest expression of the sovereign power of the people.1âwphi1 reorganize the Office of the President.
to prohibit legislation which is limited either in the object to It involves the choice or selection of candidates to public office
which it is directed or by territory within which it is to operate. by popular vote. Considering that elected officials are put in WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition IS hereby
It does not demand absolute equality among residents; it merely office by their constituents for a definite term, x x x complete DISMISSED.
requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like deference is accorded to the will of the electorate that they be
circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and served by such officials until the end of the term for which they SO ORDERED.
liabilities enforced. The equal protection clause is not infringed were elected. In contrast, there is no such expectation insofar as
by legislation which applies only to those persons falling within appointed officials are concerned. (Emphasis supplied) G.R. No. 196231 January 28, 2014
a specified class, if it applies alike to all persons within such EMILIO A. GONZALES III, Petitioner,
class, and reasonable grounds exist for making a distinction Also, contrary to petitioner's assertions, his right to due process vs.
between those who fall within such class and those who do not. was not violated when the IAD-ODESLA took cognizance of OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES,
(Emphasis supplied) the administrative complaint against him since he was given ACTING THROUGH AND REPRESENTED BY
sufficient opportunity to oppose the formal complaint filed by EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.,
Presidential appointees come under the direct disciplining Secretary Purisima. In administrative proceedings, the filing of SENIOR DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY JOSE
authority of the President. This proceeds from the well settled charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so AMOR M. AMORANDO, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE -
principle that, in the absence of a contrary law, the power to charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
remove or to discipline is lodged in the same authority on which minimum requirements of due process,35 which simply means FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS, ATTY. RONALDO A. GERON,
the power to appoint is vested.32 Having the power to remove having the opportunity to explain one’s side.36 Hence, as long DIR. ROWENA TURINGAN-SANCHEZ, AND ATTY.
and/or discipline presidential appointees, the President has the as petitioner was given the opportunity to explain his side and CARLITO D. CATAYONG, Respondents.
corollary authority to investigate such public officials and look present evidence, the requirements of due process are
into their conduct in office.33 Petitioner is a presidential satisfactorily complied with because what the law abhors is an G.R. No. 196232
appointee occupying the high-level position of Chairman of the absolute lack of opportunity to be heard.37 The records show WENDELL BARRERAS-SULIT Petitioner,
LWUA. Necessarily, he comes under the disciplinary that petitioner was issued an Order requiring him to submit his vs.
jurisdiction of the President, who is well within his right to order written explanation under oath with respect to the charge of ATTY. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., IN HIS CAP A CITY
an investigation into matters that require his informed decision. grave misconduct filed against him. His own failure to submit AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE
his explanation despite notice defeats his subsequent claim of PRESIDENT, ATTY. DENNIS F. ORTIZ, ATTY. CARLO
There are substantial distinctions that set apart presidential denial of due process. D. SULAY AND ATTY. FROILAN D. MONTALBAN, JR.,
appointees occupying upper-level positions in government from IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS CHAIRMAN AND
non-presidential appointees and those that occupy the lower Finally, petitioner doubts that the IAD-ODESLA can lawfully MEMBERS OF OFFICE OF MALACANANG LEGAL
positions in government. In Salumbides v. Office of the perform its duties as an impartial tribunal, contending that both AFFAIRS, Respondents.
Ombudsman,34 we had ruled extensively on the substantial the IAD-ODESLA and respondent Secretary Purisima are

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 23 | 36

We resolve the Office of the President's (OP 's) motion for Investigation and Prosecution Officer (GIPO) Dennis Garcia for
reconsideration of our September 4, 2012 Decision1 which ruled a. Factual antecedents review and recommendation.14
on the petitions filed by Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales
III and Special Prosecutor Wendell Barreras-Sulit. Their On May 26, 2008, Christian Kalaw filed separate charges with GIPO Garcia released a draft order15 to his immediate superior,
petitions challenged the constitutionality of Section 8(2) of the Philippine National Police Internal Affairs Service (PNP- Director Eulogio S. Cecilio, for appropriate action on April 5,
Republic Act (RA) No. 6770.2 IAS) and with the Manila City Prosecutor’s Office against 2010. Dir. Cecilio signed and forwarded the draft order to
Manila Police District Senior Inspector Rolando Mendoza and Gonzales’ office on April 27, 2010. Gonzales reviewed the draft
In the challenged Decision, the Court upheld the four others (Mendoza, et al.) for robbery, grave threat, robbery and endorsed the order, together with the case records, on May
constitutionality of Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 and ruled that extortion and physical injury.4 6, 2010 for the final approval by the Ombudsman.16
the President has disciplinary jurisdiction over a Deputy
Ombudsman and a Special Prosecutor. The Court, however, On May 29, 2008, Police Senior Superintendent Atty. Clarence On August 23, 2010, pending final action by the Ombudsman on
reversed the OP ruling that: (i) found Gonzales guilty of Gross Guinto filed an administrative charge for grave misconduct with Mendoza, et al.’s case, Mendoza hijacked a tourist bus and held
Neglect of Duty and Grave Misconduct constituting betrayal of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) PNP-NCRPO the 21 foreign tourists and the four Filipino tour assistants on
public trust; and (ii) imposed on him the penalty of dismissal. against Mendoza, et al. based on the same allegations made by board as hostages. While the government exerted earnest
Kalaw before the PNP-IAS.5 attempts to peacefully resolve the hostage-taking, it ended
Sulit, who had not then been dismissed and who simply sought tragically, resulting in the deaths of Mendoza and several others
to restrain the disciplinary proceedings against her, solely On July 2, 2008, Gonzales, Deputy Ombudsman for Military on board the hijacked bus.
questioned the jurisdiction of the OP to subject her to and Other Law Enforcement Officers (MOLEO), directed the
disciplinary proceedings. The Court affirmed the continuation of NAPOLCOM to turn over the records of Mendoza’s case to his In the aftermath, President Benigno C. Aquino III directed the
the proceedings against her after upholding the constitutionality office. The Office of the Regional Director of the NAPOLCOM Department of Justice and the Department of Interior and Local
of Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770. duly complied on July 24, 2008.6 Mendoza, et al. filed their Government to conduct a joint thorough investigation of the
position papers with Gonzales, in compliance with his Order.7 incident. The two departments issued Joint Department Order
The fallo of our assailed Decision reads: No. 01-2010, creating an Incident Investigation and Review
Pending Gonzales’ action on Mendoza, et al.’s case (on August Committee (IIRC).
WHEREFORE, in G.R. No. 196231, the decision of the Office 26, 2008), the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila City
of the President in OP Case No. 1 O-J-460 is REVERSED and dismissed Kalaw’s complaint against Mendoza, et al. for his In its September 16, 2010 First Report, the IIRC found the
SET ASIDE. Petitioner Emilio A. Gonzales III is ordered failure to substantiate his allegations.8 Similarly, on October 17, Ombudsman and Gonzales accountable for their "gross
REINSTATED with payment of backwages corresponding to 2008, the PNP-IAS recommended the dismissal without negligence and grave misconduct in handling the case against
the period of suspension effective immediately, even as the prejudice of the administrative case against Mendoza, et al. for Mendoza."17 The IIRC stated that the Ombudsman and
Office of the Ombudsman is directed to proceed with the Kalaw’s failure to prosecute.9 Gonzales’ failure to promptly resolve Mendoza’s motion for
investigation in connection with the above case against reconsideration, "without justification and despite repeated
petitioner. In G.R. No. 196232, We AFFIRM the continuation of On February 16, 2009, after preparing a draft decision on pleas" xxx "precipitated the desperate resort to hostage-
OP-DC Case No. ll-B-003 against Special Prosecutor Wendell Mendoza, et al.’s case, Gonzales forwarded the entire records to taking."18 The IIRC recommended the referral of its findings to
Barreras-Sulit for alleged acts and omissions tantamount to the Office of then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez for her the OP for further determination of possible administrative
culpable violation of the Constitution and a betrayal of public review.10 In his draft decision, Gonzales found Mendoza, et al. offenses and for the initiation of the proper administrative
trust, in accordance with Section 8(2) of the Ombudsman Act of guilty of grave misconduct and imposed on them the penalty of proceedings.19
1989.3 dismissal from the service.11
Accordingly, on October 15, 2010, Gonzales was formally
In view of the Court’s ruling, the OP filed the present motion for Mendoza, et al. received a copy of the Ombudsman’s decision charged before the OP for Gross Neglect of Duty and/or
reconsideration through the Office of the Solicitor General that approved Gonzales’ recommendation on October 30, 2009. Inefficiency in the Performance of Official Duty and for
(OSG). Mendoza, et al. filed a motion for reconsideration12 on Misconduct in Office.20
November 5, 2009, followed by a Supplement to the Motion for
We briefly narrate the facts that preceded the filing of the Reconsideration.13 b. The OP ruling
petitions and the present motion for reconsideration.
On December 10, 2009, the MOLEO-Records Section On March 31, 2011, the OP found Gonzales guilty as charged
I. ANTECEDENTS forwarded Mendoza, et al.’s case records to the Criminal and dismissed him from the service.21 According to the OP,
Investigation, Prosecution and Administrative Bureau-MOLEO. "the inordinate and unjustified delay in the resolution of
A. Gonzales’ petition (G.R. No. 196231) On December 14, 2009, the case was assigned to Graft [Mendoza’s] Motion for Reconsideration [‘that spanned for nine

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 24 | 36

(9) long months’] xxx amounted to gross neglect of duty" and The apparent one-sidedness of the Agreement drew public correctness of the OP’s decision on the merits will be an empty
"constituted a flagrant disregard of the Office of the outrage and prompted the Committee on Justice of the House of one.
Ombudsman’s own Rules of Procedure."22 Representatives to conduct an investigation. After public
hearings, the Committee found that Sulit, her deputies and In other words, since the validity of the OP’s decision on the
c. The Petition assistants committed culpable violations of the Constitution and merits of the dismissal is inextricably anchored on the final and
betrayal of public trust – grounds for removal under Section 8(2) correct ruling on the constitutional issue, the whole case –
Gonzales posited in his petition that the OP has no of RA No. 6770.28 The Committee recommended to the including the constitutional issue – remains alive for the Court’s
administrative disciplinary jurisdiction over a Deputy President the dismissal from the service of Sulit and the filing of consideration on motion for reconsideration.
Ombudsman. Under Section 21 of RA No. 6770, it is the appropriate charges against her deputies and assistants before
Ombudsman who exercises administrative disciplinary the appropriate government office. b. The justiciability of the constitutional
jurisdiction over the Deputy Ombudsman.
Accordingly, the OP initiated an administrative disciplinary issue raised in the petitions
On the merits, Gonzales argued that his office received the draft proceeding against Sulit.29 On March 24, 2011, Sulit filed her
order from GIPO Garcia on April 27, 2010. On May 6, 2010, he Written Explanation, questioning the OP’s jurisdiction.30 The We clarify, too, that the issue of whether a Deputy Ombudsman
completed his review of the draft, approved it, and transmitted it question of jurisdiction notwithstanding, the OP set the case for may be subjected to the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction
to the Office of the Ombudsman for final approval. Since the preliminary investigation on April 15, 2011, prompting Sulit to of the President (concurrently with that of the Ombudsman) is a
draft order on Mendoza’s motion for reconsideration had to seek relief from this Court. justiciable – not a political – question. A justiciable question is
undergo different levels of preparation, review and approval, the one which is inherently susceptible of being decided on grounds
period it took to resolve the motion could not be unjustified, II. COURT’S RULING recognized by law,31 as where the court finds that there are
since he himself acted on the draft order only within nine (9) constitutionally-imposed limits on the exercise of the powers
calendars days from his receipt of the order.23 On motion for reconsideration and further reflection, the Court conferred on a political branch of the government.32
votes to grant Gonzales’ petition and to declare Section 8(2) of
B. Sulit’s petition (G.R. No. 196232) RA No. 6770 unconstitutional with respect to the Office of the In resolving the petitions, we do not inquire into the wisdom of
Ombudsman. (As the full explanation of the Court’s vote the Congress’ choice to grant concurrent disciplinary authority
In April 2005, the Office of the Ombudsman charged Major describes below, this conclusion does not apply to Sulit as the to the President. Our inquiry is limited to whether such statutory
General Carlos F. Garcia and several others, before the grant of independence is solely with respect to the Office of the grant violates the Constitution, particularly whether Section 8(2)
Sandiganbayan, with plunder and money laundering. On May 7, Ombudsman which does not include the Office of the Special of RA No. 6770 violates the core constitutional principle of the
2007, Garcia filed an Urgent Petition for Bail which the Prosecutor under the Constitution. The prevailing ruling on this independence of the Office of the Ombudsman as expressed in
prosecution opposed. The Sandiganbayan denied Garcia's urgent latter point is embodied in the Concurring and Dissenting Section 5, Art. XI of the Constitution.
petition for bail on January 7, 2010, in view of the strength of Opinion of J. Marvic Mario Victor Leonen).
the prosecution’s evidence against Garcia. To be sure, neither the Executive nor the Legislative can create
A. Preliminary considerations: the power that Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 grants where the
On February 25, 2010, the Office of the Ombudsman, through Constitution confers none. When exercised authority is drawn
Sulit and her prosecutorial staff, entered into a plea bargaining a. Absence of motion for reconsideration on the part of the from a vacuum, more so when the authority runs counter to a
agreement (Agreement) with Garcia.24 Garcia thereby agreed petitioners core constitutional principle and constitutional intents, the Court
to: (i) withdraw his plea of not guilty to the charge of plunder is duty-bound to intervene under the powers and duties granted
and enter a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of indirect bribery; At the outset, the Court notes that Gonzales and Sulit did not file and imposed on it by Article VIII of the Constitution.
and (ii) withdraw his plea of not guilty to the charge of money a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s September 4, 2012
laundering and enter a guilty plea to the lesser offense of Decision; only the OP, through the OSG, moved for the B. The Deputy Ombudsman: Constitutional Issue
facilitating money laundering. In exchange, he would convey to reconsideration of our ruling reinstating Gonzales.
the government his ownership, rights and other interests over the a. The Philippine Ombudsman
real and personal properties enumerated in the Agreement and This omission, however, poses no obstacle for the Court’s
the bank deposits alleged in the information.25 review of its ruling on the whole case since a serious Prior to the 1973 Constitution, past presidents established
constitutional question has been raised and is one of the several Ombudsman-like agencies to serve as the people's
The Sandiganbayan approved the Agreement on May 4, 201026 underlying bases for the validity or invalidity of the presidential medium for airing grievances and for direct redress against
based on the parties’ submitted Joint Motion for Approval.27 action. If the President does not have any constitutional abuses and misconduct in the government. Ultimately, however,
authority to discipline a Deputy Ombudsman and/or a Special these agencies failed to fully realize their objective for lack of
Prosecutor in the first place, then any ruling on the legal

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 25 | 36

the political independence necessary for the effective varies and is to be interpreted with two significant
performance of their function as government critic.33 Section 21. Official Subject to Disciplinary Authority; considerations in mind: first, the functions performed or the
Exceptions. — The Office of the Ombudsman shall have powers involved in a given case; and second, consistency of any
It was under the 1973 Constitution that the Office of the disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of allowable interference to these powers and functions, with the
Ombudsman became a constitutionally-mandated office to give the Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and principle of checks and balances.
it political independence and adequate powers to enforce its agencies, including Members of the Cabinet, local government,
mandate. Pursuant to the 1973 Constitution, President Ferdinand government-owned or controlled corporations and their Notably, the independence enjoyed by the Office of the
Marcos enacted Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1487, as amended subsidiaries, except over officials who may be removed only by Ombudsman and by the Constitutional Commissions shares
by PD No. 1607 and PD No. 1630, creating the Office of the impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the Judiciary. certain characteristics – they do not owe their existence to any
Ombudsman to be known as Tanodbayan. It was tasked [emphasis ours, italics supplied] act of Congress, but are created by the Constitution itself;
principally to investigate, on complaint or motu proprio, any additionally, they all enjoy fiscal autonomy. In general terms,
administrative act of any administrative agency, including any As the Ombudsman is expected to be an "activist watchman,"37 the framers of the Constitution intended that these "independent"
government-owned or controlled corporation. When the Office the Court has upheld its actions, although not squarely falling bodies be insulated from political pressure to the extent that the
of the Tanodbayan was reorganized in 1979, the powers under the broad powers granted it by the Constitution and by RA absence of "independence" would result in the impairment of
previously vested in the Special Prosecutor were transferred to No. 6770, if these actions are reasonably in line with its official their core functions.
the Tanodbayan himself. He was given the exclusive authority to function and consistent with the law and the Constitution.38
conduct preliminary investigation of all cases cognizable by the In Bengzon v. Drilon,42 involving the fiscal autonomy of the
Sandiganbayan, file the corresponding information, and control The Ombudsman’s broad investigative and disciplinary powers Judiciary, we ruled against the interference that the President
the prosecution of these cases.34 include all acts of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance of may bring and maintained that the independence and the
all public officials, including Members of the Cabinet and key flexibility of the Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions and
With the advent of the 1987 Constitution, a new Office of the Executive officers, during their tenure. To support these broad the Office of the Ombudsman are crucial to our legal system.
Ombudsman was created by constitutional fiat. Unlike in the powers, the Constitution saw it fit to insulate the Office of the
1973 Constitution, its independence was expressly and Ombudsman from the pressures and influence of officialdom The Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the
constitutionally guaranteed. Its objectives are to enforce the state and partisan politics and from fear of external reprisal by Ombudsman must have the independence and flexibility needed
policy in Section 27, Article II35 and the standard of making it an "independent" office. Section 5, in the discharge of their constitutional duties. The imposition of
accountability in public service under Section 1, Article XI of restrictions and constraints on the manner the independent
the 1987 Constitution. These provisions read: Article XI of the Constitution expressed this intent, as follows: constitutional offices allocate and utilize the funds appropriated
for their operations is anathema to fiscal autonomy and violative
Section 27. The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the Section 5. There is hereby created the independent Office of the not only the express mandate of the Constitution but especially
public service and take positive and effective measures against Ombudsman, composed of the Ombudsman to be known as as regards the Supreme Court, of the independence and
graft and corruption. Tanodbayan, one overall Deputy and at least one Deputy each separation of powers upon which the entire fabric of our
for Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. A separate Deputy for the constitutional system is based.
Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and military establishment may likewise be appointed. [emphasis
employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve ours] The constitutional deliberations explain the Constitutional
them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and Commissions’ need for independence. In the deliberations of the
efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. Given the scope of its disciplinary authority, the Office of the 1973 Constitution, the delegates amended the 1935 Constitution
Ombudsman is a very powerful government constitutional by providing for a constitutionally-created Civil Service
Under Section 12, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the agency that is considered "a notch above other grievance- Commission, instead of one created by law, on the premise that
Office of the Ombudsman is envisioned to be the "protector of handling investigative bodies."39 It has powers, both the effectivity of this body is dependent on its freedom from the
the people" against the inept, abusive, and corrupt in the constitutional and statutory, that are commensurate with its tentacles of politics.43 In a similar manner, the deliberations of
Government, to function essentially as a complaints and action daunting task of enforcing accountability of public officers.40 the 1987 Constitution on the Commission on Audit highlighted
bureau.36 This constitutional vision of a Philippine Ombudsman the developments in the past Constitutions geared towards
practically intends to make the Ombudsman an authority to b. "Independence" of constitutional bodies vis-a-vis the insulating the Commission on Audit from political pressure.44
directly check and guard against the ills, abuses and excesses of Ombudsman’s independence
the bureaucracy. Pursuant to Section 13(8), Article XI of the Notably, the Constitution also created an "independent"
1987 Constitution, Congress enacted RA No. 6770 to enable it Under the Constitution, several constitutional bodies have been Commission on Human Rights, although it enjoys a lesser
to further realize the vision of the Constitution. Section 21 of expressly labeled as "independent."41 The extent of the degree of independence since it is not granted fiscal autonomy in
RA No. 6770 provides: independence enjoyed by these constitutional bodies however the manner fiscal autonomy is granted to the constitutional

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 26 | 36

commissions. The lack of fiscal autonomy notwithstanding, the These deliberative considerations abundantly show that the these offices fill the political interstices of a republican
framers of the 1987 Constitution clearly expressed their desire to independent constitutional commissions have been consistently democracy that are crucial to its existence and proper
keep the Commission independent from the executive branch intended by the framers to be independent from executive functioning.50
and other political leaders: control or supervision or any form of political influence. At least
insofar as these bodies are concerned, jurisprudence is not scarce c. Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770
MR. MONSOD. We see the merits of the arguments of on how the "independence" granted to these bodies prevents vesting disciplinary authority
Commissioner Rodrigo. If we explain to him our concept, he can presidential interference. in the President over the
advise us on how to reconcile his position with ours. The Deputy Ombudsman violates
position of the committee is that we need a body that would be In Brillantes, Jr. v. Yorac,46 we emphasized that the the independence of the Office
able to work and cooperate with the executive because the Constitutional Commissions, which have been characterized of the Ombudsman and is thus
Commissioner is right. Many of the services needed by this under the Constitution as "independent," are not under the unconstitutional
commission would need not only the cooperation of the control of the President, even if they discharge functions that are
executive branch of the government but also of the judicial executive in nature. The Court declared as unconstitutional the Our discussions, particularly the Court’s expressed caution
branch of government. This is going to be a permanent President’s act of temporarily appointing the respondent in that against presidential interference with the constitutional
constitutional commission over time. We also want a case as Acting Chairman of the Comelec "however well- commissions, on one hand, and those expressed by the framers
commission to function even under the worst circumstance when meaning"47 it might have been. of the 1987 Constitution, on the other, in protecting the
the executive may not be very cooperative. However, the independence of the Constitutional Commissions, speak for
question in our mind is: Can it still function during that time? In Bautista v. Senator Salonga,48 the Court categorically stated themselves as overwhelming reasons to invalidate Section 8(2)
Hence, we are willing to accept suggestions from Commissioner that the tenure of the commissioners of the independent of RA No. 6770 for violating the independence of the Office of
Rodrigo on how to reconcile this. We realize the need for Commission on Human Rights could not be placed under the the Ombudsman.
coordination and cooperation. We also would like to build in discretionary power of the President:
some safeguards that it will not be rendered useless by an In more concrete terms, we rule that subjecting the Deputy
uncooperative executive. Indeed, the Court finds it extremely difficult to conceptualize Ombudsman to discipline and removal by the President, whose
how an office conceived and created by the Constitution to be own alter egos and officials in the Executive Department are
xxxx independent – as the Commission on Human Rights – and subject to the Ombudsman’s disciplinary authority, cannot but
vested with the delicate and vital functions of investigating seriously place at risk the independence of the Office of the
MR. GARCIA. xxx Very often, when international commissions violations of human rights, pinpointing responsibility and Ombudsman itself. The Office of the Ombudsman, by express
or organizations on human rights go to a country, the most recommending sanctions as well as remedial measures therefor, constitutional mandate, includes its key officials, all of them
credible organizations are independent human rights bodies. can truly function with independence and effectiveness, when tasked to support the Ombudsman in carrying out her mandate.
Very often these are private organizations, many of which are the tenure in office of its Chairman and Members is made Unfortunately, intrusion upon the constitutionally-granted
prosecuted, such as those we find in many countries in Latin dependent on the pleasure of the President. Executive Order No. independence is what Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 exactly did.
America. In fact, what we are proposing is an independent body 163-A, being antithetical to the constitutional mandate of By so doing, the law directly collided not only with the
on human rights, which would provide governments with independence for the Commission on Human Rights has to be independence that the Constitution guarantees to the Office of
credibility precisely because it is independent of the present declared unconstitutional. the Ombudsman, but inevitably with the principle of checks and
administration. Whatever it says on the human rights situation balances that the creation of an Ombudsman office seeks to
will be credible because it is not subject to pressure or control Again, in Atty. Macalintal v. Comelec,49 the Court considered revitalize.
from the present political leadership. even the mere review of the rules of the Commission on
Elections by Congress a "trampling" of the constitutional What is true for the Ombudsman must be equally and
Secondly, we all know how political fortunes come and go. mandate of independence of this body. Obviously, the mere necessarily true for her Deputies who act as agents of the
Those who are in power yesterday are in opposition today and review of rules places considerably less pressure on a Ombudsman in the performance of their duties. The
those who are in power today may be in the opposition constitutional body than the Executive’s power to discipline and Ombudsman can hardly be expected to place her complete trust
tomorrow. Therefore, if we have a Commission on Human remove key officials of the Office of the Ombudsman, yet the in her subordinate officials who are not as independent as she is,
Rights that would investigate and make sure that the rights of Court struck down the law as unconstitutional. if only because they are subject to pressures and controls
each one is protected, then we shall have a body that could stand external to her Office. This need for complete trust is true in an
up to any power, to defend the rights of individuals against The kind of independence enjoyed by the Office of the ideal setting and truer still in a young democracy like the
arrest, unfair trial, and so on.45 Ombudsman certainly cannot be inferior – but is similar in Philippines where graft and corruption is still a major problem
degree and kind – to the independence similarly guaranteed by for the government. For these reasons, Section 8(2) of RA No.
the Constitution to the Constitutional Commissions since all

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 27 | 36

6770 (providing that the President may remove a Deputy President’s favor, would be discouraged from approaching the Under Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution,53
Ombudsman) should be declared void. Ombudsman with his complaint; the complainant’s impression Congress is empowered to determine the modes of removal from
(even if misplaced), that the Ombudsman would be susceptible office of all public officers and employees except the President,
The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission on the to political pressure, cannot be avoided. To be sure, such an the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the
independence of the Ombudsman fully support this position. impression would erode the constitutional intent of creating an Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the
Commissioner Florenz Regalado of the Constitutional Office of the Ombudsman as champion of the people against Ombudsman, who are all impeachable officials.
Commission expressed his apprehension that any form of corruption and bureaucracy.
presidential control over the Office of the Ombudsman would The intent of the framers of the Constitution in providing that
diminish its independence.51 The following exchanges between d. The mutual-protection argument for "[a]ll other public officers and employees may be removed from
Commissioners Blas Ople and Christian Monsod further reveal crafting Section 8(2)of RA No. 6770 office as provided by law, but not by impeachment" in the
the constitutional intent to keep the Office of the Ombudsman second sentence of Section 2, Article XI is to prevent Congress
independent from the President: In crafting Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770, Congress apparently from extending the more stringent rule of "removal only by
addressed the concern that a lack of an external check against impeachment" to favored public officers.54 Understandably so,
MR. OPLE. xxx the Deputy Ombudsman would result in mutual protection impeachment is the most difficult and cumbersome mode of
between the Ombudsman and her Deputies. removing a public officer from office. It is, by its nature, a sui
May I direct a question to the Committee? xxx [W]ill the generis politico-legal process55 that signals the need for a
Committee consider later an amendment xxx, by way of While the preceding discussion already suffices to address this judicious and careful handling as shown by the process required
designating the office of the Ombudsman as a constitutional arm concern, it should be added that this concern stands on shaky to initiate the proceeding;56 the one-year limitation or bar for its
for good government, efficiency of the public service and the grounds since it ignores the existing checks and balances already initiation;57 the limited grounds for impeachment;58 the defined
integrity of the President of the Philippines, instead of creating in place. On the one hand, the Ombudsman’s Deputies cannot instrumentality given the power to try impeachment cases;59
another agency in a kind of administrative limbo which would protect the Ombudsman because she is subject to the and the number of votes required for a finding of guilt.60 All
be accountable to no one on the pretext that it is a constitutional impeachment power of Congress. On the other hand, the these argue against the extension of this removal mechanism
body? Ombudsman’s attempt to cover up the misdeeds of her Deputies beyond those mentioned in the Constitution.
can be questioned before the Court on appeal or certiorari. The
MR. MONSOD. The Committee discussed that during our same attempt can likewise subject her to impeachment. On the practical side, our nation has witnessed the complications
committee deliberations and when we prepared the report, it was and problems an impeachment proceeding entails, thus
the opinion of the Committee — and I believe it still is — that it The judicial recourse available is only consistent with the nature justifying its limited application only to the officials occupying
may not contribute to the effectiveness of this office of the of the Supreme Court as a non-political independent body the highest echelons of responsibility in our government. To
Ombudsman precisely because many of the culprits in mandated by the Constitution to settle judicial and quasi-judicial name a few, some of the negative practical effects of
inefficiency, injustice and impropriety are in the executive disputes, whose judges and employees are not subject to the impeachment are: it stalls legislative work; it is an expensive
department. Therefore, as we saw the wrong implementation of disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman and whose neutrality process in terms of the cost of prosecution alone; and, more
the Tanodbayan which was under the tremendous influence of would be less questionable. The Members of the Court importantly, it is inherently divisive of the nation.61 Thus, in a
the President, it was an ineffectual body and was reduced to the themselves may be subjected to the impeachment power of cost-benefit analysis of adopting impeachment as a mechanism,
function of a special fiscal. The whole purpose of our proposal is Congress. limiting Congress’ power to otherwise legislate on the matter is
precisely to separate those functions and to produce a vehicle far more advantageous to the country.
that will give true meaning to the concept of Ombudsman. In these lights, the appeal, if any, of the mutual protection
Therefore, we regret that we cannot accept the proposition.52 argument becomes distinctly implausible. At the same time, the It is in these lights that the second sentence in Section 2, Article
Court remains consistent with its established rulings - that the XI of the 1987 Constitution should be read. Contrary to the
The statements made by Commissioner Monsod emphasized a independence granted to the Constitutional Commissions bars implied view of the minority, in no way can this provision be
very logical principle: the Executive power to remove and any undue interference from either the Executive or Congress – regarded as blanket authority for Congress to provide for any
discipline key officials of the Office of the Ombudsman, or to and is in full accord with constitutional intent. ground of removal it deems fit. While the manner and cause of
exercise any power over them, would result in an absurd removal are left to congressional determination, this must still be
situation wherein the Office of the Ombudsman is given the duty e. Congress’ power determines the consistent with constitutional guarantees and principles, namely:
to adjudicate on the integrity and competence of the very manner and causes for the removal the right to procedural and substantive due process; the
persons who can remove or suspend its members. Equally of non-impeachable officers is not a constitutional guarantee of security of tenure; the principle of
relevant is the impression that would be given to the public if the carte blanch authority separation of powers; and the principle of checks and
rule were otherwise. A complainant with a grievance against a balances.62
high-ranking official of the Executive, who appears to enjoy the

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 28 | 36

In short, the authority granted by the Constitution to Congress to Special Prosecutor before the OP can already result in their 2. December 14, 200967 - GIPO Garcia, who was assigned to
provide for the manner and cause of removal of all other public suspension and can interrupt the performance of their functions, review these motions and make his recommendation for the
officers and employees does not mean that Congress can ignore in violation of Section 12, Article XI of the Constitution. With appropriate action, received the records of the case;
the basic principles and precepts established by the Constitution. only one term allowed under Section 11, a Deputy Ombudsman
or Special Prosecutor, if removable by the President, can be 3. April 5, 2010 – GIPO Garcia released a draft order to be
In the same manner, the congressional determination of the reduced to the very same ineffective Office of the Ombudsman reviewed by his immediate superior, Dir. Cecilio;68
identity of the disciplinary authority is not a blanket authority that the framers had foreseen and carefully tried to avoid by
for Congress to repose it on whomsoever Congress chooses making these offices independent constitutional bodies. 4. April 27, 2010 – Dir. Cecilio signed and forwarded to
without running afoul of the independence enjoyed by the Office Gonzales this draft order;69
of the Ombudsman and without disrupting the delicate check At any rate, even assuming that the OP has disciplinary
and balance mechanism under the Constitution. Properly viewed authority over the Deputy Ombudsman, its decision finding 5. May 6, 2010 (or nine days after the records were forwarded to
from this perspective, the core constitutional principle of Gonzales guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty and Grave Gonzales) – Gonzales endorsed the draft order for the final
independence is observed and any possible absurdity resulting Misconduct constituting betrayal of public trust is patently approval of the Ombudsman.70
from a contrary interpretation is avoided. In other words, while erroneous. The OP’s decision perfectly illustrates why the
the Constitution itself vested Congress with the power to requirement of impeachment-grounds in Section 8(2) of RA No. Clearly, when Mendoza hijacked the tourist bus on August 23,
determine the manner and cause of removal of all non- 6770 cannot be considered, even at a minimum, a measure of 2010, the records of the case were already pending before
impeachable officials, this power must be interpreted consistent protection of the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman. Ombudsman Gutierrez.
with the core constitutional principle of independence of the
Office of the Ombudsman. Our observation in Macalintal v. C. The Deputy Ombudsman: The Dismissal Issue Gross negligence refers to negligence characterized by the want
Comelec63 is apt: of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation
a. The Office of the President’s where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and
The ambit of legislative power under Article VI of the finding of gross negligence intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences
Constitution is circumscribed by other constitutional provisions. has no legal and factual leg to insofar as other persons may be affected. In the case of public
One such provision is Section 1 of Article IX-A of the 1987 stand on officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is
Constitution ordaining that constitutional commissions such as flagrant and palpable.71
the COMELEC shall be "independent." The OP’s decision found Gonzales guilty of Gross Neglect of
Duty and of Grave Misconduct. The assailed Decision of the OP Gonzales cannot be guilty of gross neglect of duty and/or
While one may argue that the grounds for impeachment under reads: inefficiency since he acted on the case forwarded to him within
Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 is intended as a measure of nine days. In finding Gonzales guilty, the OP72 relied on
protection for the Deputy Ombudsman and Special Prosecutor – Upon consideration of the First Report, the evidence and Section 8, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 7 (or the Rules
since these grounds are not intended to cover all kinds of official allegations of respondent Deputy Ombudsman himself, and of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, series of 1990, as
wrongdoing and plain errors of judgment - this argument other documentary evidence gathered, this Office finds that the amended) in ruling that Gonzales should have acted on
seriously overlooks the erosion of the independence of the inordinate and unjustified delay in the resolution of Captain Mendoza’s Motion for Reconsideration within five days:
Office of the Ombudsman that it creates. The mere fact that a Mendoza’s Motion for Reconsideration timely filed on 5
statutorily-created sword of Damocles hangs over the Deputy November 2009 xxx amounted to gross neglect of duty and/or Section 8. Motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation:
Ombudsman’s head, by itself, opens up all the channels for inefficiency in the performance of official duty.64 Grounds – Whenever allowable, a motion for reconsideration or
external pressures and influence of officialdom and partisan reinvestigation may only be entertained if filed within ten (10)
politics. The fear of external reprisal from the very office he is b. No gross neglect of duty or inefficiency days from receipt of the decision or order by the party on the
to check for excesses and abuses defeats the very purpose of basis of any of the following grounds:
granting independence to the Office of the Ombudsman. Let us again briefly recall the facts.
a) New evidence had been discovered which materially affects
That a judicial remedy is available (to set aside dismissals that 1. November 5, 2009 - Mendoza filed a Motion for the order, directive or decision;
do not conform to the high standard required in determining Reconsideration of the decision of the Ombudsman,65 which
whether a Deputy Ombudsman committed an impeachable was followed by a Supplement to the Motion for b) Grave errors of facts or laws or serious irregularities have
offense) and that the President’s power of removal is limited to Reconsideration;66 been committed prejudicial to the interest of the movant.
specified grounds are dismally inadequate when balanced with
the constitutional principle of independence. The mere filing of Only one motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation shall be
an administrative case against the Deputy Ombudsman and the allowed, and the Hearing Officer shall resolve the same within

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 29 | 36

five (5) days from the date of submission for resolution. that there was "a grossly inordinate and inexcusable delay"74 on echoed by Section 13 of RA No. 6770,79 and by Section 3, Rule
[emphasis and underscore ours] the part of Gonzales. III of Administrative Order No. 7, series of 1990, as amended.80

Even if we consider this provision to be mandatory, the period it Equally important, the constitutional guarantee of "speedy Moreover, Gonzales and his subordinates did not resolve the
requires cannot apply to Gonzales since he is a Deputy disposition of cases" before, among others, quasi-judicial complaint only on the basis of the unverified affidavit of Kalaw.
Ombudsman whose obligation is to review the case; he is not bodies,75 like the Office of the Ombudsman, is itself a relative Based on the prosecution officer’s recommendations, the finding
simply a Hearing Officer tasked with the initial resolution of the concept.76 Thus, the delay, if any, must be measured in this of guilt on the part of Mendoza, et al. was based on their
motion. In Section 6 of Administrative Order No. 7 on the objective constitutional sense. Unfortunately, because of the admissions as well. Mendoza, et al. admitted that they had
resolution of the case and submission of the proposed decision, very statutory grounds relied upon by the OP in dismissing arrested Kalaw based on two traffic violations and allowed him
the period for resolving the case does not cover the period Gonzales, the political and, perhaps, "practical" considerations to stay the whole night until the following morning in the police
within which it should be reviewed: got the better of what is legal and constitutional. precinct. The next morning, Kalaw was allowed to leave the
precinct despite his failure to show a valid license and based
Section 6. Rendition of decision. – Not later than thirty (30) The facts do not show that Gonzales’ subordinates had in any merely on his promise to return with the proper documents.81
days after the case is declared submitted for resolution, the way been grossly negligent in their work. While GIPO Garcia These admissions led Gonzales and his staff to conclude that
Hearing Officer shall submit a proposed decision containing his reviewed the case and drafted the order for more than three Mendoza, et al. irregularly acted in apprehending Kalaw, since
findings and recommendation for the approval of the months, it is noteworthy that he had not drafted the initial the proper procedure for the apprehension of traffic violators
Ombudsman. Said proposed decision shall be reviewed by the decision and, therefore, had to review the case for the first would be to give them a ticket and to file a case, when
Directors, Assistant Ombudsmen and Deputy Ombudsmen time.77 Even the Ombudsman herself could not be faulted for appropriate.82
concerned. With respect to low ranking public officials, the acting on a case within four months, given the amount of cases
Deputy Ombudsman concerned shall be the approving authority. that her office handles. Lastly, we cannot deduce undue interest simply because
Upon approval, copies thereof shall be served upon the parties Gonzales’ decision differs from the decision of the PNP-IAS
and the head of the office or agency of which the respondent is The point is that these are not inordinately long periods for the (which dismissed the complaint against Mendoza). To be sure,
an official or employee for his information and compliance with work involved: examination of the records, research on the we cannot tie the hands of any judicial or quasi-judicial body by
the appropriate directive contained therein. [italics and emphases pertinent laws and jurisprudence, and exercise of legal judgment ruling that it should always concur with the decisions of other
supplied] and discretion. If this Court rules that these periods per se judicial or quasi-judicial bodies which may have also taken
constitute gross neglect of duty, the Ombudsman’s constitutional cognizance of the case. To do so in the case of a Deputy
Thus, the OP’s ruling that Gonzales had been grossly negligent mandate to prosecute all the erring officials of this country Ombudsman would be repugnant to the independence that our
for taking nine days, instead of five days, to review a case was would be subjected to an unreasonable and overwhelming Constitution has specifically granted to this office and would
totally baseless. constraint. Similarly, if the Court rules that these periods per se nullify the very purpose for which it was created.
constitute gross neglect of duty, then we must be prepared to
c. No actionable failure to supervise subordinates reconcile this with the established concept of the right of speedy e. Penalty of dismissal totally
disposition of cases – something the Court may be hard put to incommensurate with established facts
The OP’s claims that Gonzales could have supervised his justify.
subordinates to promptly act on Mendoza’s motion and apprised Given the lack of factual basis for the charges against Gonzales,
the Tanodbayan of the urgency of resolving the same are d. No undue interest the penalty of removal imposed by the OP necessarily suffers
similarly groundless. grave infirmity. Basic strictures of fair play dictate that we can
The OP also found Gonzales guilty of showing undue interest in only be held liable for our own misdeeds; we can be made to
The Office of the Ombudsman is not a corner office in our Mendoza’s case by having the case endorsed to the Office of the account only for lapses in our responsibilities. It is notable that
bureaucracy. It handles numerous cases that involve the Ombudsman and by resolving it against Mendoza on the basis of of all the officers, it was Gonzales who took the least time —
potential loss of employment of many other public employees. the unverified complaint-affidavit of the alleged victim, Kalaw. nine days — followed by Cecilio, who took 21 days; Garcia —
We cannot conclusively state, as the OP appears to suggest, that the writer of the draft — took less than four months, and the
Mendoza’s case should have been prioritized over other similar The fact that Gonzales had Mendoza’s case endorsed to his Ombudsman, less than four months until the kidnapping incident
cases. office lies within his mandate, even if it were based merely on rendered Mendoza’s motion moot.
the request of the alleged victim’s father. The Constitution
The Court has already taken judicial notice of the steady stream empowers the Ombudsman and her Deputies to act promptly on In these lights, the decision of the OP is clearly and patently
of cases reaching the Office of the Ombudsman.73 This complaints filed in any form or manner against any public wrong. This conclusion, however, does not preclude the
consideration certainly militates against the OSG’s observation official or employee of the government.78 This provision is Ombudsman from looking into any other possible administrative

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 30 | 36

liability of Gonzales under existing Civil Service laws, rules and transferring the powers previously vested in the Special the disciplinary authority of the OP and yet expose the Special
regulations. Prosecutor directly to the Tanodbayan himself.92 Prosecutor to the same ills that a grant of independence to the
Office of the Ombudsman was designed for.
D. The Special Prosecutor: The Constitutional Issue This was the state of the law at the time the 1987 Constitution
was ratified. Under the 1987 Constitution, an "independent Congress recognized the importance of the Special Prosecutor as
The 1987 Constitution created a new, independent Office of the Office of the Ombudsman" is created.93 The existing a necessary adjunct of the Ombudsman, aside from his or her
Ombudsman. The existing Tanodbayan at the time83 became Tanodbayan is made the Office of the Special Prosecutor, "who deputies, by making the Office of the Special Prosecutor an
the Office of the Special Prosecutor under the 1987 Constitution. shall continue to function and exercise its powers as now94 or organic component of the Office of the Ombudsman and by
While the composition of the independent Office of the hereafter may be provided by law."95 granting the Ombudsman control and supervision over that
Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution does not textually office.105 This power of control and supervision includes
include the Special Prosecutor, the weight of the foregoing Other than the Ombudsman’s Deputies, the Ombudsman shall vesting the Office of the Ombudsman with the power to assign
discussions on the unconstitutionality of Section 8(2) of RA No. appoint all other officials and employees of the Office of the duties to the Special Prosecutor as he/she may deem fit.1âwphi1
6770 should equally apply to the Ombudsman.96 Section 13(8), Article XI of the 1987 Thus, by constitutional design, the Special Prosecutor is by no
Constitution provides that the Ombudsman may exercise "such means an ordinary subordinate but one who effectively and
Special Prosecutor on the basis of the legislative history of the other powers or perform such functions or duties as may be directly aids the Ombudsman in the exercise of his/her duties,
Office of the Ombudsman as expounded in jurisprudence. provided by law." Pursuant to this constitutional command, which include investigation and prosecution of officials in the
Congress enacted RA No. 6770 to provide for the functional and Executive Department.
Under the 1973 Constitution,84 the legislature was mandated to structural organization of the Office of the Ombudsman and the
create the Office of the Ombudsman, known as the Tanodbayan, extent of its disciplinary authority. Under Section 11(4) of RA No. 6770, the Special Prosecutor
with investigative and prosecutorial powers. Accordingly, on handles the prosecution of criminal cases within the jurisdiction
June 11, 1978, President Ferdinand Marcos enacted PD No. In terms of composition, Section 3 of RA No. 6770 defines the of the Sandiganbayan and this prosecutorial authority includes
1487.85 composition of the Office of the Ombudsman, including in this high-ranking executive officials. For emphasis, subjecting the
Office not only the offices of the several Deputy Ombudsmen Special Prosecutor to disciplinary and removal powers of the
Under PD No. 1486,86 however, the "Chief Special Prosecutor" but the Office of the Special Prosecutor as well. In terms of President, whose own alter egos and officials in the Executive
(CSP) was given the "exclusive authority" to conduct appointment, the law gave the President the authority to appoint Department are subject to the prosecutorial authority of the
preliminary investigation and to prosecute cases that are within the Ombudsman, his Deputies and the Special Prosecutor, from Special Prosecutor, would seriously place the independence of
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.87 PD No. 1486 expressly a list of nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council. In the Office of the Ombudsman itself at risk.
gave the Secretary of Justice the power of control and case of vacancy in these positions, the law requires that the
supervision over the Special Prosecutor.88 Consistent with this vacancy be filled within three (3) months from occurrence.97 Thus, even if the Office of the Special Prosecutor is not
grant of power, the law also authorized the Secretary of Justice expressly made part of the composition of the Office of the
to appoint or detail to the Office of the CSP "any officer or The law also imposes on the Special Prosecutor the same Ombudsman, the role it performs as an organic component of
employee of Department of Justice or any Bureau or Office qualifications it imposes on the Ombudsman himself/herself and that Office militates against a differential treatment between the
under the executive supervision thereof" to assist the Office of his/her deputies.98 Their terms of office,99 prohibitions and Ombudsman’s Deputies, on one hand, and the Special
the CSP. qualifications,100 rank and salary are likewise the same.101 The Prosecutor himself, on the other. What is true for the
requirement on disclosure102 is imposed on the Ombudsman, Ombudsman must be equally true, not only for her Deputies but,
In December 1978, PD No. 160789 practically gave back to the the Deputies and the Special Prosecutor as well. In case of also for other lesser officials of that Office who act directly as
Tanodbayan the powers taken away from it by the Office of the vacancy in the Office of the Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy agents of the Ombudsman herself in the performance of her
CSP. The law "created in the Office of the Tanodbayan an cannot assume the role of Acting Ombudsman; the President duties.
Office of the Chief Special Prosecutor" under the Tanodbayan’s may designate any of the Deputies or the Special Prosecutor as
control,90 with the exclusive authority to conduct preliminary Acting Ombudsman.103 The power of the Ombudsman and his In Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman,106 the Court was
investigation and prosecute all cases cognizable by the or her deputies to require other government agencies to render confronted with an argument that, at bottom, the Office of the
Sandiganbayan. Unlike the earlier decree, the law also assistance to the Office of the Ombudsman is likewise enjoyed Special Prosecutor is not a subordinate agency of the Office of
empowered the Tanodbayan to appoint Special Investigators and by the Special Prosecutor.104 the Ombudsman and is, in fact, separate and distinct from the
subordinate personnel and/or to detail to the Office of the CSP latter. In debunking that argument, the Court said:
any public officer or employees who "shall be under the Given this legislative history, the present overall legal structure
supervision and control of the Chief Special Prosecutor."91 In of the Office of the Ombudsman, both under the 1987 Firstly, the petitioners misconstrue Commissioner Romulo's
1979, PD No. 1630 further amended the earlier decrees by Constitution and RA No. 6770, militates against an statement as authority to advocate that the intent of the framers
interpretation that would insulate the Deputy Ombudsman from

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 31 | 36

of the 1987 Constitution was to place the Office of the Special WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to
Prosecutor under the Office of the President. Xxx declare Section 8(2) UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This ruling On January 28, 1997, the Civil Service Commission issued
renders any further ruling on the dismissal of Deputy Resolution No. 970688, which held that:
In the second place, Section 7 of Article XI expressly provides Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales III unnecessary, but is without
that the then existing Tanodbayan, to be henceforth known as prejudice to the power of the Ombudsman to conduct an WHEREFORE, the Commission finds the termination of the
the Office of the Special Prosecutor, "shall continue to function administrative investigation, if warranted, into the possible services of Nasiba A. Nuska as Municipal Local Registrar not in
and exercise its powers as now or hereafter may be provided by administrative liability of Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales order. Accordingly, she should be reinstated or restored to her
law, except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman III under pertinent Civil Service laws, rules and regulations. position. The Personnel Officer/Human Resource Management
created under this Constitution." The underscored phrase Officer and Cashier, Municipality of Ditsaan-Ramain, Lanao del
evidently refers to the Tanodbayan's powers under P.D. No. SO ORDERED. Sur, are hereby directed to enter her name in the rolls of
1630 or subsequent amendatory legislation. It follows then that employees of said municipality and to pay her back salaries
Congress may remove any of the Tanodbayan's/Special [G.R. No. 136480. December 4, 2001] from the date of her illegal separation until her reinstatement.
Prosecutor's powers under P.D. N0. 1630 or grant it other LACSASA M. ADIONG, petitioner, vs. COURT OF [10]
powers, except those powers conferred by the Constitution on APPEALS and NASIBA A. NUSKA, respondents.
the Office of the Ombudsman. On March 17, 1997, petitioner Mayor Adiong filed a motion for
The Case reconsideration.[11] On December 11, 1997, the Civil Service
Pursuing the present line of reasoning, when one considers that Commission denied the motion.[12]
by express mandate of paragraph 8, Section 13, Article XI of the In this petition for review on certiorari,[1] petitioner seeks the
Constitution, the Ombudsman may "exercise such other powers review of the decision[2] of the Court of Appeals as well as its On February 18, 1998, Mayor Adiong filed with the Court of
or perform functions or duties as may be provided by law," it is resolution[3] denying reconsideration thereof. Appeals a petition for review with preliminary injunction and
indubitable then that Congress has the power to place the Office temporary restraining order.[13]
of the Special Prosecutor under the Office of the The Facts
Ombudsman.107 On September 15, 1998, the Court of Appeals promulgated a
On December 6, 1994, Mayor Sultan Serad A. Batua issued a decision[14] dismissing the petition and affirming the resolution
Thus, under the present Constitution, there is every reason to permanent appointment to Nasiba A. Nuska to the position of of the Civil Service Commission.
treat the Special Prosecutor to be at par with the Ombudsman's Municipal Local Civil Registrar. The same appointment was
deputies, at least insofar as an extraneous disciplinary authority duly approved by the Civil Service Commission Office, Marawi On November 18, 1998, the motion for reconsideration[15] filed
is concerned, and must also enjoy the same grant of City on December 9, 1994.[4] by Mayor Adiong was denied by the Court of Appeals.[16]
independence under the Constitution.
On June 30, 1995, Mayor Lacsasa M. Adiong issued a Hence, this petition.[17]
III. SUMMARY OF VOTING memorandum[5] informing all municipal employees of the
termination of their appointment and directing them to clear Issues
In the voting held on January 28, 2014, by a vote of 8-7,108 the themselves from money and property accountabilities. On July
Court resolved to reverse its September 4, 2012 Decision insofar 1, 1995,[6] another memorandum clarified this by specifying The issues raised are whether the termination of respondent
as petitioner Gonzales is concerned (G.R. No. 196231). We that the mass termination of services applied only to temporary Nuskas employment was proper; whether Adiong was denied
declared Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 unconstitutional by or casual workers and requiring those holding approved due process in the proceedings before the Civil Service
granting disciplinary jurisdiction to the President over a Deputy permanent appointments to submit copies of their appointments. Commission; and whether the administrative case against
Ombudsman, in violation of the independence of the Office of Nuska[18] validated her termination.
the Ombudsman. Due to respondent Nuskas failure to submit a copy of her
appointment coupled with her failure to make a courtesy call on The Courts Ruling
However, by another vote of 8-7,109 the Court resolved to the petitioner as the new mayor, he terminated her services and
maintain the validity of Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 insofar as appointed a certain Nanayaon Samporna in her stead.[7] The petition is without merit.
Sulit is concerned. The Court did not consider the Office of the
Special Prosecutor to be constitutionally within the Office of the On August 27, 1995, respondent Nuska wrote Mayor Adiong The Constitution provides that:
Ombudsman and is, hence, not entitled to the independence the requesting for her reinstatement and payment of salaries
latter enjoys under the Constitution. covering the period July 1, 1995 to August 31, 1995.[8] Mayor No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without
Adiong failed to act on the request. Hence, on March 11, 1996, due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
respondent Nuska appealed to the Civil Service Commission.[9] protection of the laws.[19]

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 32 | 36

 with existing Civil Service rules and regulations. She requested Samporna to take the place of respondent Nuska as municipal
It further mandates that: that she be reinstated to her lawful position and her back salaries civil registrar.
be paid accordingly. The foregoing explains that although Nuska
No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or was physically absent in the office premises, all the while, she For failure to accord due process to respondent Nuska, the
suspended except for cause provided by law.[20] had the intention to return to work. Hence, she could not be termination of her employment is illegal. Consequently, she is
deemed to have abandoned or relinquished her right to the entitled to reinstatement, plus payment of backwages.
Section 1, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book position under an appointment with permanent employment
V of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides that: status.[23] However, according to jurisprudence, a civil service employee
illegally terminated from the service is entitled to back salaries
No officer or employee in the civil service shall be removed or Generally speaking, a person holding a public office may limited only to a maximum period of five years,[29] not to full
suspended except for cause as provided by law and after due abandon such office by non-user or acquiescence.[24] Non-user back salaries from her illegal termination up to her
process. refers to a neglect to use a right or privilege or to exercise an reinstatement.
office.[25] However, nonperformance of the duties of an office
In this case, respondent Nuska had a permanent appointment to does not constitute abandonment where such nonperformance After respondent Nuska filed her letter-appeal to the Civil
the position of municipal civil registrar of Ditsaan-Ramain, results from temporary disability or from involuntary failure to Service Commission on March 11, 1996, Director Angelito G.
Lanao del Sur. She thus enjoyed security of tenure as guaranteed perform.[26] Abandonment may also result from an Grande, Office of Legal Affairs, Civil Service Commission,
by law. As an employee in the civil service and as a civil service acquiescence by the officer in his wrongful removal or directed petitioner to submit his comment on the appeal within
eligible, respondent Nuska is entitled to the benefits, rights and discharge, for instance, after a summary removal, an five (5) days from receipt of the order. Thus, on June 29, 1996,
privileges extended to those belonging to the classified service. unreasonable delay by an officer illegally removed in taking petitioner submitted the required comment.
She could not be removed or dismissed from the service without steps to vindicate his rights may constitute an abandonment of
just cause and without observing the requirements of due the office.[27] Notice and hearing, as a requirement of due process, does not
process.[21] connote full adversarial proceedings.[30] As mentioned, the
In this case, respondent Nuskas failure to perform her duties was essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or
The reasons advanced by petitioner why respondent Nuskas involuntary and cannot be considered as acquiescence. In her as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to
employment was terminated were the following: failure to make August 27, 1995 letter to petitioner, she claimed that she did not explain ones side.[31]
a courtesy call, failure to submit her appointment papers, and resign and she considered her termination from the service as
failure to report to work which was tantamount to abandonment. illegal. She insisted on her reinstatement. Clearly, there was no As to the pendency of an administrative charge[32] against
abandonment of office. respondent Nuska for dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct
We agree with the Solicitor General that failure to make a prejudicial to the best interest of the service, the same will not
courtesy call to ones superior is not an offense, much less a Hence, the reasons given by petitioner for separating respondent change the ruling of the Court.
ground to terminate a persons employment.[22] Nuska from office are not just causes for terminating the
services of an official or employee in the civil service. The charge was filed only on May 14, 1999,[33] whereas the
Respondent Nuskas failure to submit her appointment papers is Assuming that the grounds for removal relied upon by petitioner illegal termination of respondent Nuska occurred in the year
not a cause for her outright dismissal. It was not shown that were sufficient, still, the dismissal was illegal, as it was done 1995. It is apparent that it was only an afterthought on the part
respondent Nuska was informed of the July 1, 1995 without compliance with the requirements of due process. of petitioner to use the charge as an excuse to terminate
memorandum requiring those with permanent appointments to respondent Nuskas employment. The evidence that he would be
submit their papers. At the very least, petitioner could have The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, using in the administrative case were only gathered after the
reminded her to submit the documents without terminating her or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to termination in July 1995.
employment immediately. seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
This requirement is met where one is given a chance to explain When the Constitution mandated that a government official or
On the alleged abandonment by respondent Nuska of her his side of the controversy, even if no hearing is conducted.[28] employee may not be removed or suspended without due
position, we agree with the stand of the Civil Service process of law, the law presumes, in protecting such rights, that
Commission in Resolution No. 970688 when it said that: In the case at bar, respondent Nuska was not given such an a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or
opportunity. Petitioner Adiong did not bother to ask respondent elected to it,[34] and that official duty has been regularly
As to the alleged abandonment of office, the same is without any Nuska to explain why she had not submitted her appointment performed.[35]
basis. It is significant to note that Nuska, in her letter dated 27 papers as required nor did he take time to act on her letter of
August 1995, informed Mayor Adiong that she did not resign August 27, 1995. In addition, he appointed a certain Nanayaon
and that the termination of her services was not in accordance

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 33 | 36

Until after final determination of respondent Nuskas guilt in the
administrative case, she cannot be made to suffer the extreme On January 10, 1995, De Chavez issued Office Order No. 1, WHEREFORE, the PETITION FOR REVIEW is GIVEN DUE
penalty of termination of her employment. Series of 1995 dropping respondent from the rolls on the ground COURSE.
of absence without official leave (AWOL) for more than 30
The Fallo days.[8] CSC RESOLUTIONS NOS. 981443 AND 982540 are SET
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition. The Court ASIDE.
AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals[36] and the Respondent claims that his dismissal from the service for being
resolution denying reconsideration thereof. on AWOL has no basis because he was attending to his job as a Petitioner NESTOR BONIFACIO is REINSTATED as a
teacher and coach of the universitys basketball team. His detail drafting instructor of respondent PABLO BORBON
No costs. to the office of the president and the subsequent dropping from MEMORIAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, now
the rolls was malicious and in retaliation to his filing of a BATANGAS STATE UNIVERSITY, with full back salaries
SO ORDERED. complaint against De Chavez and other school officials.[9] In (i.e., the compensation fixed for his position and prevailing at
fact, the detail order did not specify the functions he was to the time of reinstatement, together with the allowances and
discharge and he was always warned that he would be dropped benefits appurtenant thereto, as well as the standard or automatic
BATANGAS STATE UNIVERSITY, G.R. No. 167762 from the rolls soon. To show that he was never absent,
Petitioner, general increases in salary decreed thereafter from time to time,
respondent presented his Daily Time Records (DTR) from inclusive of benefits for sick leave and vacation leave counted
- versus - October to December 1994, Logbook of attendance from
NESTOR BONIFACIO, from the date of illegal dismissal, and all benefits arising from
November 2 to December 1994, and Letters dated October 27, automatic promotions, if any, and increases in salary during the
Respondent. 1994 and November 10, 1994 from Romy A. Emplica, the
Promulgated: period of his illegal dismissal) limited to five (5) years.
school's Sports Coordinator. Further, he contends that his DTRs
December 15, 2005 were not accepted by the personnel office because his immediate
supervisor in the office of the president unjustifiably refused to SO ORDERED.[14]
This petition for review assails the April 11, 2005 Decision[1] of sign them.[10] Hence, this petition for review based on the following ground:
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 49444 which set aside
CSC Resolution Nos. 981443[2] and 982540[3] affirming the On the other hand, De Chavez denies the allegations of THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF
dismissal from the government service and denying the motion harassment. He explains that respondent's transfer to his office LAW IN REINSTATING RESPONDENT BASED ON THE
for reconsideration, of respondent Nestor Bonifacio, was upon the request of Roberto Kalalo, his Chief of Staff, as he EQUITIES OF THE SITUATION AND IN REVERSING THE
respectively. was the most qualified employee to perform the task. However, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS FINDING
despite receipt of the memorandum order, respondent did not THAT HIS CONTINUOUS ABSENCE AT HIS POST FOR
Respondent was one of the faculty members of Batangas State report to his office, thus, he was dropped from the rolls after MORE THAN THIRTY WORKING DAYS JUSTIFIED HIS
University[4] who held protest rallies near the main campus of incurring absences without official leave for more than 30 days. DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE.[15]
the university and at the provincial capitol of Batangas to air [11]
their grievances against its president, Dr. Ernesto M. De Chavez.
He was also among the faculty members who filed a complaint The Civil Service Regional Office (CSRO) No. IV upheld the Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in
against De Chavez and other school officials for alleged graft termination of the respondent from the service.[12] disregarding the finding of fact of the Civil Service Commission
and corruption with the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, which that respondent did not report to his new assignment, in
referred the same to the Presidential Commission Against Graft violation of the rule on finality of factual findings of
and Corruption (PCAGC).[5] The Civil Service Commission, in CSC Resolution No. 981443
dated June 11, 1998, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the administrative or quasi-judicial agencies. By relying solely on
On October 10, 1994, Dr. Rolando Lontok, Vice President for speculation, it further erred in ruling that De Chavez and other
Academic Affairs, issued a memorandum reassigning assailed order. Respondent's motion for reconsideration was also
denied in CSC Resolution No. 982540 dated September 29, school officials dealt with the respondent in bad faith. Petitioner
respondent to the office of the president. As the school semester also argues that the Court of Appeals erred in applying equity
would end on October 13, 1994, respondent requested De 1998.[13]
despite the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations which
Chavez if he could report to his office only after the said date, to warranted the dropping from the rolls of an employee who
which the latter agreed.[6] Aggrieved, respondent filed a petition for review under Rule 43 incurs absences without official leave for more than 30 days.
of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals which
Meanwhile, respondent continued to discharge his duties as a reversed CSC Resolution Nos. 981443 and 982540. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads: In fine, the issue to be resolved is whether or not respondent can
teacher as well as coach of the universitys basketball team.[7] be considered AWOL for more than 30 days for his alleged
04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 34 | 36
failure to report to his new assignment in the office of the Sec. 63. Effect of absences without approved leave. - An official the term; that he later on reported to Dr. De Chavez but the latter
president. or employee who is continuously absent without approved leave treated him with condescension and hostility, making sure that
for at least thirty (30) calendar days shall be considered on the petitioner was aware that he would soon be dismissed; and
Undoubtedly, the above issue is one of fact as it assails the absence without official leave (AWOL) and shall be separated that the petitioner went several more times to the Office of the
factual finding of the Court of Appeals that respondent had not from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice. President to inquire about his DTRs but he was given the run-
gone AWOL. Basic is the rule in this jurisdiction that only He shall, however, be informed, at his address appearing on his around. PBMIT did not refute the petitioners explanations about
questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on 201 files of his separation from the service, not later than five reporting to Dr. De Chavez and about the latters harsh and angry
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The jurisdiction (5) days from its effectivity. attitude towards him on several occasions.
of the Supreme Court in cases brought to it from the Court of If the number of unauthorized absences incurred is less than
Appeals is limited to reviewing and revising the errors of law thirty (30) calendar days, a written Return-to-Work Order shall It is unfortunate that the CSC sided with PBMIT only because
imputed to it, its findings of fact being conclusive,[16] save for be served to him at his last known address on record. Failure on the DTRs were not signed and approved by the petitioners
the most cogent and compelling reason, like when the factual his part to report for work within the period stated in the order immediate superior, who was the chief of staff of the Office of
findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are shall be a valid ground to drop him from the rolls. the President. In doing so, the CSC put a higher value to form
contradictory.[17] rather than to substance. That, to us, is unacceptable for it goes
Clearly then, an employee continuously absent without approved against the clear equities of the situation. The CSC thereby
Indeed, in the case at bar, the findings of the Civil Service leave for at least 30 calendar days may be dropped from the rolls committed serious reversible error, particularly since the records
Commission and its conclusion based on the said findings without prior notice. undeniably showed that the approval of the DTRs was
contradict those of the appellate court. However, upon careful deliberately withheld due to the hostility of Dr. De Chavez
review of the records, we find no grounds to grant the petition. In the instant case, respondent was terminated from the service towards the petitioner. Without doubt, PBMIT and its officials,
We, thus, affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. because petitioners personnel department refused to accept starting with Dr. De Chavez, were guilty of evident bad faith in
respondents DTRs as they were not countersigned by his dealing with the petitioner on the matter of his DTRs.[20]
Section 2(3), Article IX-B of the Constitution provides that no immediate supervisor. His termination from the service was
officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or upheld by the Civil Service Commission.
suspended except for cause provided by law. The Administrative We agree with the Court of Appeals.
Code of 1987 and the Civil Service Law echo this constitutional However, respondent contests the finding that he was absent. He
edict of security of tenure of the employees in the civil service. claims that he reported for work and faithfully discharged his Petitioners bad faith becomes more apparent when De Chavez
The guarantee of security of tenure is an important cornerstone functions as a teacher and coach of the university basketball ignored respondent's presence in the school, allowed 30 calendar
of the civil service system because it secures for a faithful team. He regularly punched his DTRs in the bundy clock for the days to lapse and thereafter immediately caused the termination,
employee permanence of employment, at least for the period months of October, November and December, 1994, as well as instead of summoning him to explain his alleged absences.
prescribed by law, and frees the employee from the fear of entered his name in the logbook when the bundy clock Clearly, the detail of respondent in the office of the president
political and personal reprisals.[18] malfunctioned. He also claims that he reported to the office of was meant to embarrass him and the subsequent termination of
the president on October 17, 1994 and several times thereafter; employment was part of the dubious scheme to rid of
With this mandate, we held in Government Service Insurance however, he was treated by De Chavez with condescension and respondent's presence in the school in direct violation of
System v. Court of Appeals[19] that said constitutional hostility and was not given any specific task to perform. respondent's right to work and unduly dilutes the constitutional
prohibition is a guaranty of both procedural and substantive due Respondent maintains that his DTRs were not accepted by the guarantees of security of tenure and due process. As held in
process and that the burden of proof is upon the employer to personnel department because his immediate supervisor in the Bentain v. Court of Appeals:[21]
show the validity of the dismissal and not upon the employee to office of the president unjustifiably refused to sign them.
prove otherwise. While a temporary transfer or assignment of personnel is
Believing the respondent, the Court of Appeals reversed the permissible even without the employees prior consent, it cannot
We find that petitioner failed to discharge this burden. assailed resolutions of the Civil Service Commission, to wit: be done when the transfer is a preliminary step toward his
removal, or is a scheme to lure him away from his permanent
Petitioner dropped respondent from the rolls based on Section Our examination of the records tells us that the CSC did not give position, or designed to indirectly terminate his service, or force
63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and due consideration to the petitioners detailed and credible his resignation. Such a transfer would in effect circumvent the
Regulations which pertinently provides: explanations to the effect that he actually reported to Dr. De provision which safeguards the tenure of office of those who are
Chavez upon receiving the memorandum of reassignment from in the Civil Service....
Dr. Lontok but Dr. De Chavez allowed him to report after
October 17, 1994 so that he could finish his teaching duties for
04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 35 | 36
Neither are the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar
constitute abandonment. It must be emphasized that the detail
order was issued on October 10, 1994 when the school semester
was not yet over. Upon his detail in the office of the president,
respondent did not lose his position[22] as a teacher. Contrary to
petitioners allegation, it was also for the school's interest that
respondent continued to conduct classes and coach the
basketball team. Thus, it cannot be said that respondent
abandoned his position considering that he continued to
faithfully discharge his duties. Abandonment is a matter of
intention and cannot lightly be presumed from certain equivocal
acts. To constitute abandonment, there must be clear proof of
deliberate and unjustified intent to sever the employer-employee
relationship.[23]

The Court of Appeals correctly ordered respondents

reinstatement. However, the award of backwages and other
monetary benefits should not be limited to 5 years and must
therefore be modified in line with the recent case of Civil
Service Commission v. Gentallan.[24] We held in said case that
an illegally dismissed government employee who is later
ordered reinstated is entitled to backwages and other monetary
benefits from the time of her illegal dismissal up to her
reinstatement. This is only fair and just because an employee
who is reinstated after having been illegally dismissed is
considered as not having left her office and should be given the
corresponding compensation at the time of her reinstatement.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The April 11, 2005
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 49444
setting aside CSC Resolution Nos. 981443 and 982540 which
upheld the dismissal of respondent from the service is
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that respondent is
entitled to full backwages and other monetary benefits from the
time of his illegal dismissal up to the time of his actual
reinstatement.

SO ORDERED.

04 SEPTEMBER 2017 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION P a g e 36 | 36