Republic of the Philippines

AUTONOMOUS REGION IN MUSLIM MINDANAO

ORG Complex, Cotabato City

DEPED-ARMM INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE

JIANISAH E. MALA, et.al.,

Complainants,
Administrative Case No. 01-10

- Versus - FOR: DISHONESTY, VIOLATION OF

R.A. 3019 etc.,

MONA A. MACATANONG and

DRA. NORANIA PANIOROTAN,

Respondents.

X------------------------/

ASMINAH S. TARATINGAN, et. Al.

Complainants,
Administrative Case No. 02-10

- Versus - FOR: DISHONESTY, VIOLATION OF

R.A. 3019 , etc.

MONA A. MACATANONG,
Respondent.
X-------------------------x

ORDER

Pending for resolution by this Investigation Committee is an

Urgent Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss the Complaints for Lack of
Jurisdiction Based on the Illegality of Constitution and Bias on the part of
the investigating committee filed by the respondents through their
counsel Atty. Edgar A. Masorong in compliance with the agreement
made on January 3, 2011 that the respondents will file pleading within
fifteen (15) days. The said manifestation with motion to dismiss etc. was
received on February 2, 2011 by the Committee two (2) days after the
hearing on January 31, 2011.
 In sum, the pivotal issues are (1) whether the constitution of the
Investigating Committee was illegal for not being in accordance with
law, and (2) whether the Committee is not free from suspicions of bias
and partiality.

On the first issue, the respondents were questioning the legality

of the constitution of the Investigation on the ground that the
committee should have been constituted in accordance with R.A. 4670
otherwise known as The Magna Carta for Public School Teachers , specifically
citing Section 9 of said act. This Committee is not questioning the
existence of said Act; however, the respondents should be reminded
that Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao is governed by its organic
Act, Republic Act No. 6734 as amended by Republic Act No. 9054.

Pursuant to the provision of R.A. 9054, line agencies and other

offices of the Central Government or national government dealing with
local government, social services and others including their personnel,
equipment, properties and budgets were place under the control and
supervision of the Regional government (ARMM). Section 4 of Article
XVIII of R.A. 9054 provides among others:

“Sec. 4 Agencies and Offices Transferred to the

Autonomous Region. – Upon the election of the officials of
the Regional Government, as mandated by this Organic Act, the
line agencies and offices of the central government or national
government dealing with local government, social services,
science and technology, labor, natural resources, and tourism,
including their personnel, equipment, properties, and budgets,
shall be immediately placed under the control and supervision of
the Regional Government.”

X x x x x x”

Based on the above quoted provision of R.A. 9054, Executive

Order No. 459 was issued on May 17, 1991 by then President Corazon
Aquino formally devolving Department of Education, Culture and Sports
(DECS) the control and supervision over its offices in the region and for
other purposes. With the devolution of DECS to the Autonomous Region
in Muslim Mindanao, DECS is no longer within the control and
supervision of the DECS National (now DepEd); hence, the law cited by
the respondents is not applicable to ARMM.

On the disciplinary authority over officials and employees, Section

2 of R.A. 9054, provides:

“Sec.2 Disciplinary Authority over officials and

employees.- The Regional government shall have primary
disciplinary authority over officials and employees of the
Regional Government. In the exercise of that authority, the
 Regional Government shall apply the Civil Service Law, rules and
regulations of the central government or national government
until the Regional Assembly shall have enacted a Regional Civil
Service Law.”

R.A. 9054, further provides:

“Section 20. Power of Regional Governor over

Commissions, Agencies, Boards, Bureaus, and offices. –
Subject to exceptions provided for in this organic Act, the
Regional Governor shall have control of all the regional
executive commissions, agencies, boards, bureaus, and offices.
He shall ensure that laws are faithfully executed.”

The Regional Legislative Assembly in the exercise of its powers

under the Organic Law enacted Muslim Mindanao Act (MMA) No. 25
otherwise known as “An Act Providing for a Local Government Code of
the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao” where it was stated
under Section 82 thereof that:

Sec. 82. Administrative Investigation. - In any

regional or local government unit, administrative investigation
may be conducted by a person or a committee duly authorized
by the regional or local chief executive. Said person or
committee shall conduct hearings on the cases brought against
appointive officials or employees and submit their findings and
recommendations to the regional or local chief executive
concerned within fifteen (15) days from the conclusion of the
hearings. The administrative cases herein mentioned shall be
decided within ninety (90) days from the time the respondent is
formally notified of the charges.

Further, the procedures are laid down under Art. 108 of the Rules
and Regulations Implementing MMA No. 25; to wit:

Art. 108. Administrative Investigation and

Procedure.- (a) Without prejudice to the rights of every private
citizen, any official or employee in the local government unit
shall file an administrative case before the CSC pursuant to
Section 47, Title I Book V of Executive Order No. 292. A
complaint may be filed directly with the regional or local chief
executive by a private citizen against a government official or
employee who may hear and decide the case. However, an
investigation may be entrusted to a person or a committee duly
authorized by the Regional or Local Chief Executive

(b) Said person or committee shall conduct hearings on the case

brought before it against appointive official or employee in
accordance with Section 48, title 1, Book V of the Administrative
Code;
 © Said person or committee shall submit his/its findings and
recommendations to the Regional or Local Chief Executive
concerned within fifteen days from the conclusion of the
hearings;

The result of the investigation, including appropriate

recommendation, shall be submitted to the Regional or Local
Chief Executive concerned within fifteen days from the
conclusion of the hearing;

(d) An Administrative Case shall be decided within ninety (90)

days from the time the respondent is formally notified of the
charges.

It is erroneous, therefore, for respondents to contend that R.A. 

No.  4670 confers an exclusive disciplinary authority on the DepEd over
public school teachers and prescribes an exclusive procedure in
administrative investigations involving them. R.A 9054 and MMA No. 25
were quite explicit in conferring authority on the regional government
to have primary disciplinary authority over its officials and employees
and to conduct administrative investigation by a person or a committee
duly authorized by the regional or local chief executive.

On the second issue, the Committee would like to remind the

respondents that what can reasonably be gleaned from jurisprudence is
the necessity of proving bias and partiality. The proof required needs
to point to some act or conduct on the part of the members of the
investigating committee. In the instant Motion, there is not even a
single act or conduct attributed to the members from where a suspicion
of bias or partiality can be derived or appreciated. Understandably,
respondents simply cannot make such allegation all because there is
none to be told. If allegations or perceptions of bias from the tenor and
language of a judge is considered by the Supreme Court as insufficient to
show prejudgment, how much more insufficient it becomes if there is
absent any allegation of bias or partiality to begin with.

In Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Dy Hong Pi, it was

held that “…the mere imputation of bias or partiality is not enough
ground for inhibition, especially when the charge is without basis.
Extrinsic evidence must further be presented to establish bias, bad faith,
malice, or corrupt purpose, in addition to palpable error which may be
inferred from the decision or order itself. This Court has to be shown
acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or
prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased or
partial…”
 The bare allegations of the member’s partiality will not suffice in
the absence of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the
presumption that they will undertake their noble role of dispensing
justice in accordance with law and evidence, and without fear or favor.

It is in this light that the remaining members of the Committee

have decided to deny the motion to dismiss.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion to dismiss and the

prayer to discontinue the proceedings and declare a mistrial are hereby
denied.

Cotabato City, Philippines, February 10, 2011.

MORAKIB MAROHOMSALIC ABDULLAH CUSAIN

Member Member