You are on page 1of 28

University of Cebu-Banilad Campus

Banilad, Cebu City


College of Law

MODULE
LAW ON PUBLIC
OFFICERS

Atty. Judiel M. Pareja


Page 1 of 28

INTRODUCTION
Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provides that a "Public office is a public
trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people,
serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism
and justice, and lead modest lives."
Pursuant to this constitutional mandate, Republic Act No. 6713 (The Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) directs the public officials and
employees to uphold public interest over personal interest and for this purpose, to use
government resources and the powers of their offices efficiently, effectively, honestly
and economically to avoid wastage of government resources.
NATURE OF PUBLIC OFFICE
In the case of Cornejo vs. Gabriel, November 17, 1920, the court said that [i]t is,
however, well settled in the United States, that a public office is not property within the
sense of the constitutional guaranties of due process of law, but is a public trust or
agency. In the case of Taylor vs.Beckham ([1899], 178, U. S., 548), Mr. Chief Justice
Fuller said that: "Decisions are numerous to the effect that public offices are mere
agencies or trust, and not property as such." The basic idea of government in the
Philippine Islands, as in the United States, is that of a popular representative
government, the officers being mere agents and not rulers of the people, one where no
one man or set of men has a proprietary or contractual right to an office, but where
every officer accepts office pursuant to the provisions of the law and holds the office as
a trust for the people whom he represents.
Section 2(9) of the 1987 Administrative Code of the Philippines provides that an [o]ffice
refers, within the framework of governmental organization, to any major functional unit of a
department or bureau including regional offices. It may also refer to any position held or
occupied by individual persons, whose functions are defined by law or regulation.
"A public office is the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which
for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power,
an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign function of the government,
to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public" (7 Mechem, Public Officers, Section
1; See also 42 Am. Jur., 944-955; Emphasis supplied). There is no such thing as a vested
interest or an estate in an office, or even an absolute right to hold office. Excepting
constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no
one can be said to have any vested right in an office or its salary (42 Am. Jur. 881).
Page 2 of 28

In the case of State, ex rel. Barney, vs. Hawkins, the court said "[a]fter an exhaustive
examination of the authorities, we hold that five elements are indispensable in any
position of public employment, in order to make it a public office of a civil nature: (1) It
must be created by the Constitution or by the legislature or created by a municipality or
other body through authority conferred by the legislature; (2) it must possess a
delegation of a portion of the sovereign power of government, to be exercised for the
benefit of the public; (3) the powers conferred, and the duties to be discharged, must be
defined, directly or impliedly, by the legislature or through legislative authority; (4) the
duties must be performed independently and without control of a superior power other
than the law, unless they be those of an inferior or subordinate office, created or
authorized by the legislature, and by it placed under the general control of a superior
officer or body; (5) it must have some permanency and continuity, and not be only
temporary or occasional."
PUBLIC OFFICER
The rule concerning the distinction between a public officer and an employee was
enunciated with clarity in People vs. Freedland, 308 Mich 449; 14 NW2d 62 (1944). The
court said that the correct rule is stated in Mechem on Public Offices and Officers, Secs.
1 and 2, as follows:
"A public office is the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by
which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the
creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign
functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public.
The individual so invested is a public officer.
The Administrative Code of the Philippines also distinguished an officer from a mere
employee, to wit:
(14) "Officer" as distinguished from "clerk" or "employee", refers to a person
whose duties, not being of a clerical or manual nature, involves the exercise of
discretion in the performance of the functions of the government. When used with
reference to a person having authority to do a particular act or perform a
particular function in the exercise of governmental power, "officer" includes any
government employee, agent or body having authority to do the act or exercise
that function.
(15) "Employee", when used with reference to a person in the public service,
includes any person in the service of the government or any of its agencies,
divisions, subdivisions or instrumentalities.

Page 3 of 28

In Solomon vs. Highland Park Civil Service Commission, 64 Mich App 433, p 438; 236
NW2d 94 (1975), the court stated that:
'A public officer in the general everyday acceptance of the term is a special
classification of those involved in government at what may be described as in an
executive classification, whether his elevation to that status is elective or
appointive. His compensation is fixed by legislative action, state or local. He does
not collectively bargain for his wages or working conditions, and in no case that
we know of are his duties and the standard of performance therefore agreed on
by labor contracts. . . .' 64 Mich App 433, 437-438; 236 NW2d 94
Task 1
Encircle the words that are related to the different classifications of public officers.
O
R
J
M
E
E
N
U
C
O
P
A
B
K
E

T
L
F
F
I
V
E
H
R
J
T
B
I
V
A

C
F
I
P
O
I
I
Y
A
S
I
E
I
S
I

A
I
E
V
M
V
U
T
L
W
D
T
T
N
O

F
H
L
S
I
B
F
A
A
L
C
R
S
O
G

E
Y
A
N
L
C
P
E
G
L
O
T
E
P
M

D
N
D
U
I
O
Q
C
E
Z
S
S
G
A
R

C
H
A
O
T
D
E
T
S
U
R
I
B
E
E

S
O
B
L
A
C
O
L
M
U
V
A
G
U
L

M
S
I
G
R
L
O
A
C
I
L
U
E
E
P

A
O
S
A
Y
T
N
N
X
E
F
O
C
M
L

S
E
R
Z
R
T
O
O
S
N
R
H
I
F
N

W
E
X
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
P
U
T
S
L

O
S
N
L
P
E
L
T
A
A
I
U
J
Y
B

U
U
I
R
E
I
U
A
V
O
Y
C
W
E
O

H
T
R
N
C
O
A
N
M
B
K
R
T
G
D

Y
U
K
I
S
T
I
U
J
A
O
T
I
A
R

O
A
D
N
E
V
I
T
N
I
O
P
P
A
I

B
U
T
O
U
M
T
P
A
I
O
C
U
E
S

J
L
A
I
C
I
D
U
J
E
M
S
P
B
T

Task 2
The principles discussed above, particularly the portion which enumerates the
characteristics of an officer, have been followed consistently by courts. By applying the
said the characteristics, determine whether the individuals involved are occupying a
public office. Write P if the individual is a public officer and NP if not.
1. Notary Public
2. Attorney-at-law
Page 4 of 28

3. Policeman
4. Security Guards
5. Clergyman in the celebration of marriage
Case Analysis 1
Read and discuss the important legal doctrines, principles and concepts enunciated in
the following cases.
1. Preclaro vs. Sandiganbayan, August 21, 1995
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
2. Serana vs. Sandiganbayan, January 22, 2008
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
3. Namil vs. COMELEC, October 28, 2003
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Page 5 of 28

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Q&A1
Is compensation indispensable to public office?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
SELECTION FOR PUBLIC OFFICE
Appointment
In the case of Aparri vs. CA, January 31, 1984, the court explained that [b]y
"appointment" is meant the act of designation by the executive officer, board or body, to
whom that power has been delegated, of the individual who is to exercise the functions
of a given office (Mechem op. cit., Sec. 102). When the power of appointment is
absolute, and the appointee has been determined upon, no further consent or approval
is necessary, and the formal evidence of the appointment, the commission, may issue at
once. Where, however, the assent or confirmation of some other officer or body is
required, the Commission can issue or the appointment is complete only when such
assent or condition is obtained (People vs. Bissell, 49 Cal. 407). To constitute an
"appointment" to office, there must be some open, unequivocal act of appointment on
the part of the appointing authority empowered to make it, and it may be said that an
appointment to office is made and is complete when the last act required of the
appointing authority has been performed (Molnar vs. City of Aurora, 348 N.E. 2d 262, 38
III App. 3d 580). In either case, the appointment becomes complete when the last act
required of the appointing power is performed (State vs. Barbour, 53 Conn. 76, 55 Am.
Rep. 65).
Designation
Page 6 of 28

In Binamira vs. Garrucho, July 30, 1990, the court stated that:
Appointment may be defined as the selection, by the authority vested with the
power, of an individual who is to exercise the functions of a given office. When
completed, usually with its confirmation, the appointment results in security of
tenure for the person chosen unless he is replaceable at pleasure because of the
nature of his office. Designation, on the other hand, connotes merely the
imposition by law of additional duties on an incumbent official, as where, in the
case before us, the Secretary of Tourism is designated Chairman of the Board of
Directors of the Philippine Tourism Authority, or where, under the Constitution,
three Justices of the Supreme Court are designated by the Chief Justice to sit in
the Electoral Tribunal of the Senate or the House of Representatives. It is said
that appointment is essentially executive while designation is legislative in nature.
Designation may also be loosely defined as an appointment because it likewise
involves the naming of a particular person to a specified public office. That is the
common understanding of the term. However, where the person is merely
designated and not appointed, the implication is that he shall hold the office only
in a temporary capacity and may be replaced at will by the appointing authority.
In this sense, the designation is considered only an acting or temporary
appointment, which does not confer security of tenure on the person named.
Presidents Appointing Power
The 1987 Constitution provides:
Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments,
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces
from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments
are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of
the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and
those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law,
vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the
courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.
The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of
the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be
effective only until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the
next adjournment of the Congress.
Page 7 of 28

In the case of Gonzales III vs. Office of the President, September 04, 2012, the court
said that [u]nder the doctrine of implication, the power to appoint carries with it the
power to remove. As a general rule, therefore, all officers appointed by the President
are also removable by him. The exception to this is when the law expressly provides
otherwise - that is, when the power to remove is expressly vested in an office or
authority other than the appointing power. In some cases, the Constitution expressly
separates the power to remove from the President's power to appoint. Under Section 9,
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, the Members of the Supreme Court and judges of
lower courts shall be appointed by the President. However, Members of the Supreme
Court may be removed after impeachment proceedings initiated by Congress (Section
2, Article XI), while judges of lower courts may be removed only by the Supreme Court
by virtue of its administrative supervision over all its personnel (Sections 6 and 11,
Article VIII). The Chairpersons and Commissioners of the Civil Service Commission
Section 1(2), Article IX(B), the Commission on Elections Section 1(2), Article IX(C), and
the Commission on Audit Section 1(2), Article IX(D) shall likewise be appointed by the
President, but they may be removed only by impeachment (Section 2, Article XI). As
priorly stated, the Ombudsman himself shall be appointed by the President (Section 9,
Article XI) but may also be removed only by impeachment (Section 2, Article XI).
Election
The Rules of Procedure in Election Contests before the Courts involving Elective
Municipal and barangay Officials (AM. No. 07-4-15-SC) provides that:
Election - means the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular
vote through the use of the ballot. Specifically, it may refer to the conduct of the
polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral campaign, and the
casting and counting of ballots and canvassing of return.
Q&A2
Read each question very carefully. Answer legibly, clearly, and concisely.
1. It is readily apparent that under the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, there are
four (4) groups of officers whom the President shall appoint. Enumerate these
groups and determine which group/s require or requires the concurrence of the
Commission on the Appointments.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Page 8 of 28

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
2. Can the President appoint acting secretaries without the consent of the
Commission on Appointments while Congress is in session?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Task 3
Choose which of the following appointments by the president require the consent of the
Commission on Appointments.
Commissioner of Customs
Lieutenant

Naval Captain

NLRC Chairman
Consuls

Executive Secretary
PNP Director

CHR Chairman

______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Task 4
The following terms are the different steps in the appointing process. Make a schematic
diagram to show the said process and briefly explain each step.
Attestation

Nomination
Page 9 of 28

Confirmation

Issuance of commission

Case Analysis 2
Read and discuss the important legal doctrines, principles and concepts enunciated in
the following cases.
1. Farias vs. Executive Secretary, December 10, 2003
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
2. Quinto vs. COMELEC, February 22, 2010
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Page 10 of 28

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
3. Triste vs. Leyte State College Board of Trustees, December 17 , 1990
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
4. Garces vs. Court of Appeals, July 17, 1996
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
ELIGIBILITY AND QUALIFICATION
Blacks Law Dictionary provides that qualification means the possession of the qualities
or circumstances which are inherently or legally necessary to render him eligible to fill
an office or to perform a public duty or function. Moreover, Carlo Cruz said that lack of
disqualifications is itself a qualification.
Task 5

Page 11 of 28

Complete the table below by writing the qualifications of the following elective officials.
Write N/A if not applicable.
Elective
Citizenship
Officials
President and
Vice-President

Age

Literacy

Voter

Residency

Senator

District
Representative
Party-list
Representative
Governor,
Vice-governor,
or Member of
the SP
Mayor, Vicemayor
or
Member of the
SP
of
independent
cities
Mayor, Vicemayor
or
Member of the
SP or SB of
component
cities
or
municipalities
Punong
Barangay
or
Member of the
Sangguniang
Page 12 of 28

Barangay
Sangguniang
Kabataan (SK)

Disqualifications
Disqualifications to hold public office are mental or physical incapacity, misconduct or
crime, impeachment, removal or suspension from office, previous tenure of office,
consecutive terms, holding more than one office, relationship with the appointing power,
office newly created or the emoluments of which have been increased, being an elective
official, having been a candidate for any elective position, and grounds under the local
government code (Ateneo Political Law Reviewer and Memory Aid).
DE FACTO OFFICERS
De Facto Officer refers to an officer holding a colorable right or title to the office
accompanied by possession.
In the case of Tuanda vs. Sandiganbayan, the court said:
The conditions and elements of de facto officership are the following:
1. There must be a de jure office;
2. There must be color of right or general acquiescence by the public; and
3. There must be actual physical possession of the office in good faith.
One can qualify as a de facto officer only if all the aforestated elements are
present. There can be no de facto officer where there is no de jure office,
although there may be a de facto officer in a de jure office.
An officer de facto is to be distinguished from an officer de jure, and is one who has the
reputation or appearance of being the officer he assumes to be but who, in fact, under
the law, has no right or title to the office he assumes to hold. He is distinguished from a
mere usurper or intruder by the fact that the former holds by some color of right or title
while the latter intrudes upon the office and assumes to exercise its functions without
either the legal title or color of right to such office. (McQuillin, Municipal Corporations,
Vol. 3, 3rd ed., pp. 376-377.)
To constitute a de facto officer, there must be an office having a de facto existence, or at
least one recognized by law and the claimant must be in actual possession of the office
Page 13 of 28

under color of title or authority. State vs. Babb, 124 W. Va. 428, 20 S.E. (2d) 683.
(McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, supra footnote No. 11, p. 383.)
In his concurring opinion in the case of Nacionalista Party vs. De Vera, Justice Ozaeta
explained that usurper is one "who undertakes to act officially without any color of right."
Task 6
Read the assigned case and determine if the public officer involved is a de jure, de facto
or a usurper. Explain your answer.
1. Judge Capistrano in the case of Tayko vs. Capistrano, October 2, 1928
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
2. Executive Assistant IV Priscilla Ong, May 27, 2004
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Case Analysis 3
Read and discuss the important legal doctrines, principles and concepts enunciated in
the following cases.
1. Menzon vs. Executive Petilla, May 20, 1991
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Page 14 of 28

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
2. Nacionalista Party vs. De Vera, December 7, 1949
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Emoluments of a De Facto Officer
Merriam Webster Dictionary defines emolument as the returns arising from office or
employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites.
Case Analysis 4
Read the cases of Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary, February 22, 1991, and
Malaluan vs. COMELEC, March 6, 1996. Thereafter, discuss the important legal
doctrines, principles and concepts enunciated in the following cases.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 15 of 28

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC OFFICER


As explained by Carlo Cruz, the authority of public officer is derived from the people
themselves. Section 1, Article II of the 1987 constitution provides that [t]he Philippines
is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them.
Scope of power of a public officer consists of those powers which are expressly
conferred upon him by the law under which he has been appointed or elected; expressly
annexed to the office by the law which created it or some other law referring to it; or
attached to the office as incidents to it (Ateneo Political Law Reviewer and Memory Aid).
Task 7
The duties of the public officer may be discretionary or ministerial. Compare and
contrast the two kinds of duties of the public officer. Cite at least one example for each
kind.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
RESPONSIBILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
It is a basic principle of the law on public officers that a public official or employee is
under a three-fold responsibility for violation of duty or for a wrongful act or omission.
Case Analysis 5
Read the case of Flores vs. Montemayor, June 8, 2011. Thereafter, explain the meaning
and nature of the above-mentioned legal principle.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Page 16 of 28

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL SERVICE
Under the Constitution, the Civil Service Commission is the central personnel agency of
the government charged with the duty of determining questions of qualifications of merit
and fitness of those appointed to the civil service. Its power to issue a certificate of
eligibility carries with it the power to revoke a certificate for being null and void.
Task 8
Copy the entire provision concerning the Civil Service Commission in Article IX of the
1987 Constitution.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Page 17 of 28

______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
OTHER IMPORTANT CONCEPTS
Task 9
Explain thoroughly the following legal concepts.
1. Quo Warranto
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
2. Hold-over Principle
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
3. Nepotism
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
4. Next-in-rank Rule
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Page 18 of 28

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
5. Divestment
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
6. Official Immunity
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Case Analysis 6
Read and discuss the important legal doctrines, principles and concepts enunciated in
the following cases.
1. Sambarani vs. COMELEC, September 15, 2004
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Page 19 of 28

2. Laurel V vs. CSC, October 28, 1991


________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
3. City Mayor Debulgado vs. CSC, September 26, 1994
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
4. Panis vs. CSC, February 2, 1994
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
5. Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan, February 26, 1997
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Page 20 of 28

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
6. Barrozo vs. CSC, June 25 1991
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
SUSPENSION
The Supreme Court has established a clear-cut distinction between suspension as
preventive measure and suspension as penalty. In the case of Quimbo vs. Acting
Ombudsman Gervacio, August 09, 2005, the highest court emphasized the distinction,
to wit:
Preventive suspension is merely a preventive measure, a preliminary step in an
administrative investigation. The purpose of the suspension order is to prevent
the accused from using his position and the powers and prerogatives of his office
to influence potential witnesses or tamper with records which may be vital in the
prosecution of the case against him. If after such investigation, the charge is
established and the person investigated is found guilty of acts warranting his
suspension or removal, then he is suspended, removed or dismissed. This is the
penalty.
xxx

Page 21 of 28

Clearly, service of the preventive suspension cannot be credited as service of


penalty. To rule otherwise is to disregard above-quoted Sections 24 and 25 of the
Administrative Code of 1987 and render nugatory the substantial distinction
between, and purposes of imposing preventive suspension and suspension as
penalty.
In the case of Aldovino vs. COMELEC, December 23, 2009, the court explained the
nature of preventive suspension, to wit:
Preventive suspension whether under the Local Government Code, the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act, or the Ombudsman Act is an interim remedial
measure to address the situation of an official who have been charged
administratively or criminally, where the evidence preliminarily indicates the
likelihood of or potential for eventual guilt or liability.
Preventive suspension is imposed under the Local Government Code "when the
evidence of guilt is strong and given the gravity of the offense, there is a
possibility that the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the
witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other
evidence." Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, it is imposed after a
valid information (that requires a finding of probable cause) has been filed in
court, while under the Ombudsman Act, it is imposed when, in the judgment of
the Ombudsman, the evidence of guilt is strong; and (a) the charge involves
dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of
duty; or (b) the charges would warrant removal from the service; or (c) the
respondents continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him.
Notably in all cases of preventive suspension, the suspended official is barred
from performing the functions of his office and does not receive salary in the
meanwhile, but does not vacate and lose title to his office; loss of office is a
consequence that only results upon an eventual finding of guilt or liability.
Preventive suspension is a remedial measure that operates under closelycontrolled conditions and gives a premium to the protection of the service rather
than to the interests of the individual office holder. Even then, protection of the
service goes only as far as a temporary prohibition on the exercise of the
functions of the officials office; the official is reinstated to the exercise of his
position as soon as the preventive suspension is lifted. Thus, while a temporary
incapacity in the exercise of power results, no position is vacated when a public
official is preventively suspended.
In the case of Hon. Gloria vs. CA, April 21, 1999, the court said that [t]here are thus two
kinds of preventive suspension of civil service employees who are charged with
Page 22 of 28

offenses punishable by removal or suspension: (1) preventive suspension pending


investigations (51) and (2) preventive suspension pending appeal if the penalty
imposed by the disciplining authority is suspension or dismissal and, after review, the
respondent is exonerated ( 47(4)). There is no right to compensation for preventive
suspension pending investigation even if employee is exonerated.
In the case of Bolastig vs. Sandiganbayan, August 4, 1994, the court ruled that [t]he
duration of preventive suspension is thus coeval with the period prescribed for deciding
administrative disciplinary cases. If the case is decided before ninety days, then the
suspension will last less than ninety days, but if the case is not decided within ninety
days, then the preventive suspension must be up to ninety days only. Similarly, as
applied to criminal prosecutions under Republic Act No. 3019, preventive suspension
will last for less than ninety days only if the case is decided within that period; otherwise,
it will continue for ninety days. The duration of preventive suspension will, therefore,
vary to the extent that it is contingent on the time it takes the court to decide the case
but not on account of any discretion lodged in the court, taking into account the
probability that the accused may use his office to hamper his prosecution.
Q and A 3
Is the preventive suspension of an elected public official an interruption of his term of
office for purposes of the three-term limit rule under Section 8, Article X of the
Constitution and Section 43(b) of Republic Act No. 7160 (RA 7160, or the Local
Government Code)?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Authority of the Ombudsman to Impose Preventive
R.A. 6770, the Ombudsman Law, grants the Office of the Ombudsman the statutory
power to conduct administrative investigations. Thus, Section 19 of said law provides:
Sec. 19. Administrative Complaints. The Ombudsman shall act on all
complaints relating, but not limited to acts or omissions which:
1. Are contrary to law or regulation;
Page 23 of 28

2. Are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or discriminatory;


3. Are inconsistent with the general course of an agency's functions, though
in accordance with law;
4. Proceed from a mistake of law or an arbitrary ascertainment of facts;
5. Are in the exercise of discretionary powers but for an improper purpose; or
6. Are otherwise irregular, immoral or devoid of justification.
Sec. 21 of R.A. 6770 names the officials subject to the Ombudsman's disciplinary
authority:
Sec. 21. Officials Subject To Disciplinary Authority; Exceptions. The Office of
the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive
officials of the Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies,
including Members of the Cabinet, local government, government-owned or
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries, except over officials who may be
removed only by impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the Judiciary.
In the case of Mayor Garcia vs. Hon. Mojica, September 10, 1999, the court reminded
us that the power of the Office of the Ombudsman to preventively suspend an official
subject to its administrative investigation is provided by specific provision of law. Under
Section 24 of R.A. 6770
Sec. 24. Preventive Suspension. The Ombudsman or his Deputy may
preventively suspend any officer or employee under his authority pending an
investigation, if in his judgment the evidence of guilt is strong, and (a) the charge
against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave
misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the charges would warrant
removal from the service; or (c) the respondent's continued stay in office may
prejudice the case filed against him.
The Court clearly explained:
x x x [T]he preventive suspension shall continue until the case is terminated by
the Office of the Ombudsman but not more than six months, without pay, except
when the delay in the disposition of the case by the Office of the Ombudsman is
due to the fault, negligence or petition of the respondent, in which case the
period of such delay shall not be counted in computing the period of suspension
herein provided.

Page 24 of 28

We have previously interpreted the phrase "under his authority" to mean that the
Ombudsman can preventively suspend all officials under investigation by his
office, regardless of the branch of government in which they are employed,
excepting of course those removable by impeachment, members of Congress
and the Judiciary.
Moreover, the court further said that [t]he determination of whether or not the evidence
of guilt is strong as to warrant preventive suspension rests with the Ombudsman. The
discretion as regards the period of such suspension also necessarily belongs to the
Ombudsman, except that he cannot extend the period of suspension beyond that
provided by law.
Q and A 4
Has the Ombudsman under R.A. No. 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of
1989, been divested of his or her authority to conduct administrative investigations over
local elective officials by virtue of the subsequent enactment of R.A. No. 7160,
otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
VACANCY
There is a vacancy when an office is empty and without a legally qualified incumbent
appointed or elected to it with a lawful right to exercise its powers and perform its duties.
There can be no appointment to a non-vacant position (Ateneo Political Law Reviewer
and Memory Aid).
MODES OF TERMINATION OF OFFICIAL RELATIONS
The different modes of terminating official relations may be classified into natural
causes, acts or neglect of officer and acts of the government and people.
Natural Causes
1. Expiration of the Term or Tenure of Office
Page 25 of 28

2. Reaching the Age Limit (Retirement)


3. Death or Permanent Disability
Acts / Neglect of Officer
1. Resignation
2. Acceptance of an Incompatible Office
3. Abandonment of Office
4. Prescription of Right to Office
Acts of the Government or People
1. Removal
2. Impeachment
3. Abolition of Office
4. Conviction of a Crime
5. Recall
Task 10
The class will be divided into groups. Each group will be assigned to research at least
two (2) modes of terminating official relations. Thereafter, the designated group will
creatively present the assigned topics in the class.
Group 1
Expiration of the Term or Tenure of Office
Reaching the Age Limit (Retirement)
Death or Permanent Disability
Group 2
Resignation
Acceptance of an Incompatible Office
Abandonment of Office
Prescription of Right to Office
Group 3
Removal
Abolition of Office
Conviction of a Crime
Group 4
Impeachment
Page 26 of 28

Recall
SPECIAL LAWS
Task 11
Read the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
(RA No. 6713) and the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 (RA No. 9485). Thereafter, write a
1000-word written report on the following statutes. Please follow the format below:
A. Important Features
B. Insights and Reaction; and
C. Conclusion.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Page 27 of 28

______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

The business of a law school is not sufficiently described when you merely say
that it is to teach law or to make lawyers; it is to teach law in the grand manner,
and to make great lawyers.
-Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Page 28 of 28