DOROMAL VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, G. R. No.

85468, 07
September 1989
Prohibitions [Article VII: Sections 13]
Quintin S. Doromal, a public officer and being a
Commissioner of the Presidential Commission on Good
Government, participated in a business through the Doromal
International Trading Corporation (DITC), a family corporation
of which he is the President, and which company participated
in the biddings conducted by the Department of Education,
Culture and Sports (DECS) and the National Manpower &
Youth Council (NMYC) .
DITC participated in the biddings to supply equipments to
DECS and National Manpower and Youth Council.
An information was then filed by the Tanodbayan against
Doromal for the said violation and a preliminary investigation
was conducted.
The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition questioning the jurisdiction of the Tanodbayan
to file the information without the approval of the
Ombudsman.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the act of Doromal would constitute a
violation of the Constitution.
Ruling:
1.Article VII, Section 13 (1) of the Constitution
provides:

The President, Vice-President, the Members of the

Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not,
unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other
office or employment during their tenure. They shall not,
during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any
other profession, participate in any business, or be
financially interested in any contract with, or in any
franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or
any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the
conduct of their office
The presence of a signed document bearing the signature of
Doromal as part of the application to bid shows that he can
rightfully be charged with having participated in a business
which act is absolutely prohibited by Section 13 of Article VII
of the Constitution" because "the DITC remained a family
corporation in which Doromal has at least an indirect
interest."

CONCLUSION:
Yes, the act of Doromal would constitute a violation of the
Constitution specifically of Section 13 of Article VII.