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.