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.