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.