II

TOPIC: LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

In 1986, F, then the officer-in-charge of Botolan, Zambales, was

accused of having violated the ANTI-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

before the Sandigan Bayan. Before he could be arraigned, he was

elected Governor of Zambales. After his arraignment, he put under

preventive suspension by the Sandiganbayan " for the duration of the

trial".

(1) Can F successfully challenge the legality of his preventive

suspension on the ground that the criminal case against him involved

acts committed during his term as officer-in-charge and not during

his term as Governor?

(2) Can F validly object to the aforestated duration of his

suspension?

Suggested Answer:

(1) No, F cannot successfully challenge the legality of his

preventive suspension on the ground that the criminal case against

him involve acts committed during his term as OIC and not during his

term as governor because suspension from office under Republic Act

3019 refers to any office that the respondent is presently holding

and not necessarily to the one which he hold when he committed the

crime with which he is charged. This was the ruling in Deloso vs.

Sandiganbayan, 173 SCRA 409

(2) Yes, F Can validly object to the duration of the suspension. In

Deloso vs. Sandiganbayan, 173 SCRA 409, it was held that the

imposition of preventive suspension for an indefinite period of time

is unreasonable and violates the right of the accused to due process.

The people who elected the governor to office would be deprived of

his services for an indefinite period, and his right to hold office

would be nullified. Moreover, since under Section 42 of the Civil

Service Decree the duration of preventive suspension should be

limited to ninety (90) days, equal protection demands that the

duration of preventive suspension under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt

Practices Act be also limited to ninety (90) days only.

IV

Maximino, an employee of the Department of Education, is

administratively charged with dishonesty and gross misconduct. During
the formal investigation of the charges, the Secretary of Education
preventively suspended him for a period of sixty (60) days. On the 60th
day of the preventive suspension, the Secretary rendered a verdict,
finding Maximino guilty, and ordered his immediate dismissal from the
service.

Maximino appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which

affirmed the Secretary's decision. Maximino then elevated the matter to
the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the CSC decision,
exonerating Maximino. The Secretary of Education then petitions the
Supreme Court (SC) for the review of the CA decision.

a. Is the Secretary of Education a proper party to seek the review of the

CA decision exonerating Maximino? Reasons. (2%)

b. If the SC affirms the CA decision, is Maximino entitled to recover back

salaries corresponding to the entire period he was out of the service?
Explain your answer. (3%)

Pedro Masipag filed with the Ombudsman a complaint against RTC

Judge Jose Palacpac with violation of Article 204 of the Revised Penal
Code for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment in Criminal Case No.
617. Judge Palacpac filed a motion with the Ombudsman to refer the
complaint to the Supreme Court to determine whether an administrative
aspect was involved in the said case. The Ombudsmanss denied the
motion on the ground that no administrative case against Judge
Palacpac relative to the decision in Criminal Case No. 617 was filed and
pending in his office. State with reasons whether the Ombudsman’s
ruling is correct. (4%)

-XIII-
While Congress was not in session, the President appointed Antero as
Secretary of the Department of Tourism (DOT), Benito as Commissioner of
the Bureau of Immigration (BI), Clodualdo as Chairman of the Civil Service
Commission (CSC), Dexter as Chairman of the Commission on Human
Rights (CHR), and Emmanuel as Philippine Ambassador to Cameroon. The
following day, all the appointees took their oath before the President, and
commenced to perform the functions of their respective offices.

[a] Characterize the appointments, whether permanent or temporary; and

whether regular or interim, with reasons. (2.5%)

[b] A civil society group, the Volunteers Against Misguided Politics (VAMP),
files suit, contesting the legality of the acts of the appointees and claiming
that the appointees should not have entered into the performance of the
functions of their respective offices, because their appointments had not yet
been confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. Is this claim of VAMP
correct? Why or why not? (2.5%)

-XVIII-
Sec. 8, Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides that no elective official
shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms. Rule and explain
briefly the reason if the official is prohibited to run for another term in each
of the following situations: (c) if the position of Mayor of a town is abolished
due to conversion of the town to a city; (d) if the official is preventively
suspended during his term but was exonerated; and (e) if the official is
proclaimed as winner and assumes office but loses in an election protest.
(5%)