Art. 7, Section 13.
The President, Vice-President, the Prosecutor under the 1987 Constitution and
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.
Art. 9-B, Sec. 7. No elective official shall be eligible for
appointment or designation in any capacity to any
public office or position during his tenure.
Doromal vs. Sandiganbayan [G.R. No. 85468,
September 7, 1989]
Summary:
This is a case for review of the Sandiganbayan’s
decision of denying petitioner's motion to quash the
information against him and for the order of
suspending him from office during the pendency of
the case.
Facts:
Quintin S. Doromal, a former Commissioner of the
Presidential Commission on Good Government
(PCGG), is under special investigation for violation of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019),
Sec. 3(H), in connection with his shareholdings and
position as president and director of the Doromal
International Trading Corporation (DITC) which
submitted bids to supply P61 million worth of
electronic, electrical, automotive, mechanical and air
conditioning equipment to the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports (or DECS) and the
National Manpower and Youth Council (or NMYC).
● 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.
● This Court annulled the information because
the incumbent Tanodbayan (called Special
who is supposed to retain powers and duties
NOT GIVEN to the Ombudsman) is clearly
without authority to conduct preliminary
investigations and to direct the filing of
criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan,
except upon orders of the Ombudsman.
● Upon the annulment of the information
against the petitioner, the Special Prosecutor
sought clearance from the Ombudsman to
refile it. Granted clearance but advised that
"some changes be made in the information
previously filed."
● Petitioner filed a "Motion to Quash" the
information for being:
○ (a) invalid because there had been
no preliminary investigation; and
○ (b) defective because the facts
alleged do not constitute the offense
charged (Annex C).
The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to
quash in its orders.
Issues:
1. WON the act of Doromal would
constitute a violation of the
Constitution.
2. WON preliminary investigation is
necessary even if both information
involve the same subject matter.
3. WON the information shall be
effected as invalid due to the
absence of preliminary investigation.
Held:
1. Yes. Article 7, Section 13 and Article 9-B,
Sec. 7.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition
is granted. The Sandiganbayan shall immediately
remand Criminal Case No. 12893 to the Office of the
Ombudsman for preliminary investigation and shall
hold in abeyance the proceedings before it pending the
result of such investigation. The preventive suspension
of the petitioner is hereby lifted. No costs.
2. The right of the accused to a preliminary
investigation is "a substantial one." Its denial
over his opposition is a "prejudicial error, in
 that it subjects the accused to the loss of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law"
provided by the Constitution.
3. he absence of preliminary investigation does
not affect the court's jurisdiction over the
case. Nor do they impair the validity of the
information or otherwise render it defective;
but, if there were no preliminary investigations
and the defendants, before entering their
plea, invite the attention of the court to their
absence, the court, instead of dismissing the
information should conduct such
investigation, order the fiscal to conduct it or
remand the case to the inferior court so that
the preliminary investigation may be
conducted.