Article XI ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
142476, March 20,
Section 1, Article XI
Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees
must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them
with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act
with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.
Public office is a public trust, and as such, the same is
governed by law, and cannot be made the subject of personal
promises or negotiations by private persons.
Security of tenure of employees in the career executive service
(except first and second level employees in the civil service),
pertains only to rank and not to the office or to the position to
which they may be appointed. (Collantes vs. CA, G.R. No.
169604, March 6, 2007)
Who are impeachable officers? (The list is exclusive)
1. President
2. Vice-President
3. Members of the Constitutional Commission
4. Justices of the Supreme Court
5. Ombudsman
Justices of the Sandiganbayan cannot be removed by
impeachment.
Impeachment of President—the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court will preside; the Senate/HOR will prosecute
Grounds for impeachment:
1. Culpable violation of the constitution
2. Treason
3. Bribery
4. Betrayal of public trust
5. Graft and corruption
6. Other high crimes
Procedure in Impeachment—
Initiation:
The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power
to initiate all cases of impeachment.
Process:
1. Verified complaint filed by any member of the House
or any citizen upon resolution of endorsement by any
member thereof;
2. Included in the order of business within ten (10) session
days;
3. Referred to the proper committee within three (3) session
days of its inclusion.
If the verified complaint is filed by at least 1/3 of all its
members, the same shall constitute the Articles of
Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith
proceed.
4. The Committee, after hearing, and by majority vote of all
its members, shall submit its report to the House together
with the corresponding resolution;
5. Placing on calendar the Committee resolution within ten
(10) days from submission;
6. Discussion on the floor of the report;
7. A vote of at least 1/3 of all the members of the House shall
be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with
the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee or override
its contrary resolution.
Trial and Decision—
1. The Senators take an oath or affirmation;
2. When the president is on trial, the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court shall preside but shall not vote;
3. A decision of conviction must be concurred in by at least 2/3
of all the members of the Senate.
Effect of Conviction—
1. Removal from office;
2. Disqualification to hold any other office under the Republic
of the Philippines;
3. Party convicted shall be liable and subject to prosecution,
trial and punishment according to law.
Limitation:
1. Not more than one impeachment case shall be initiated
against the same official within a period of one (1) year.
2. The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive
power to initiate all cases of impeachment.
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
2001, the Republic of the Philippines cannot be held liable
under an “Agreement” entered into by the PCGG with another
party where the republic did not authorize the PCGG to enter
into such contract. Where the sale of an aircraft to a third
party by the PCGG is void, it follows that the “Agreement”
between the PCGG and the third party is likewise a nullity, and
there can be no cause of action against the Republic.
Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans
vs. Desierto, et al. G.R. No. 130140, October 25, 1999, Article
XI, Section 15 of the Constitution provides that the “right of
the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public
officials or employees, from them or from their nominees as
transferees, shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or
estoppel. This provision does not seem to indicate that what is
imprescriptible is the corresponding civil action to recover “ill-
gotten wealth” but not the criminal action that may relate
thereto. The criminal action, i.e., violation of Section 3(c) and
(g), RA 3019, can prescribe conformably with the pertinent
statute applicable which, in this instance, BP 195, providing
for a 15-year prescriptive period and thereby modifying to
the above extent the 10-year prescriptive period under RA
3019.
In Francisco vs. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261,
November 10, 2003, an impeachment case is the legal
controversy that must be decided by the Senate while an
impeachment proceeding is one that is initiated in the
House of Representatives. For purposes of applying the one-
year bar rule, the proceeding is “initiated” or begins when a
verified complaint is filed and referred to the Committee on
Justice for action.
Legislative bodies cannot impose the administrative
punishment of removal from office because the power to
remove local elective officials has been exclusively grantedto
the proper courts. (Sanggguniang Barangay of Don
Mariano Marcos vs. Martinez, G.R. No. 170626, March 3,
2008)
SANDIGANBAYAN
The anti-graft court shall continue to function and exercise its
jurisdiction as now and hereafter may be provided by law.
Composition:
• One (1) Presiding Justice
• Fourteen (14) Associate Justices with the rank of Justice of
the Court of Appeals
Sits in five (5) Divisions of three (3) members each
Decision and Review— Unanimous vote of all three (3)
members shall be required for the pronouncement of
judgment by a division. Decision shall be reviewable by the SC
on petition for certiorari.
Jurisdiction:
Original Jurisdiction
B. Violation of RA 3019; RA 1379; and Chapter II, Section 2,
Title VII of the RPC where one or more of the accused are
officials occupying the following positions in the
government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim
capacity at the time of the commission of the offense:
5. Officials of the Executive branch with the position of
Regional Director or higher, or with SG Level 27 according to
RA 6758, specifically including:
i. Provincial governors, vice-governors, board members,
provincial treasures, assessors, engineers and other provincial
departments head;
ii. City mayors, vice-mayors, city councilors, city treasurers,
assessors, engineers and other city department heads;
iii. Officials of the diplomatic service from consuls or higher;
iv. PA/PAF colonels, PN captains and all officers of higher rank;
v. Officers of the PNP while occupying the position of
provincial director and those holding the rank of senior
superintendent or higher;
vi. City/provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and
officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman
and special prosecutor;
vii. Presidents, directors, trustees, or managers of GOCC’s
state universities or educational institutions or foundations.
6. Members of Congress and officials thereof with SG27 and
up;
7. Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the
Constitution;
8. Chairmen and members of the Constitutional
Commissions without prejudice to the Constitution; and
9. All other national and local officials with SG27 or higher.
C. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complex
with other crimes committed by the public officials and
employees mentioned in Subsection (a) in relation to their
office;
D. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection
with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A issued in 1986.
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction over petitions for the
issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibitions, certiorari,
habeas corpus, injunction and other ancillary writs and
processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Provided,
that jurisdiction over these petitions shall be not exclusive of
the Supreme Court.
Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction over final judgments,
resolutions or orders of RTC whether in the exercise of their
own original jurisdiction or their appellate jurisdiction. (RA
8249)
THE OMBUDSMAN
• The champion of the citizens and protector of the people.
• Tasked to entertain complaints addressed to him against
erring public officers and take all necessary actions thereon.
Composition:
• An Ombudsman known as the Tanodbayan
• One (1) Overall Deputy;
• At least one (1) Deputy e3ach for Luzon, Visayas and
Mindanao;
• One (1) separate Deputy for the military establishment
may likewise be appointed
Qualifications:
1. Natural-born citizen;
2. At least 40 years of age;
3. Of recognized probity and independence;
4. Member of the Philippine Bar; and
5. Must not have been candidates for any elective office
in the immediately preceding election.
Term: Seven (7) years without reappointment
Disqualifications and Inhibitions—
A. During their tenure:
1. Shall not hold any other office or employment;
2. Engage in the practice of any profession or in the active
management and control of any business which in any way
may be affected by the functions of his office;
3. Shall not be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in
other contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted
by the government, any of its subdivision, agencies or
instrumentalities, including GOCCs or their subsidiaries.
4. Shall not be qualified to run for any office in the
election immediately succeeding their cessation from office.
The Office of the Ombudsman shall enjoy fiscal
autonomy. Its approved annual appropriations shall be
automatically and regularly released. (Section 14, Article XI)
Buenesada vs. Flavier, G.R. No. 106719, September 21,
1993, the power to investigate also includes the power to
impose preventive suspension. This is different from the
power to recommend suspension. The latter is suspension
as a penalty; preventive suspension is not a penalty.
Powers, Functions and Duties:
1. The Constitution and RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989)
has endowed the Office of the Ombudsman with a wide
latitude of investigatory and prosecutor powers virtually free
from legislative, executive or judicial intervention. The
Supreme Court consistently refrains from interfering with
the exercise of its powers, and respects the initiative and
independence inherent in the Ombudsman who, beholden
to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the
preserver of the integrity of public service. (Loquias vs.
Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 139396, Aug 15, 2000)
2. The Ombudsman is clothed with authority to conduct
preliminary investigation and prosecute all criminal cases
involving public officers and employees, not only those within
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but those within the
jurisdiction of the regular courts as well. (Uy vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105965-70, March 20, 2001)
Office of the Ombudsman vs. CSC, G.R. No. 162215, July
30, 2007, since theresponsibility for the establishment,
administration and maintenance of qualification standards
lies with the concerned department or agency, the role of the
CSC is limited to assisting the department or agency with
respect to these qualification standards and approving them.
The CSC cannot substitute its own standards for those of
the department or agency, specially in a case like this in
which an independent constitutional body is involved.
Perez vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 166062, September 26,
2006, the incumbent Tanodbayan (called Special Prosecutor
under the 1987 Constitution and 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.
Suspension under the Ombudsman Act vis-à-vis the Local
Government Code:
* In order to justify the preventive suspension of a public
official under § 24 of RA 6770, the evidence of guilt should be
strong, and:
The charge against the officer or employee should involve
dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the
performance of duty;
The charges should warrant removal from the service; or
The respondent’s continued stay in the office would
prejudice the case filed against him.
* The Ombudsman can impose the 6-month preventive
suspension to all public officials, whether elective or
appointive, who are under investigation.
* On the other hand, in imposing the shorter period of sixty
(60) days of preventive suspension prescribed under the LGC
of 1991 on an elective local official (at any time after the issues
are joined), it would be enough that:
d. There is a reasonable ground to believe that the
respondent has committed the act or acts complained of;
e. The evidence of culpability is strong;
f. The gravity of the offense so warrants; or
g. The continuance in the office of the respondent could
influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and
integrity of the records and other evidence. (Miranda vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 154098, July 27, 2005)
Office of the Ombudsman vs. CA, G.R. No. 168079, July 17,
2007, the SC upheld the constitutionality of Sections 15, 21
and 25 of RA 6770, thus affirming that the powers of the
Office of the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory.
The Court ruled in Estarija case that under RA 6770 and the
1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman has the constitutional
power to directly remove from the government service an
erring public official, other than a member of Congress and the
Judiciary.