Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 93252               August 5, 1991

RODOLFO T. GANZON, petitioner, 
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and LUIS T. SANTOS, respondents.

G.R. No. 93746               August 5,1991

MARY ANN RIVERA ARTIEDA, petitioner, 

vs.
HON. LUIS SANTOS, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Local Government,
NICANOR M. PATRICIO, in his capacity as Chief, Legal Service of the Department of Local
Government and SALVADOR CABALUNA JR., respondents.

G.R. No. 95245               August 5,1991

RODOLFO T. GANZON, petitioner, 
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and LUIS T. SANTOS, in his capacity as the
Secretary of the Department of Local Government, respondents.

Nicolas P. Sonalan for petitioner in 93252.

Romeo A. Gerochi for petitioner in 93746.
Eugenio Original for petitioner in 95245.

SARMIENTO, J.:

The petitioners take common issue on the power of the President (acting through the Secretary of
Local Government), to suspend and/or remove local officials.

The petitioners are the Mayor of Iloilo City (G.R. Nos. 93252 and 95245) and a member of the
Sangguniang Panglunsod thereof (G.R. No. 93746), respectively.

The petitions of Mayor Ganzon originated from a series of administrative complaints, ten in number,
filed against him by various city officials sometime in 1988, on various charges, among them, abuse
of authority, oppression, grave misconduct, disgraceful and immoral conduct, intimidation, culpable
violation of the Constitution, and arbitrary detention.  The personalities involved are Joceleehn
1

Cabaluna, a clerk at the city health office; Salvador Cabaluna, her husband; Dr. Felicidad Ortigoza,
Assistant City Health Officer; Mansueto Malabor, Vice-Mayor; Rolando Dabao, Dan Dalido, German
Gonzales, Larry Ong, and Eduardo Pefia Redondo members of the Sangguniang Panglunsod; and
Pancho Erbite, a barangay tanod. The complaints against the Mayor are set forth in the opinion of
the respondent Court of Appeals.  We quote:
2
 x x x           x x x          x x x

In her verified complaint (Annex A), Mrs. Cabaluna, a clerk assigned to the City Health,
Office of Iloilo City charged that due to political reasons, having supported the rival
candidate, Mrs. Rosa 0. Caram, the petitioner City Mayor, using as an excuse the exigency
of the service and the interest of the public, pulled her out from rightful office where her
qualifications are best suited and assigned her to a work that should be the function of a
non-career service employee. To make matters worse, a utility worker in the office of the
Public Services, whose duties are alien to the complainant's duties and functions, has been
detailed to take her place. The petitioner's act are pure harassments aimed at luring her
away from her permanent position or force her to resign.

In the case of Dra. Felicidad Ortigoza, she claims that the petitioner handpicked her to
perform task not befitting her position as Assistant City Health Officer of Iloilo City; that her
office was padlocked without any explanation or justification; that her salary was withheld
without cause since April 1, 1988; that when she filed her vacation leave, she was given the
run-around treatment in the approval of her leave in connivance with Dr. Rodolfo Villegas
and that she was the object of a well-engineered trumped-up charge in an administrative
complaint filed by Dr. Rodolfo Villegas (Annex B).

On the other hand, Mansuelo Malabor is the duly elected Vice-Mayor of Iloilo City and
complainants Rolando Dabao, Dan Dalido, German Gonzales, Larry Ong and Eduardo Pefia
Pedondo are members of the Sangguniang Panglunsod of the City of Iloilo. Their complaint
arose out from the case where Councilor Larry Ong, whose key to his office was
unceremoniously and without previous notice, taken by petitioner. Without an office,
Councilor Ong had to hold office at Plaza Libertad, The Vice-Mayor and the other
complainants sympathized with him and decided to do the same. However, the petitioner,
together with its fully-armed security men, forcefully drove them away from Plaza Libertad.
Councilor Ong denounced the petitioner's actuations the following day in the radio station
and decided to hold office at the Freedom Grandstand at Iloilo City and there were so many
people who gathered to witness the incident. However, before the group could reach the
area, the petitioner, together with his security men, led the firemen using a firetruck in dozing
water to the people and the bystanders.

Another administrative case was filed by Pancho Erbite, a barangay tanod, appointed by
former mayor Rosa O. Caram. On March 13, 1988, without the benefit of charges filed
against him and no warrant of arrest was issued, Erbite was arrested and detained at the
City Jail of Iloilo City upon orders of petitioner. In jail, he was allegedly mauled by other
detainees thereby causing injuries He was released only the following day. 3

The Mayor thereafter answered  and the cases were shortly set for hearing. The opinion of the Court
4

of Appeals also set forth the succeeding events:

x x x           x x x          x x x

The initial hearing in the Cabaluna and Ortigoza cases were set for hearing on June 20-21,
1988 at the Regional Office of the Department of Local Government in Iloilo City. Notices,
through telegrams, were sent to the parties (Annex L) and the parties received them,
including the petitioner. The petitioner asked for a postponement before the scheduled date
of hearing and was represented by counsel, Atty. Samuel Castro. The hearing officers, Atty.
Salvador Quebral and Atty. Marino Bermudez had to come all the way from Manila for the
 two-day hearings but was actually held only on June 20,1988 in view of the inability and
unpreparedness of petitioner's counsel.

The next hearings were re-set to July 25, 26, 27,1988 in the same venue-Iloilo City. Again,
the petitioner attempted to delay the proceedings and moved for a postponement under the
excuse that he had just hired his counsel. Nonetheless, the hearing officers denied the
motion to postpone, in view of the fact that the parties were notified by telegrams of the
scheduled hearings (Annex M).

In the said hearings, petitioner's counsel cross-examined the complainants and their
witnesses.

Finding probable grounds and reasons, the respondent issued a preventive suspension
order on August 11, 1988 to last until October 11,1988 for a period of sixty (60) days.

Then the next investigation was set on September 21, 1988 and the petitioner again asked
for a postponement to September 26,1988. On September 26, 1988, the complainants and
petitioner were present, together with their respective counsel. The petitioner sought for a
postponement which was denied. In these hearings which were held in Mala the petitioner
testified in Adm. Case No. C-10298 and 10299.

The investigation was continued regarding the Malabor case and the complainants testified
including their witnesses.

On October 10, 1988, petitioner's counsel, Atty. Original moved for a postponement of the
October 24, 1988 hearing to November 7 to 11, 1988 which was granted. However, the
motion for change of venue as denied due to lack of funds. At the hearing on November 7,
1988, the parties and counsel were present. Petitioner reiterated his motion to change venue
and moved for postponement anew. The counsel discussed a proposal to take the
deposition of witnesses in Iloilo City so the hearing was indefinitely postponed. However, the
parties failed to come to terms and after the parties were notified of the hearing, the
investigation was set to December 13 to 15, 1988.

The petitioner sought for another postponement on the ground that his witnesses were sick
or cannot attend the investigation due to lack of transportation. The motion was denied and
the petitioner was given up to December 14, 1988 to present his evidence.

On December 14,1988, petitioner's counsel insisted on his motion for postponement and the
hearing officers gave petitioner up to December 15, 1988 to present his evidence. On
December 15, 1988, the petitioner failed to present evidence and the cases were considered
submitted for resolution.

In the meantime, a prima facie evidence was found to exist in the arbitrary detention case
filed by Pancho Erbite so the respondent ordered the petitioner's second preventive
suspension dated October 11, 1988 for another sixty (60) days. The petitioner was able to
obtain a restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction in the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 33 of Iloilo City. The second preventive suspension was not enforced. 5

Amidst the two successive suspensions, Mayor Ganzon instituted an action for prohibition against
the respondent Secretary of Local Government (now, Interior) in the Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City,
where he succeeded in obtaining a writ of preliminary injunction. Presently, he instituted CA-G.R. SP
No. 16417, an action for prohibition, in the respondent Court of Appeals.

Meanwhile, on May 3, 1990, the respondent Secretary issued another order, preventively
suspending Mayor Ganzon for another sixty days, the third time in twenty months, and designating
meantime Vice-Mayor Mansueto Malabor as acting mayor. Undaunted, Mayor Ganzon commenced
CA-G.R. SP No. 20736 of the Court of Appeals, a petition for prohibition,  (Malabor it is to be noted,
6

is one of the complainants, and hence, he is interested in seeing Mayor Ganzon ousted.)

On September 7, 1989, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment, dismissing CA-G.R. SP No. 16417.
On July 5, 1990, it likewise promulgated a decision, dismissing CA-G.R. SP No. 20736. In a
Resolution dated January 24, 1990, it issued a Resolution certifying the petition of Mary Ann Artieda,
who had been similary charged by the respondent Secretary, to this Court.

On June 26,1990, we issued a Temporary Restraining Order, barring the respondent Secretary from
implementing the suspension orders, and restraining the enforcement of the Court of Appeals' two
decisions.

In our Resolution of November 29, 1990, we consolidated all three cases. In our Resolutions of
January 15, 1991, we gave due course thereto.

Mayor Ganzon claims as a preliminary (GR No. 93252), that the Department of Local Government in
hearing the ten cases against him, had denied him due process of law and that the respondent
Secretary had been "biased, prejudicial and hostile" towards him  arising from his (Mayor Ganzon's)
7

alleged refusal to join the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino party  and the running political rivalry
8

they maintained in the last congressional and local elections;  and his alleged refusal to operate a
9

lottery in Iloilo City.  He also alleges that he requested the Secretary to lift his suspension since it
10

had come ninety days prior to an election (the barangay elections of November 14,
1988),  notwithstanding which, the latter proceeded with the hearing and meted out two more
11

suspension orders of the aforementioned cases.  He likewise contends that he sought to bring the
12

cases to Iloilo City (they were held in Manila) in order to reduce the costs of proceeding, but the
Secretary rejected his request.  He states that he asked for postponement on "valid and
13

justifiable"  grounds, among them, that he was suffering from a heart ailment which required
14

confinement; that his "vital"  witness was also hospitalized  but that the latter unduly denied his
15 16

request. 17

Mayor Ganzon's primary argument (G.R. Nos. 93252 and 95245) is that the Secretary of Local
Government is devoid, in any event, of any authority to suspend and remove local officials, an
argument reiterated by the petitioner Mary Ann Rivera Artieda (G.R. No. 93746).

As to Mayor Ganzon's charges of denial of due process, the records do not show very clearly in what
manner the Mayor might have been deprived of his rights by the respondent Secretary. His claims
that he and Secretary Luis-Santos were (are) political rivals and that his "persecution" was politically
motivated are pure speculation and although the latter does not appear to have denied these
contentions (as he, Mayor Ganzon, claims), we can not take his word for it the way we would have
under less political circumstances, considering furthermore that "political feud" has often been a
good excuse in contesting complaints.

The Mayor has failed furthermore to substantiate his say-so's that Secretary Santos had attempted
to seduce him to join the administration party and to operate a lottery in Iloilo City. Again, although
the Secretary failed to rebut his allegations, we can not accept them, at face value, much more, as
judicial admissions as he would have us accept them  for the same reasons above-stated and
18
furthermore, because his say so's were never corroborated by independent testimonies. As a
responsible public official, Secretary Santos, in pursuing an official function, is presumed to be
performing his duties regularly and in the absence of contrary evidence, no ill motive can be
ascribed to him.

As to Mayor Ganzon's contention that he had requested the respondent Secretary to defer the
hearing on account of the ninety-day ban prescribed by Section 62 of Batas Blg. 337, the Court finds
the question to be moot and academic since we have in fact restrained the Secretary from further
hearing the complaints against the petitioners. 19

As to his request, finally, for postponements, the Court is afraid that he has not given any compelling
reason why we should overturn the Court of Appeals, which found no convincing reason to overrule
Secretary Santos in denying his requests. Besides, postponements are a matter of discretion on the
part of the hearing officer, and based on Mayor Ganzon's above story, we are not convinced that the
Secretary has been guilty of a grave abuse of discretion.

The Court can not say, under these circumstances, that Secretary Santos' actuations deprived
Mayor Ganzon of due process of law.

We come to the core question: Whether or not the Secretary of Local Government, as the
President's alter ego, can suspend and/or remove local officials.

It is the petitioners' argument that the 1987 Constitution  no longer allows the President, as the 1935
20

and 1973 Constitutions did, to exercise the power of suspension and/or removal over local officials.
According to both petitioners, the Constitution is meant, first, to strengthen self-rule by local
government units and second, by deleting the phrase  as may be provided by law to strip the
21

President of the power of control over local governments. It is a view, so they contend, that finds
support in the debates of the Constitutional Commission. The provision in question reads as follows:

Sec. 4. The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local
governments. Provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities, and cities and
municipalities with respect to component barangays shall ensure that the acts of their
component units are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions. 22

It modifies a counterpart provision appearing in the 1935 Constitution, which we quote:

Sec. 10. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, or
offices, exercise general supervision over all Local governments as may be provided by law,
and take care that the laws be faithfully executed. 23

The petitioners submit that the deletion (of "as may be provided by law") is significant, as their
argument goes, since: (1) the power of the President is "provided by law" and (2) hence, no law may
provide for it any longer.

It is to be noted that in meting out the suspensions under question, the Secretary of Local
Government acted in consonance with the specific legal provisions of Batas Blg. 337, the Local
Government Code, we quote:

Sec. 62. Notice of Hearing. — Within seven days after the complaint is filed, the Minister of
local Government, or the sanggunian concerned, as the case may be, shall require the
respondent to submit his verified answer within seven days from receipt of said complaint,
 and commence the hearing and investigation of the case within ten days after receipt of such
answer of the respondent. No investigation shall be held within ninety days immediately prior
to an election, and no preventive suspension shall be imposed with the said period. If
preventive suspension has been imposed prior to the aforesaid period, the preventive
suspension shall be lifted. 24

Sec. 63. Preventive Suspension. — (1) Preventive suspension may be imposed by the
Minister of Local Government if the respondent is a provincial or city official, by the provincial
governor if the respondent is an elective municipal official, or by the city or municipal mayor if
the respondent is an elective barangay official.

(2) Preventive suspension may be imposed at any time after the issues are joined, when
there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent has committed the act or acts
complained of, when the evidence of culpability is strong, when the gravity of the offense so
warrants, or when the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses
or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence. In all cases,
preventive suspension shall not extend beyond sixty days after the start of said suspension.

(3) At the expiration of sixty days, the suspended official shall be deemed reinstated in office
without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings against him until its termination.
However ' if the delay in the proceedings of the case is due to his fault, neglect or request,
the time of the delay shall not be counted in computing the time of suspension. 25

The issue, as the Court understands it, consists of three questions: (1) Did the 1987 Constitution, in
deleting the phrase "as may be provided by law" intend to divest the President of the power to
investigate, suspend, discipline, and/or remove local officials? (2) Has the Constitution repealed
Sections 62 and 63 of the Local Government Code? (3) What is the significance of the change in the
constitutional language?

It is the considered opinion of the Court that notwithstanding the change in the constitutional
language, the charter did not intend to divest the legislature of its right or the President of her
prerogative as conferred by existing legislation to provide administrative sanctions against local
officials. It is our opinion that the omission (of "as may be provided by law") signifies nothing more
than to underscore local governments' autonomy from congress and to break Congress' "control"
over local government affairs. The Constitution did not, however, intend, for the sake of local
autonomy, to deprive the legislature of all authority over municipal corporations, in particular,
concerning discipline.

Autonomy does not, after all, contemplate making mini-states out of local government units, as in the
federal governments of the United States of America (or Brazil or Germany), although Jefferson is
said to have compared municipal corporations euphemistically to "small republics."  Autonomy, in
26

the constitutional sense, is subject to the guiding star, though not control, of the legislature, albeit the
legislative responsibility under the Constitution and as the "supervision clause" itself suggest-is to
wean local government units from over-dependence on the central government.

It is noteworthy that under the Charter, "local autonomy" is not instantly self-executing, but subject
to, among other things, the passage of a local government code,  a local tax law,  income
27 28

distribution legislation,  and a national representation law,  and measures  designed to realize
29 30 31

autonomy at the local level. It is also noteworthy that in spite of autonomy, the Constitution places
the local government under the general supervision of the Executive. It is noteworthy finally, that the
Charter allows Congress to include in the local government code provisions for removal of local
officials, which suggest that Congress may exercise removal powers, and as the existing Local
Government Code has done, delegate its exercise to the President. Thus:

Sec. 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more
responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of
decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum, allocate
among the different local government units their powers, responsibilities and resources, and
provide for the qualifications, election, appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers and
functions and duties of local officials, and all other matters relating to the organization and
operation of the local units. 32

As hereinabove indicated, the deletion of "as may be provided by law" was meant to stress, sub
silencio, the objective of the framers to strengthen local autonomy by severing congressional control
of its affairs, as observed by the Court of Appeals, like the power of local legislation.  The 33

Constitution did nothing more, however, and insofar as existing legislation authorizes the President
(through the Secretary of Local Government) to proceed against local officials administratively, the
Constitution contains no prohibition.

The petitioners are under the impression that the Constitution has left the President mere
supervisory powers, which supposedly excludes the power of investigation, and denied her control,
which allegedly embraces disciplinary authority. It is a mistaken impression because legally,
"supervision" is not incompatible with disciplinary authority as this Court has held,  thus: 34

x x x           x x x          x x x

It is true that in the case of Mondano vs. Silvosa, 51 Off. Gaz., No. 6 p. 2884, this Court had
occasion to discuss the scope and extent of the power of supervision by the President over
local government officials in contrast to the power of control given to him over executive
officials of our government wherein it was emphasized that the two terms, control and
supervision, are two different things which differ one from the other in meaning and extent.
Thus in that case the Court has made the following digression: "In administration law
supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate
officers perform their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them the former may take such
action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform their duties. Control, on the other
hand, means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify of set aside what a
subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment
of the former for that of the latter." But from this pronouncement it cannot be reasonably
inferred that the power of supervision of the President over local government officials does
not include the power of investigation when in his opinion the good of the public service so
requires, as postulated in Section 64(c) of the Revised Administrative Code. ... 35

x x x           x x x          x x x

"Control" has been defined as "the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a
subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the
former for test of the latter." "Supervision" on the other hand means "overseeing or the power or
36

authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties.  As we held,  however,
37 38

"investigating" is not inconsistent with "overseeing", although it is a lesser power than "altering". The
impression is apparently exacerbated by the Court's pronouncements in at least three
cases, Lacson v. Roque,  Hebron v. Reyes,  and Mondano v. Silvosa,  and possibly, a fourth one,
39 40 41

Pelaez v. Auditor General.  In Lacson, this Court said that the President enjoyed no control powers
42

but only supervision "as may be provided by law,"  a rule we reiterated in Hebron, and Mondano.
43
In Pelaez, we stated that the President "may not . . . suspend an elective official of a regular
municipality or take any disciplinary action against him, except on appeal from a decision of the
corresponding provincial board."  However, neither Lacsonnor Hebron nor Mondano categorically
44

banned the Chief Executive from exercising acts of disciplinary authority because she did not
exercise control powers, but because no law allowed her to exercise disciplinary authority. Thus,
according to Lacson:

The contention that the President has inherent power to remove or suspend municipal
officers is without doubt not well taken. Removal and suspension of public officers are
always controlled by the particular law applicable and its proper construction subject to
constitutional limitations.
45

In Hebron we stated:

Accordingly, when the procedure for the suspension of an officer is specified by law, the
same must be deemed mandatory and adhered to strictly, in the absence of express or clear
provision to the contrary-which does not et with respect to municipal officers ... 46

In Mondano, the Court held:

... The Congress has expressly and specifically lodged the provincial supervision over
municipal officials in the provincial governor who is authorized to "receive and investigate
complaints made under oath against municipal officers for neglect of duty, oppression,
corruption or other form of maladministration of office, and conviction by final judgment of
any crime involving moral turpitude." And if the charges are serious, "he shall submit written
charges touching the matter to the provincial board, furnishing a copy of such charges to the
accused either personally or by registered mail, and he may in such case suspend the officer
(not being the municipal treasurer) pending action by the board, if in his opinion the charge
by one affecting the official integrity of the officer in question." Section 86 of the Revised
Administration Code adds nothing to the power of supervision to be exercised by the
Department Head over the administration of ... municipalities ... . If it be construed that it
does and such additional power is the same authority as that vested in the Department Head
by section 79(c) of the Revised Administrative Code, then such additional power must be
deemed to have been abrogated by Section 110(l), Article VII of the Constitution. 47

x x x           x x x          x x x

In Pelaez, we stated that the President can not impose disciplinary measures on local officials
except on appeal from the provincial board pursuant to the Administrative Code. 48

Thus, in those case that this Court denied the President the power (to suspend/remove) it was not
because we did not think that the President can not exercise it on account of his limited power, but
because the law lodged the power elsewhere. But in those cases ii which the law gave him the
power, the Court, as in Ganzon v. Kayanan, found little difficulty in sustaining him. 49

The Court does not believe that the petitioners can rightfully point to the debates of the
Constitutional Commission to defeat the President's powers. The Court believes that the
deliberations are by themselves inconclusive, because although Commissioner Jose Nolledo would
exclude the power of removal from the President,  Commissioner Blas Ople would not.
50 51
The Court is consequently reluctant to say that the new Constitution has repealed the Local
Government Code, Batas Blg. 37. As we said, "supervision" and "removal" are not incompatible
terms and one may stand with the other notwithstanding the stronger expression of local autonomy
under the new Charter. We have indeed held that in spite of the approval of the Charter, Batas Blg.
337 is still in force and effect.
52

As the Constitution itself declares, local autonomy means "a more responsive and accountable local
government structure instituted through a system of decentralization."  The Constitution as we
53

observed, does nothing more than to break up the monopoly of the national government over the
affairs of local governments and as put by political adherents, to "liberate the local governments from
the imperialism of Manila." Autonomy, however, is not meant to end the relation of partnership and
inter-dependence between the central administration and local government units, or otherwise, to
user in a regime of federalism. The Charter has not taken such a radical step. Local governments,
under the Constitution, are subject to regulation, however limited, and for no other purpose than
precisely, albeit paradoxically, to enhance self- government.

As we observed in one case,  decentralization means devolution of national administration but not
54

power to the local levels. Thus:

Now, autonomy is either decentralization of administration or decentralization of power.

There is decentralization of administration when the central government delegates
administrative powers to political subdivisions in order to broaden the base of government
power and in the process to make local governments "more responsive and accountable,"
and "ensure their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more
effective partners in the pursuit of national development and social progress." At the same
time, it relieves the central government of the burden of managing local affairs and enables it
to concentrate on national concerns. The President exercises "general supervision" over
them, but only to "ensure that local affairs are administered according to law." He has no
control over their acts in the sense that he can substitute their judgments with his own.

Decentralization of power, on the other hand, involves an abdication of political power in the
favor of local governments units declared to be autonomous, In that case, the autonomous
government is free to chart its own destiny and shape its future with minimum intervention
from central authorities. According to a constitutional author, decentralization of power
amounts to "self-immolation," since in that event, the autonomous government becomes
accountable not to the central authorities but to its constituency. 55

The successive sixty-day suspensions imposed on Mayor Rodolfo Ganzon is albeit another matter.
What bothers the Court, and what indeed looms very large, is the fact that since the Mayor is facing
ten administrative charges, the Mayor is in fact facing the possibility of 600 days of suspension, in
the event that all ten cases yield prima faciefindings. The Court is not of course tolerating
misfeasance in public office (assuming that Mayor Ganzon is guilty of misfeasance) but it is certainly
another question to make him serve 600 days of suspension, which is effectively, to suspend him out
of office. As we held:
56

2. Petitioner is a duly elected municipal mayor of Lianga, Surigao del Sur. His term of office
does not expire until 1986. Were it not for this information and the suspension decreed by
the Sandiganbayan according to the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, he would have
been all this while in the full discharge of his functions as such municipal mayor. He was
elected precisely to do so. As of October 26, 1983, he has been unable to. it is a basic
assumption of the electoral process implicit in the right of suffrage that the people are
entitled to the services of elective officials of their choice. For misfeasance or malfeasance,
 any of them could, of course, be proceeded against administratively or, as in this instance,
criminally. In either case, Ms culpability must be established. Moreover, if there be a criminal
action, he is entitled to the constitutional presumption of innocence. A preventive suspension
may be justified. Its continuance, however, for an unreasonable length of time raises a due
process question. For even if thereafter he were acquitted, in the meanwhile his right to hold
office had been nullified. Clearly, there would be in such a case an injustice suffered by him.
Nor is he the only victim. There is injustice inflicted likewise on the people of Lianga They
were deprived of the services of the man they had elected to serve as mayor. In that sense,
to paraphrase Justice Cardozo, the protracted continuance of this preventive suspension
had outrun the bounds of reason and resulted in sheer oppression. A denial of due process
is thus quite manifest. It is to avoid such an unconstitutional application that the order of
suspension should be lifted. 57

The plain truth is that this Court has been ill at ease with suspensions, for the above reasons,  and
58

so also, because it is out of the ordinary to have a vacancy in local government. The sole objective
of a suspension, as we have held,  is simply "to prevent the accused from hampering the normal
59

cause of the investigation with his influence and authority over possible witnesses"  or to keep him
60

off "the records and other evidence. 61

It is a means, and no more, to assist prosecutors in firming up a case, if any, against an erring local
official. Under the Local Government Code, it can not exceed sixty days,  which is to say that it need
62

not be exactly sixty days long if a shorter period is otherwise sufficient, and which is also to say that
it ought to be lifted if prosecutors have achieved their purpose in a shorter span.

Suspension is not a penalty and is not unlike preventive imprisonment in which the accused is held
to insure his presence at the trial. In both cases, the accused (the respondent) enjoys a presumption
of innocence unless and until found guilty.

Suspension finally is temporary and as the Local Government Code provides, it may be imposed for
no more than sixty days. As we held,  a longer suspension is unjust and unreasonable, and we
63

might add, nothing less than tyranny.

As we observed earlier, imposing 600 days of suspension which is not a remote possibility Mayor
Ganzon is to all intents and purposes, to make him spend the rest of his term in inactivity. It is also to
make, to all intents and purposes, his suspension permanent.

It is also, in fact, to mete out punishment in spite of the fact that the Mayor's guilt has not been
proven. Worse, any absolution will be for naught because needless to say, the length of his
suspension would have, by the time he is reinstated, wiped out his tenure considerably.

The Court is not to be mistaken for obstructing the efforts of the respondent Secretary to see that
justice is done in Iloilo City, yet it is hardly any argument to inflict on Mayor Ganzon successive
suspensions when apparently, the respondent Secretary has had sufficient time to gather the
necessary evidence to build a case against the Mayor without suspending him a day longer. What is
intriguing is that the respondent Secretary has been cracking down, so to speak, on the Mayor
piecemeal apparently, to pin him down ten times the pain, when he, the respondent Secretary, could
have pursued a consolidated effort.

We reiterate that we are not precluding the President, through the Secretary of Interior from
exercising a legal power, yet we are of the opinion that the Secretary of Interior is exercising that
power oppressively, and needless to say, with a grave abuse of discretion.
The Court is aware that only the third suspension is under questions, and that any talk of future
suspensions is in fact premature. The fact remains, however, that Mayor Ganzon has been made to
serve a total of 120 days of suspension and the possibility of sixty days more is arguably around the
corner (which amounts to a violation of the Local Government Code which brings to light a pattern of
suspensions intended to suspend the Mayor the rest of his natural tenure. The Court is simply
foreclosing what appears to us as a concerted effort of the State to perpetuate an arbitrary act.

As we said, we can not tolerate such a state of affairs.

We are therefore allowing Mayor Rodolfo Ganzon to suffer the duration of his third suspension and
lifting, for the purpose, the Temporary Restraining Order earlier issued. Insofar as the seven
remaining charges are concerned, we are urging the Department of Local Government, upon the
finality of this Decision, to undertake steps to expedite the same, subject to Mayor Ganzon's usual
remedies of appeal, judicial or administrative, or certiorari, if warranted, and meanwhile, we are
precluding the Secretary from meting out further suspensions based on those remaining complaints,
notwithstanding findings of prima facie evidence.

In resume the Court is laying down the following rules:

1. Local autonomy, under the Constitution, involves a mere decentralization of administration, not of
power, in which local officials remain accountable to the central government in the manner the law
may provide;

2. The new Constitution does not prescribe federalism;

3. The change in constitutional language (with respect to the supervision clause) was meant but to
deny legislative control over local governments; it did not exempt the latter from legislative
regulations provided regulation is consistent with the fundamental premise of autonomy;

4. Since local governments remain accountable to the national authority, the latter may, by law, and
in the manner set forth therein, impose disciplinary action against local officials;

5. "Supervision" and "investigation" are not inconsistent terms; "investigation" does not signify
"control" (which the President does not have);

6. The petitioner, Mayor Rodolfo Ganzon. may serve the suspension so far ordered, but may no
longer be suspended for the offenses he was charged originally; provided:

a) that delays in the investigation of those charges "due to his fault, neglect or request, (the
time of the delay) shall not be counted in computing the time of suspension. [Supra, sec.
63(3)]

b) that if during, or after the expiration of, his preventive suspension, the petitioner commits
another or other crimes and abuses for which proper charges are filed against him by the
aggrieved party or parties, his previous suspension shall not be a bar to his being
preventively suspended again, if warranted under subpar. (2), Section 63 of the Local
Government Code.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitions are DISMISSED. The Temporary Restraining
Order issued is LIFTED.  The suspensions of the petitioners are AFFIRMED, provided that the
1âwphi1

petitioner, Mayor Rodolfo Ganzon, may not be made to serve future suspensions on account of any
of the remaining administrative charges pending against him for acts committed prior to August 11,
1988. The Secretary of Interior is ORDERED to consolidate all such administrative cases pending
against Mayor Ganzon.

The sixty-day suspension against the petitioner, Mary Ann Rivera Artieda, is AFFIRMED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla,
Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado and Davide, Jr., JJ concur.