PUBLIC OFFICERS
ATTY. AGRA
Agapito (0:00-3:26)
Okay? Public Officers... Have you seen a copy of my powerpoint? This is the same
ppt. I wasn't able to update. What you need to read is the June 1 powerpoint...
Let me highlight a few things.
There are five elements to a public office. I will not go to the five but let me
underscore the fact that of the five, the most important would be it performs an
aspect of the government. Meaning, exercise some form of sovereign functions of the
government. Even if you hold a "gratuitous position" which means you are not being
paid (you can still be holding public office) because compensation is not an element
of public office.
*Not relevant* Have you watched John Wick? Kung gusto niyo ng bayolente from
start to end that's the movie to watch.
Here are the samples of a public office:
1. If you look at the chairperson of the National Centennial Commission, even
if, he did not get paid, still he is a public officer.
2. Even if you are a student regent of UP, that is a public office.
3. Even if you are an Executive Assistant of an agency created by the
President, you are holding a public office.
If you are holding a public office, you have two accountabilities or two duties: (1)
Duties to the public and (2) ​duties to the private entities​. And you don't have those
duties if you are holding a private office. If you are holding a private office, you are
the CEO of a corporation, your duty is to the shareholders. You don't have a duty,
but depending on what public utility, you have to follow certain duties. It means you
need to follow certain rules. But when you hold a public office, you have these dual
duties.
Holding a public office cannot pass on like inheritance or succession. You cannot
sell that. And you don't have an absolute right over that. Normally, it is claimed
when an agency is dissolved or abolished, then there is a successor agency which has
almost the same functions. So those belonging to the previous abolished office...
Bitoin (3:37-6:52)
..are mainly CONTINUITY OF SERVICE. Hence, the absolute right. But if you
were able to read the powerpoint, that is not the case. If the creation of public office
was done in GOOD FAITH, not for political reasons or harassment, then you have
the right to be in the SUCCESSOR OFFICE.
There are 3 QUALIFICATIONS OF OFFICERS. Again, it is not a one size fits all
that when you look at all the public offices, they have the same sets of qualifications
because depending on the type of office, will be the accompanying duties, and
therefore, the qualifications or eligibility requirements will be different. Hence, the
requirements that the qualifications must GERMANE, all must have a rational
connection between the office and the qualification.
● For example, being a VOTER, that’s a requirement for elective office.
Holding for, let’s say graduating for a particular course, that will be
dependent on the position.
● CIVIL SERVICE EXAM would also be dependent if you need civil service
eligibility.
● POLITICAL AFFILIATION, do you recall any office wherein you must be
a member of a political party in order to hold a public office? There are
certain commissions, electoral tribunals, that you can only be a member of
that tribunal if you’re the majority party. Or you have certain seats in the
office. Commission on Appointments! Most of these are offices created by
the Constitution requiring for a political affiliation.
DE JURE. What’s the difference between de jure and usurper? De jure, everything
is VALID. Usurper, there’s not even an iota of validity. What is close to my heart is
the issue of de facto officer. I don’t know if you know why I said it’s close to my
heart. De jure officer, there are 3 requirements. Btw this was just asked in the bar 2
or 3 bar exams ago.
1. The office must be legitimate.
2. You must actually be in possession of that office.
3. One important aspect is you’re holding that office in good faith.
Chua (6:53-13:18)
These 3 elements must be present in order to be a de facto officer. Example:
1
 PUBLIC OFFICERS
ATTY. AGRA
1. In 2018, in one case, the failure to submit Statement of Assets and
Liabilities, you are still a de facto.
2. At some point, the law creating that office as declared unconstitutional, that
is still de facto. But during that time that there was no ruling from the SC
yet that the office was a void creation, at the time he is de jure officer. After
the declaration of nullity that is time you are considered de facto.
Can a chairperson of the Civil Service Commission be at the same time a member of
the GSIS, PhilHealth? SC said no. Funa v Agra, a person cannot hold on to a
positions of acting Solicitor General and acting Secretary even if parehong acting,
even if it was just for 4 months, even if exigency of the service, even if for purposes
of budget (budget of OSG is part of the budget of the DOJ) one person cannot hold
both positions.
The only exception to the Constitution
1. If constitution itself allows holding on to this 2 positions
2. Ex officio nature
That was 15-0 vote and hindi na ako nagfile ng MR because the saving grace was
that the SC said I was a de facto officer. Again general rule: 1 person can only hold
on to one office, exception: constitution and ex officio. Even if there is a law, that is
not a valid exception. Another term for incompatible office is holding on to multiple
office.
Difference between incompatible office and forbidden office. Forbidden office
basically applies to members of Congress. They increase benefits during their term
and then assume position after they leave Congress.
The next thing I want to highlight is command responsibility. Sa military may
command responsibility, the general is accountable to the acts of the soldier. But not
in the case of government, the boss (general manager or mayor) can play immunity
from those actions made by subordinates and that is the general rule but there are a
handful of exceptions.
Exceptions:
1. He participated in the illegal act subject to proof
2. Did not exercise due diligence in appointing person who was negligent
3. In the most recent case, if you should have known that the action of your
subordinate was unlawful then you cannot raise the defense of immunity.
Congress cannot come up with a very specific, detailed list of qualifications that only
1 person will effectively be qualified for that position because the power to appoint is
an executive power and congress cannot limit that power except to impose
qualifications and eligibility requirement. Appointment itself is discretionary.
What is the difference between the terms designation and appointment. Designation
means you are given additional duties. That presupposes that you have already been
appointed.
The ban of midnight appointment does not apply if prior to the period which is
banned or proscribed, you have already performed your functions. That ban does not
apply to appointment of SC justices. BTW i was the acting SolGen and this was the
case that we handled at that time.
Can a former COMELEC Commissioner practice, handle a case before the
COMELEC after his or her term has expired? BTW, terminology lang. You have a
fixed term 6 years, 6 years has lapsed
De Castro (14:19-16:44)
..we call it expiration of term. When an official no longer enjoys the trust and
confidence, that could be termination. Going back to my COMELEC example, can
the former COMELEC Commissioner, after his term has expired, represent clients
before the COMELEC? Another question, Right after his term expires, can he appear
before regular courts? The one year ban only applies only to the office which you
held. So former COMELEC commissioners can practice elsewhere except
COMELEC within 1 year. After that 1 year, then the ban no longer exist.
All resignations must be accepted, otherwise that will constitute abandonment and it
is subjected to certain liabilities. So all resignations, including courtesy resignations,
are voluntary then must be accepted. Can a person be reassigned from this
department to another department? An election officer, let's say from question city
transferred to Manila. The answer is yes. Although during the election period bawal
2
 PUBLIC OFFICERS
ATTY. AGRA
ang reassignment except for election officers because they are under the control of
COMELEC. When you talk about lateral. Kailangan not demotion or no reduction or
diminution in paid.
Gallo (16:45-23:10)
When is there abandonment? Through your acts, commissions or contemporaneous
acts. You must be able to show that you abandoned. So if you still reported for work
and continued to exercise your functions, how can you be said to have abandoned
your post? There are valid and there are invalid reorganizations. When does it
become invalid?
1. If it is out of political reasons. You just want to fire the appointees of the
predecessor.
2. If the new agency that was created, it could now perform the functions, all
the functions, with no additional functions of the predecessor. Case in point,
once upon a time we had the Energy Regulatory Board, we now have the
Energy Regulatory Commission. If you compare the functions of the two,
kailangan magkaiba. ERC has now more functions, has more functions.
Because if it were exactly the same, it might constitute an invalid reorg and
therefore the employees and officers of the predecessors must be absorbed
in the successor office.
BENEFITS
Obviously if you do not perform your functions, how can you be entitled to your
salary? The rule is single compensation. When we talk about compensation, we are
not talking about allowances. We are talking about salaries because you are entitled
to single compensation but you can be entitled to allowances. Like what we call the
RATA. Representation and Transportation Allowances. So in several cases, there has
been double compensation when officials of the GOCC which is the one overseeing
the cooperatives also get salaries from the cooperatives. Officials of COA
(Commission on Audit) are paid by COA and they are assigned to lets say to the
Philippine Reclamation Authority, and they also get paid by PRA, that is not allowed
because that is double compensation. But can PRA give COA officials representation
and transportation allowance? The answer is yes. Because what is prohibited would
be salaries, per diems, and compensation. Allowances are not covered. Even
academic freedom, this was the case i think of UP. They used academic freedom to
justify double compensation. The Supreme Court said no because academic freedom
is not absolute freedom. Again i’m only highlighting what i feel are important. Per
diem, everytime they have a meeting, they are given a per diem. That is considered
as compensation. Again ang hindi kasama sa compensation would be allowances.
Like for us in PRA, we have a maximum amount for our allowances, which would
include food, and uhhh, transportation.
As we all know while government officials can form unions, they are not allowed to
go on strike. So if you see in the news, government officials picketing outside their
offices, normally these are done after office hours or during lunch break. Because if
these were to disrupt during office hours, then this would be considered work
stoppage, and effectively that would be a strike. So wearing of armbands, freedom of
speech. During lunch break, freedom of speech. It should not amount to work
stoppage.
Is there a way by, i’m going back to an earlier slide, is there a way by which double
compensation...what’s the effect if there is double compensation? You have to return
yung doble. Is there an instance when you don’t have to return? Good faith. Who can
say if there is good faith? Of course this would be the defense if there is double
compensation. There’s good faith. But ultimately, it would be the Supreme Court
who would say that there was good faith. Because the Commission on Audit,
normally would not say that there was good faith, even if public officials will raise
that as their defense.
Lim (23:11-29:36)
QUANTUM OF PROOF.
Even for disallowances by COA, COA being an admin agency--what’s the quantum?
Substantial evidence. Ombudsman? Substantial Evidence.
Ombudsman, the 3 constitutional commissions, Supreme Court enjoy fiscal
autonomy. Meaning non-reduction of the previous budget. Can the civil service
commission say that an appointment must be made by a GOCC? Can a civil service
commission say, GOCC, you should have appointed another person? NO, because
the civil service commission can only, MUST confirm if that appointee meets the
requirement. Even if there’s another person who has more requirement, who has a
doctorate degree, if the requirement is only a college degree? And that’s the
3
 PUBLIC OFFICERS
ATTY. AGRA
requirement. So civil service commission cannot say, you should have appointed the
one who has a... who is a doctor.
Again, the role of the civil service commission is just to confirm the appointment.
And when we say confirmation, basically to say whether that appointee possesses all
the qualifications, and none of the disqualifications.
This we discussed in admin law. Can the civil service commission issue a rule,
pertaining to those positions outside of its jurisdiction? NO. Because there are what
we call, EXEMPT positions. Exempt meaning, civil service commission has no
authority over them. So the rule here in rule making, an agency can only issue a rule
pertaining to its agency. Or within its mandate. Otherwise, that would be a void rule.
Another important aspect of public officers would be the Ombudsman. Can a
COMELEC commissioner, ahm, may lumabas sa news, they want to file an
ombudsman case against the COMELEC commissioner. Pwede yun or hindi pwede?
Hindi pwede because, they can only be removed through impeachment.
Does the Ombudsman have jurisdiction over cabinet secretaries? YES. GOCCs
whether chartered or non-chartered? Do you remember the difference? Chartered
created by law; non-chartered created under the corporation code. The law does not
distinguish. Does the ombudsman have jurisdiction over Channel 9? NO. Channel 9
is now majority private. How about water districts? YES, because water districts are
GOCCs, if you recall. Those covered, uhm Ombudsman have concurrent jurisdiction
over the PAGC, Presidential Anti-Graft Commission. Unlike PAGC, the role of
PAGC is just to investigate. And possibly file cases. Unlike the Ombudsman, it has
the power to investigate and it has also the power to impose penalties. So they may
have concurrent jurisdiction only insofar as investigation is concerned.
Remember admin law? Who has the power to enforce its own decisions? Remember,
the power to enforce must be expressly given to that agency otherwise you go to
court, right? However, for the Ombudsman, because it was created under the
Constitution, and it has broad powers, it can enforce its own decisions. Can it grant
immunity? Supreme court said YES. However, it cannot decide on questions on
constitutionality. Can the Ombudsman investigate? YES. Can it recommend
penalties? YES. Can it impose penalties? YES. Can it suspend? YES. Can it place a
person under preventive suspension? Meaning pending investigation that officer
cannot report to work, in order to prevent tampering of documents and influencing
witnesses? The answer is YES.
Is it possible for the Ombudsman to dismiss outright a case, without conducting an
investigation? YES. That’s discretionary on the part of Ombudsman. By the way, can
the ombudsman act on unsigned complaints? YES. But it were unsigned, I supposed
the Ombudsman would conduct some investigation. Can congress add powers to the
Ombudsman? The answer is YES.
Nufuar (29:37-33:03)
3rd Bullet: SC doesn’t ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman’s determination of
probable cause. Again, Admin Law. Judicial review, right? However, it is also up to
the SC to interfere in the Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause because it’s
the Supreme Court.
The President can only discipline the Special Prosecutor, but the President has no
authority to discipline the Ombudsman and even the Deputy Ombudsman. And this
is also relevant when we talk about Local Government. Does the power to investigate
include the power to discipline? No because when you have the power to discipline,
you’re finding fault and that will be accompanied by the penalties. But the power to
discipline could include the power to investigate, but not the other way around. If
you have the power to discipline, obviously the power to investigate would be an
implied power, but not vice versa. And therefore, if you have the power to discipline,
that cannot be delegated. But the power to investigate, as have learned in admin law,
can be delegated.
Death doesn’t mean that your relatives will now rejoice because upon the public
officer’s death the case will no longer continue. No. Even for criminal cases, right?
Same with public officers. Death does not mean an automatic extinction or dismissal
of the case.
Every time you discipline by another public office, again admin law, what’s the
quantum of proof? That would be substantial evidence.
4
 PUBLIC OFFICERS
ATTY. AGRA
Impeachment. There’s a finite exclusive list of who can be impeached. If you are not -END-
in the list, you will not go through that exercise of House then Senate. And who are
the officials subject to impeachment?

Sison (33:03-36:30)
President. Vice President. Supreme Court Justices. ConComs. Ombudsman. And in
one case the SC said, again it’s finite, then the Deputy Ombudsman is not an
impeachable officer.

Can an impeachable officer face more than one complaint? If you notice, a lot of the
impeachment cases almost all the grounds are there. Most specially, the breach.
That’s the most generic.

Can an impeachment case be filed every month? WAG NAMAN. According to the
SC, once a year lang. And the question now is what is the reckoning point of that one
year ban? NOT THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT. BUT THE REFERRAL OF
THAT COMPLAINT TO THE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE.

What would be the consequence of being impeached? And this was what former
Chief Justice Corona has to face. He must remove and after he was removed, he
faced a lot of cases. Up to the time he passed away. He was advised similar to what
Gutierrez did, resign! because you resign, then impeachment case becomes MOOT.
And the impeachment court becomes functus officio, you recall the other instance
where we used the term functus officio? Board of Canvassers! Meaning they cannot
reconvene a complaint without the authority of COMELEC. After performing your
function, you’re dissolved. They only exist to perform that function.

And what happened to former CJ Sereno, are impeachable officers subject to a quo
warranto case? The answer according to the SC is YES. That does not mean that if
you belong to the list of impeachable officers, it does not mean your qualification
cannot be questioned in a quo warranto case. And if you recall, there are two grounds
for a quo warranto case, disloyalty and inelligibility. Meaning the qualifications.

I will only ask questions to what I lectured. Marami rami din ‘yun. So I will not try
not to deviate from what I lectured. So again, for preparing for finals, just look at the
powerpoint. No need to look at the commentaries.