Laurel v Desierto- WHAT IS A PUBLIC OFFICER

Petitioner Vice-President Salvador Laurel was appointed as the head of the National Centennial Commission, a body constituted
for the preparation of the National Centennial celebration in 1998. He was subsequently appointed as the Chairman of
ExpoCorp., and was one of the nine (9) incorporators. A controversy erupted on the alleged anomalies with the bidding contracts
to some entities and the petitioner was implicated. By virtue of an investigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman, the
petitioner was indicted for alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019). The petitioner filed a Motion to
Dismiss questioning the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman, which was denied. The petitioner assails the jurisdiction of
the Ombudsman and contended that he is not a public officer since ExpoCorp is a private corporation.

Issue: W/N the petitioner is a public officer

Held: A public office is the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for a given period, either fixed by law
or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the
government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public. The individual so invested is a public officer

Yes, the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the case of the petitioner since he is a public officer. The NCC is an office performing
executive functions since one of its mandate is to implement national policies. Moreover, the said office was established by virtue
of an executive order. It is clear that the NCC performs sovereign functions, hence it is a public office. Since petitioner is chair of
the NCC, he is therefore a public officer. The fact that the NCC was characterized by EO 128 as an 'ad-hoc body' make it less of
a public office. Finally, the fact that the petitioner did not receive any compensation during his tenure is of no consequence since
such is merely an incidence and forms no part of the office.

EJERCITO VS COMELEC- GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION UNDER SEC 68 of the OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE

Three days prior to the May 13, 2013 Elections, a petition for disqualification was filed by Edgar “Egay”San Luis before the
COMELEC against Emilio Ramon “E.R.” P. Ejercito, who was a fellow candidate and, at the time, the incumbent Governor of the
Province of Laguna.

 Causes of action: (1) Ejercito, during the campaign period for 2013 local election, distributed to the electorates of
theprovince of Laguna the “Orange Card” which could be used in any public hospital within the Province of Laguna for
their medical needs =a material consideration in convincing the voters to cast their votes for Ejercito’s favor in violation
of Sec68 of the Omnibus Election Code;(2) Under Sec 5 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9615, the aggregate amount
that a candidate may spend for electioncampaign shall be “P3.00 for every voter currently registered in the
constituency where the candidate filed his certificate of candidacy” The Province of Laguna has a total of 1,525,522
registered electorate. Accordingly, a candidate for the positionof Provincial Governor of Laguna is only authorized to
incur an election expense amounting to P4,576,566.00. However,for television campaign commercials alone, Ejercito
already spent P23,730,784. Even assuming that Ejercito was given30%discount as prescribed under the Fair Election
Act, he still paid the sum of P16,611,549. Hence, Ejercito committed anelection offense under Sec 35 of COMELEC
Resolution No. 9615, in relation to Sec 68 of the OEC.
 On May 17, 2013, Ejercito and Ramil L. Hernandez were proclaimed by the Provincial Board of Canvassers as duly-
elected Governor and Vice-Governor of Laguna. Ejercito: 549,310 votes. San Luis: 471,209 votes.
 The COMELEC First Division issued a Summons with Notice of Conference. Ejercito prayed for the dismissal of thepeti
tion which was:
 Improperly filed because it is in reality a complaint for election offenses, thus, the case should have been filed before
the COMELEC Law Department, or the election registrar.
 -San Luis failed to show, conformably with Codilla, Sr. vs. De Venecia  , that he (Ejercito) was previously convicted
ordeclared by final judgment for being guilty of, or found by the COMELEC of having committed, the punishable
actsunder Sec 68 of the OEC.
-Moot and academic by his proclamation as duly-elected Prov. Governor of Laguna for 2013-2016.
 The COMELEC First Division resolved to grant the disqualification of Ejercito. Ejercito had accepted
donations of PhP20,197,170.25 and PhP 3,366,195.05 from Scenema Concept International, Inc. (SCI) in the form of
television advertisements to be aired on ABS-CBN’s Channel 2. Even assuming that the actual cost of both advertising
contracts only amounted to PhP12,818,470.56, Ejercito exceeded his authorized expenditure limit of PhP 4,576,566.00
which is a groundfor disqualification under Sec 68 (c) and concurrently an election offense pursuant to Sec 100 in
relation to Section 262 ofthe OEC.
 The COMELEC En Banc agreed with the findings of its First Division that San Luis’ petition is an action to disqualify
Ejercito. One ground for disqualification listed in Sec 68 is spending in an election campaign an amount in excess of
that allowed by law. Hence, COMELEC has jurisdiction over the petition. As to Ejercito’s assertion that the petition was
prematurely filed on the ground that the filing of an election offense and the factual determination on the existence of
probable cause are required before a disqualification case based on Sec 68 of the OEC may proceed, the COMELEC
EnBanc cited Lanot vs. Comelec   which declared that each of the acts listed as ground for disqualification under Sec
68 of theOEC has two aspects –  electoral and criminal. The electoral aspect may proceed independently of the
criminal aspect, andan erring candidate may be disqualified even without prior determination of probable cause in a
preliminary investigation.

Issue:

 W/N COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying Ejercito – 

Held: NO. The COMELEC First Division and COMELEC En Banc correctly ruled that the petition filed by San Luis against
Ejercitois not just for prosecution of election offense but for disqualification as well. Ejercito cannot feign ignorance of the true
nature and intent of San Luis’ petition. The title of San Luis’ petition shows that the case was brought under Rule 25 of
the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which is the specific rule governing the disqualification of candidates. Moreover, the
averments of San Luis’ petition rely on Sec 68 (a) and (c) of the OEC as grounds for its causes of action which enumerates the
grounds forthe disqualification of a candidate for elective position.

An election offense has both criminal and electoral aspects. The electoral aspect may proceed independently of the criminal

aspect, and vice-versa. The criminal aspect of a disqualification case determines whether there is probable cause to charge a
candidate for an election offense. The prosecutor is the COMELEC, through its Law Department, which
determines whether probable cause exists. If there is probable cause, the COMELEC, through its Law Department, files the crimi
nal information before the proper court. Proceedings before the proper court demand a full-blown hearing and require proof
beyond reasonable doubt to convict. A criminal conviction shall result in the disqualification of the offender, which may even
include disqualification from holding a future public office. The conduct of preliminary investigation is not required in the
resolution of the electoral aspect of a disqualification case.