MEMORANDUM

FOR: ANGELITA VILLANUEVA MIRANDA

Assistant Solicitor General

FROM: MYLENE BENDIJO

Attorney II

RE: RESEARCH ON MPOC RESOLUTION OF SADANGA,

MOUNTAIN PROVINCE DECLARING CPA AS
PERSONA NON GRATA

DATE: JUNE 25, 2020

Section 3(e) of RA 3019 which

states:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. – In addition to

acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing
law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public
officer and are hereby declared to be
unlawful:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the

Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official,
administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision
shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or
other concessions.

The three essential elements for violation of Section 3(e)

of RA 3019 are: (1) that the accused is a public officer
discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; (2) that
the accused acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
gross inexcusable negligence; and (3) that the accused caused
undue injury to any party including the Government, or giving
any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference
in the discharge of his functions.
Supreme Court discussed lengthily the second element in
the case of Albert v. Sandiganbayan explaining the different
modes by which the crime may be committed:

The second element provides the different modes by which

the crime may be committed, that is, through “manifest
partiality,” “evident bad faith,” or “gross inexcusable
negligence.” In Uriarte v. People, this Court explained that
Section 3(e) of RA 3019 may be committed either by dolo, as
when the accused acted with evident bad faith or manifest
partiality, or by culpa, as when the accused committed gross
inexcusable negligence. There is “manifest partiality” when there
is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor
one side or person rather than another. “Evident bad faith”
connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently
fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or
conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will.
“Evident bad faith” contemplates a state of mind affirmatively
operating with furtive design or with some motive or self–interest
or ill will or for ulterior purposes. “Gross inexcusable negligence”
refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the
slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there
is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally,
with conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other
persons may be affected.

“Partiality" is synonymous with "bias" which "excites a disposition

to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as
they are." "Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or
negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral
obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty
through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature
of fraud." "Gross negligence has been so defined as negligence
characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting
to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently
but wilfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to
consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the
omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men
never fail to take on their own property."21 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

In other words, there is "manifest partiality" when there is a

clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one
side or person rather than another. On the other hand, "evident
bad faith" connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and
patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity
or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. It
contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive
design or with some motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior
purposes.1

The second element is wanting in this case, as the public

officers of Municipality of Sadanga are exercising their function
when it issued the said Municipal Resolution in keeping with their
task of maintaining the peace and order in the Municipality of
Sadanga. The three modes are absent as there is no “manifest
partiality,” “evident bad faith,” or “gross inexcusable negligence
being committed by the Council when they issued said resolution
declaring CPA as persona non grata in their jurisdiction upon
assessment and in order to keep the peace and order in the
community. There are valid grounds to which the said Resolution
is founded as stated in the whereas clause that many of the
Cordillera youth and college and university students had been
recruited and lured as member of the organizations to regularly
participate in their continuous anti-Government rallies, marches,
demonstrations, and many other forms of anti-Government mass
mobilization and later on end up joining the NPA. Additionally, the
CPA had been acting as the de facto propaganda machine and
1
Fuentes vs. People, G.R. No. 186421, April 17, 2017.
recruitment agency of the NPA, thereby posing a security problem
to Sadanga community. Hence, the act of issuing the Resolution
was not attended of manifest partiality nor there was evident bad
faith and was not enacted with gross inexcusable negligence. The
said Resolution is meritorious and validly issued for the welfare of
the Sadanga community. They are not operating with furtive
design or with some motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior
purposes but by reason of their office function.

Also, there is presumption of regularity in the performance

of their official duties in issuing said Resolution. The presumption
of regularity in the performance of official duties is an aid to the
effective and unhampered administration of government
functions. Without such benefit, every official action could be
negated with minimal effort from litigants, irrespective of merit or
sufficiency of evidence to support such challenge. To this end, our
body of jurisprudence has been consistent in requiring nothing
short of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary to
overthrow such presumption.

Submitted by:
MYLENE V. BENDIJO