liepublic oI t}le philippinesDEPARTMENI OI. THE INTERION. AWO LOCAL GOVERNMENT

A.Frturcisco cold Condomirfum II, EDSA corner Mapagmaha.l St., Diliman, eUEZON CITYTelephone Number 92S, 1 1.48 . 92S.88.88 " g2S.O3.32

wll'w. dilg. gov. ph

OFFICE OF THE TII$DERSECRETARY FOR I"OCAL GOVERNMENT

DILG Legal Opinion No. 09A, S. 2013

i 9 l',lAR ZO13DIR. FLORIDA M. DIJAN, CESO IIIRegional Director, DILG RegiorL IIIDiosdado Macapagal Regional CenterMaimpis, San FernandoPampanga

Dear Dir. Dijan:

This has reference to your ietter dated 14 February 2013 requesting a regal opinion onthe following queries, to wir:

"7) Taking into cansideration that the first suspension wiT end on 20september 20,13 months a.fi:er election, how wirl this 1ever treat the subsequentorder imposing anorher period which might pntbably go beyond Septim ber2013? stated in another way, w r the subsequent order imposing anotherpenalty be followed even if it wiU be served beyond the duration of rhe firctsuspension ordet?

2) Taking into consideration that suspended Mayor Caspillo is seekingre-election this fonh coming Elections, wiU Aguinaldo Doctrine appty if iewins the elections? shourd he be re-elected, u,ir the two suspensions ordersbe automaticalls, Iifted upol taking his oath on 30 fune 2013?"

As to the first issue, we answer in the negative.

In the case of Bautista vs. primicias, Jr.r, the Supreme court held that the propriety ofthe suspension of a Mayor is rendered moot and academic upon the expiration oi hir/h",term and that of the provincial officials who suspended him/her.

Based on the foregoing, a locar elective official's service of suspension cannor gobeyond his terrr of office.

As to the second issue, the case of Malinao vs. Reyesz, citing the landmark case ofAguinaldo vs. Santos3, is insrructive, thus:

"xR any administrative disciplinary proceeding against respondent isabated if in the meantime he is reelected, because his reelection results in acondonation of whatever misconduct he might have committed during hisprevious term. "

' G.R, No. L-33583 Iebruary 12, 1972.' G,R. No. l176l8dared29M,,rch i996.' ztz scna zos ltosz;.

bl{i?'"l?,q#mgi

In addition thereto, the supreme court ruled in the case of Garcia vs. Mojica, et. al.a,in this wise:

'Tn a number of cases, we have repeatedly held that a reelected localofficial may not be herd administrativery accountable for misconductcommitted during his prior term of offrce. The rationale for this holding is thatwhen the electorate put him back into offrce, it is presumed that it did so withfull knowledge of his litb and character, incruding his past misconduct. \f,,armed with such knowledge, it stirl rcerects him, then such reerection isconsidered a condonation of his past misdeeds."

Since the cases againsr h4ayor caspilto were filed before the office of theombudsman, the abovementioned Supreme court rurings in Marinao and Garcia casesshould be read in relation to the position of the office of the ombudsman on the matter,the most recent of which was embodied in the 09 March 2012 letters of ombudsmanconchita Carpio-Morales to Atty. Arturo sicat, vice-Mayor of cainta, Rizar, pertinentportion of which reads:

"s;.xtr the Doctrine of Condonation is not equally applicable in your casebecause the Supreme Cburt has been consistent in its ruling that forcondonation to apply, reelection should be to the same position formisconduct committed during a ,prior' term. IIence, there is no cogent .reasonfor this Offrce to deuiate from preuailing jurhprudence and this Office isconstrained to implement the penalqr imposed pursuant to the Order dated 0gAugust 2005. "

In view thereof, if Mayor caspilro is re-elected to the same position in the May 2013,the two suspensions implemented against Mayor caspillo will be disrnissed, upon p.ormanifestation to the office of the L)mbudsman of the fact of his re-election to office.

We hope the foregoing sufficiently addresses your concern.

ADEROUndersecretary y

LS9 (117 /11,

1'.*

n c.R. No. 139043, 10 September 1999.

- Copy attached.