University of Cebu-Banilad Campus

Banilad, Cebu City

College of Law

MODULELAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

Atty. Judiel M. ParejaINTRODUCTIONSection 1, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provides that a "Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives."Pursuant to this constitutional mandate, Republic Act No. 6713 (The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) directs the public officials and employees to uphold public interest over personal interest and for this purpose, to use government resources and the powers of their offices efficiently, effectively, honestly and economically to avoid wastage of government resources.NATURE OF PUBLIC OFFICE

In the case of Cornejo vs. Gabriel, November 17, 1920, the court said that [i]t is, however, well settled in the United States, that a public office is not property within the sense of the constitutional guaranties of due process of law, but is a public trust or agency. In the case of Taylorvs.Beckham ([1899], 178, U. S., 548), Mr. Chief Justice Fuller said that: "Decisions are numerous to the effect that public offices are mere agencies or trust, and not property as such." The basic idea of government in the Philippine Islands, as in the United States, is that of a popular representative government, the officers being mere agents and not rulers of the people, one where no one man or set of men has a proprietary or contractual right to an office, but where every officer accepts office pursuant to the provisions of the law and holds the office as a trust for the people whom he represents.Section 2(9) of the 1987 Administrative Code of the Philippines provides that an [o]ffice refers, within the framework of governmental organization, to any major functional unit of a department or bureau including regional offices. It may also refer to any position held or occupied by individual persons, whose functions are defined by law or regulation."A public office is the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law orenduring at the pleasure of the creatingpower, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign function of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public" (7 Mechem, Public Officers, Section 1; See also 42 Am. Jur., 944-955;Emphasis supplied). There is no such thing as a vested interest or an estate in an office, or even an absolute right to hold office. Excepting constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an office or its salary (42 Am. Jur. 881).In the case of State, ex rel. Barney, vs.Hawkins, the court said "[a]fter an exhaustive examination of the authorities, we hold that five elements are indispensable in any position of public employment, in order to make it a public office of a civil nature: (1) It must be created by the Constitution or by the legislature or created by a municipality or other body through authority conferred by the legislature; (2) it must possess a delegation of a portion of the sovereign power of government, to be exercised for the benefit of the public; (3) the powers conferred, and the duties to be discharged, must be defined, directly or impliedly, by the legislature or through legislative authority; (4) the duties must be performed independently and without control of a superior power other than the law, unless they be those of an inferior or subordinate office, created or authorized by the legislature, and by it placed under the general control of a superior officer or body; (5) it must have some permanency and continuity, and not be only temporary or occasional."PUBLIC OFFICERThe rule concerning the distinction between a public officer and an employee was enunciated with clarity inPeoplevs. Freedland, 308 Mich 449; 14 NW2d 62 (1944). The court said that the correct rule is stated in Mechem on Public Offices and Officers, Secs. 1 and 2, as follows:"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.

The Administrative Code of the Philippines also distinguished an officer from a mere employee, to wit:(14) "Officer" as distinguished from "clerk" or "employee", refers to a person whose duties, not being of a clerical or manual nature, involves the exercise of discretion in the performance of the functions of the government. When used with reference to a person having authority to do a particular act or perform a particular function in the exercise of governmental power, "officer" includes any government employee, agent or body having authority to do the act or exercise that function.

(15) "Employee", when used with reference to a person in the public service, includes any person in the service of the government or any of its agencies, divisions, subdivisions or instrumentalities.

InSolomonvs. Highland Park Civil Service Commission, 64 Mich App 433, p 438; 236 NW2d 94 (1975), the court stated that:'A public officer in the general everyday acceptance of the term is a special classification of those involved in government at what may be described as in an executive classification, whether his elevation to that status is elective or appointive. His compensation is fixed by legislative action, state or local. He does not collectively bargain for his wages or working conditions, and in no case that we know of are his duties and the standard of performance therefore agreed on by labor contracts. . . .' 64 Mich App 433, 437-438; 236 NW2d 94

Task 1Encircle the words that are related to the different classifications of public officers.

OTCAFEDCSMASWOUHYOBJ

RLFIHYNHOSOEESUTUAUL

JFIELADABISRXNIRKDTA

MFPVSNUOLGAZELRNINOI

EIOMILITARYRCPECSEUC

EVIVBCODCLTTUEIOTVMI

NEIUFPQEOONOTLUAIITD

UHYTAECTLANOITANUTPU

CRALAGESMCXSVAVMJNAJ

OJSWLLZUUIENEAOBAIIE

PTIDCOSRVLFRPIYKOOOM

ABETRTSIAUOHUUCRTPCS

BIITSEGBGECITJWTIPUP

KVSNOPAEUEMFSYEGAAEB

EAIOGMRELPLNLBODRIST

Task 2The principles discussed above, particularly the portion which enumerates the characteristics of an officer, have been followed consistently by courts. By applying the said the characteristics, determine whether the individuals involved are occupying a public office. Write P if the individual is a public officer and NP if not.1. Notary Public

2. Attorney-at-law

3. Policeman

4. Security Guards

5. Clergyman in the celebration of marriage

Case Analysis 1Read and discuss the important legal doctrines, principles and concepts enunciated in the following cases.

1. Preclaro vs. Sandiganbayan, August 21, 1995________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Serana vs. Sandiganbayan, January 22, 2008________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Namil vs. COMELEC, October 28, 2003

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Q & A 1

Is compensation indispensable to public office?__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________SELECTION FOR PUBLIC OFFICE

Appointment

In the case of Aparri vs. CA, January 31, 1984, the court explained that [b]y "appointment" is meant the act of designation by the executive officer, board or body, to whom that power has been delegated, of the individual who is to exercise the functions of a given office (Mechem op. cit., Sec. 102). When the power of appointment is absolute, and the appointee has been determined upon, no further consent or approval is necessary, and the formal evidence of the appointment, the commission, may issue at once. Where, however, the assent or confirmation of some other officer or body is required, the Commission can issue or the appointment is complete only when such assent or condition is obtained (People vs. Bissell, 49 Cal. 407). To constitute an "appointment" to office, there must be some open, unequivocal act of appointment on the part of the appointing authority empowered to make it, and it may be said thatan appointment to office is made and is complete when the last act required of the appointing authority has been performed(Molnar vs. City of Aurora, 348 N.E. 2d 262, 38 III App. 3d 580). In either case, the appointment becomes complete when the last act required of the appointing power is performed (State vs. Barbour, 53 Conn. 76, 55 Am. Rep. 65).Designation

InBinamira vs. Garrucho,July 30, 1990, the court stated that:Appointment may be defined as the selection, by the authority vested with the power, of an individual who is to exercise the functions of a given office.When completed, usually with its confirmation, the appointment results in security of tenure for the person chosen unless he is replaceable at pleasure because of the nature of his office. Designation, on the other hand, connotes merely the imposition by law of additional duties on an incumbent official,as where, in the case before us, the Secretary of Tourism is designated Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Philippine Tourism Authority, or where, under the Constitution, three Justices of the Supreme Court are designated by the Chief Justice to sit in the Electoral Tribunal of the Senate or the House of Representatives.It is said that appointment is essentially executive while designation is legislative in nature.Designation may also be loosely defined as an appointment because it likewise involves the naming of a particular person to a specified public office. That is the common understanding of the term. However, where the person is merely designated and not appointed, the implication is that he shall hold the office only in a temporary capacity and may be replaced at will by the appointing authority. In this sense, the designation is considered only an acting or temporary appointment, which does not confer security of tenure on the person named.Presidents Appointing PowerThe 1987 Constitution provides:Section 16.The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.

The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.In the case of Gonzales III vs. Office of the President, September 04, 2012, the court said that [u]nder the doctrine of implication, the power to appoint carries with it the power to remove.As a general rule, therefore, all officers appointed by the President are also removable by him. The exception to this is when the law expressly provides otherwise - that is, when the power to remove is expressly vested in an office or authority other than the appointing power. In some cases, the Constitution expressly separates the power to remove from the President's power to appoint. Under Section 9, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, the Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the President. However, Members of the Supreme Court may be removed after impeachment proceedings initiated by Congress (Section 2, Article XI), while judges of lower courts may be removed only by the Supreme Court by virtue of its administrative supervision over all its personnel (Sections 6 and 11, Article VIII). The Chairpersons and Commissioners of the Civil Service Commission Section 1(2), Article IX(B), the Commission on Elections Section 1(2), Article IX(C), and the Commission on Audit Section 1(2), Article IX(D) shall likewise be appointed by the President, but they may be removed only by impeachment (Section 2, Article XI). As priorly stated, the Ombudsman himself shall be appointed by the President (Section 9, Article XI) but may also be removed only by impeachment (Section 2, Article XI).Election

The Rules of Procedure in Election Contests before the Courts involving Elective Municipal and barangay Officials (AM. No. 07-4-15-SC)provides that:

Election - means the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular vote through the use of the ballot. Specifically, it may refer to the conduct of the polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of ballots and canvassing of return.

Q & A 2Read each question very carefully. Answerlegibly, clearly,andconcisely.1. It is readily apparent that under the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, there are four (4) groups of officers whom the President shall appoint. Enumerate these groups and determine which group/s require or requires the concurrence of the Commission on the Appointments.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________2. Can the President appoint acting secretaries without the consent of the Commission on Appointments while Congress is in session?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Task 3Choose which of the following appointments by the president require the consent of the Commission on Appointments.Commissioner of Customs NLRC Chairman Executive Secretary

Lieutenant Naval Captain Consuls PNP Director CHR Chairman

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Task 4The following terms are the different steps in the appointing process. Make a schematic diagram to show the said process and briefly explain each step.

Attestation

NominationConfirmation

Issuance of commission

Case Analysis 2Read and discuss the important legal doctrines, principles and concepts enunciated in the following cases.1. Farias vs. Executive Secretary, December 10, 2003________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Quinto vs. COMELEC, February 22, 2010

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Triste vs. Leyte State College Board of Trustees, December 17 , 1990________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. Garces vs.Court of Appeals, July 17, 1996________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ELIGIBILITY AND QUALIFICATIONBlacks Law Dictionary provides that qualification means the possession of the qualities or circumstances which are inherently or legally necessary to render him eligible to fill an office or to perform a public duty or function. Moreover, Carlo Cruz said that lack of disqualifications is itself a qualification.Task 5Complete the table below by writing the qualifications of the following elective officials. Write N/A if not applicable.Elective OfficialsCitizenshipAgeLiteracyVoterResidency

President and Vice-President

Senator

District Representative

Party-list Representative

Governor, Vice-governor, or Member of the SP

Mayor, Vice-mayor or Member of the SP of independent cities

Mayor, Vice-mayor or Member of the SP or SB of component cities or municipalities

Punong Barangay or Member of the Sangguniang Barangay

Sangguniang Kabataan (SK)

Disqualifications

Disqualifications to hold public office are mental or physical incapacity, misconduct or crime, impeachment, removal or suspension from office, previous tenure of office, consecutive terms, holding more than one office, relationship with the appointing power, office newly created or the emoluments of which have been increased, being an elective official, having been a candidate for any elective position, and grounds under the local government code (Ateneo Political Law Reviewer and Memory Aid).DE FACTO OFFICERSDe Facto Officer refers to an officer holding a colorable right or title to the office accompanied by possession.In the case of Tuanda vs. Sandiganbayan, the court said:The conditions and elements ofde factoofficership are the following:

1. There must be ade jureoffice;2. There must be color of right or general acquiescence by the public; and3. There must be actual physical possession of the office in good faith.One can qualify as ade factoofficer only if all the aforestated elements are present. There can be node facto officer where there is node jureoffice, although there may be ade factoofficer in ade jureoffice.An officerde factois to be distinguished from an officerde jure, and is one who has the reputation or appearance of being the officer he assumes to be but who, in fact, under the law, has no right or title to the office he assumes to hold. He is distinguished from a mere usurper or intruder by the fact that the former holds by some color of right or title while the latter intrudes upon the office and assumes to exercise its functions without either the legal title or color of right to such office. (McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, Vol. 3, 3rd ed., pp. 376-377.)

To constitute a de facto officer, there must be an office having a de facto existence, or at least one recognized by law and the claimant must be in actual possession of the office under color of title or authority. Statevs.Babb, 124 W. Va. 428, 20 S.E. (2d) 683. (McQuillin, Municipal Corporations,supra footnote No. 11, p. 383.)

In his concurring opinion in the case of Nacionalista Party vs. De Vera, Justice Ozaeta explained that usurper is one "who undertakes to act officially without any color of right."

Task 6Read the assigned case and determine if the public officer involved is a de jure, de facto or a usurper. Explain your answer.1. Judge Capistrano in the case of Tayko vs. Capistrano, October 2, 1928

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________2. Executive Assistant IVPriscilla Ong, May 27, 2004________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Case Analysis 3Read and discuss the important legal doctrines, principles and concepts enunciated in the following cases.

1. Menzon vs. Executive Petilla, May 20, 1991________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Nacionalista Party vs. De Vera, December 7, 1949________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Emoluments of a De Facto Officer

Merriam Webster Dictionary defines emolument as the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites.Case Analysis 4Read the cases of Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary, February 22, 1991, andMalaluan vs. COMELEC, March 6, 1996. Thereafter, discuss the important legal doctrines, principles and concepts enunciated in the following cases.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERAs explained by Carlo Cruz, the authority of public officer is derived from the people themselves. Section 1, Article II of the 1987 constitution provides that [t]he Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.Scope of power of a public officer consists of those powers which are expressly conferred upon him by the law under which he has been appointed or elected; expressly annexed to the office by the law which created it or some other law referring to it; or attached to the office as incidents to it (Ateneo Political Law Reviewer and Memory Aid).Task 7The duties of the public officer may be discretionary or ministerial. Compare and contrast the two kinds of duties of the public officer. Cite at least one example for each kind.__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________RESPONSIBILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

It is a basic principle of the law on public officers that a public official or employee is under a three-fold responsibility for violation of duty or for a wrongful act or omission.

Case Analysis 5Read the case of Flores vs. Montemayor, June 8, 2011. Thereafter, explain the meaning and nature of the above-mentioned legal principle.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________CIVIL SERVICEUnder the Constitution, the Civil Service Commission is the central personnel agency of the government charged with the duty of determining questions of qualifications of merit and fitness of those appointed to the civil service. Its power to issue a certificate of eligibility carries with it the power to revoke a certificate for being null and void.Task 8Copy the entire provision concerning the Civil Service Commission in Article IX of the 1987 Constitution.______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________OTHER IMPORTANT CONCEPTSTask 9Explain thoroughly the following legal concepts.

1. Quo Warranto________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Hold-over Principle________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________3. Nepotism________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________4. Next-in-rank Rule________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________5. Divestment________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________6. Official Immunity________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Case Analysis 6Read and discuss the important legal doctrines, principles and concepts enunciated in the following cases.

1. Sambarani vs. COMELEC, September 15, 2004________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Laurel V vs. CSC, October 28, 1991________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. City Mayor Debulgado vs. CSC, September 26, 1994

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. Panis vs. CSC, February 2, 1994

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan, February 26, 1997________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________6. Barrozo vs. CSC, June 25 1991

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SUSPENSIONThe Supreme Court has established a clear-cut distinction between suspensionas preventive measureand suspensionas penalty. In the case of Quimbo vs. Acting Ombudsman Gervacio, August 09, 2005, the highest court emphasized the distinction, to wit:

Preventive suspension is merely a preventive measure, a preliminary step in an administrative investigation. The purpose of the suspension order is to prevent the accused from using his position and the powers and prerogatives of his office to influence potential witnesses or tamper with records which may be vital in the prosecution of the case against him.If after such investigation, the charge is established and the person investigated is found guilty of acts warranting his suspension or removal, then he is suspended, removed or dismissed. This is the penalty.

x x x

Clearly, service of the preventive suspension cannot be credited as service of penalty. To rule otherwise is to disregard above-quoted Sections 24 and 25 of the Administrative Code of 1987 and render nugatory the substantial distinction between, and purposes of imposing preventive suspension and suspension as penalty.

In the case of Aldovino vs. COMELEC, December 23, 2009, the court explained the nature of preventive suspension, to wit:

Preventive suspension whether under the Local Government Code,the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,or the Ombudsman Act is an interim remedial measure to address the situation of an official who have been charged administratively or criminally, where the evidence preliminarily indicates the likelihood of or potential for eventual guilt or liability.

Preventive suspension is imposed under the Local Government Code "when the evidence of guilt is strong and given the gravity of the offense, there is a possibility that 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." Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, it is imposed after a valid information (that requires a finding of probable cause) has been filed in court, while under the Ombudsman Act, it is imposed when, in the judgment of the Ombudsman, the evidence of guilt is strong; and (a) the charge involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; or (b) the charges would warrant removal from the service; or (c) the respondents continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him.

Notably in all cases of preventive suspension, the suspended official is barred from performing the functions of his office and does not receive salary in the meanwhile, but does not vacate and lose title to his office; loss of office is a consequence that only results upon an eventual finding of guilt or liability.

Preventive suspension is a remedial measure that operates under closely-controlled conditions and gives a premium to the protection of the service rather than to the interests of the individual office holder. Even then, protection of the service goes only as far as a temporary prohibition on the exercise of the functions of the officials office; the official is reinstated to the exercise of his position as soon as the preventive suspension is lifted. Thus, while a temporary incapacity in the exercise of power results, no position is vacated when a public official is preventively suspended.In the case of Hon. Gloria vs. CA, April 21, 1999, the court said that [t]here are thus two kinds of preventive suspension of civil service employees who are charged with offenses punishable by removal or suspension: (1) preventive suspension pending investigations (51) and (2) preventive suspension pending appeal if the penalty imposed by the disciplining authority is suspension or dismissal and, after review, the respondent is exonerated ( 47(4)). There is no right to compensation for preventive suspensionpending investigationeven if employee is exonerated.In the case of Bolastig vs. Sandiganbayan, August 4, 1994, the court ruled that [t]he duration of preventive suspension is thus coeval with the period prescribed for deciding administrative disciplinary cases. If the case is decided before ninety days, then the suspension will last less than ninety days, but if the case is not decided within ninety days, then the preventive suspension must be up to ninety days only. Similarly, as applied to criminal prosecutions under Republic Act No. 3019, preventive suspension will last for less than ninety days only if the case is decided within that period; otherwise, it will continue for ninety days. The duration of preventive suspension will, therefore, vary to the extent that it is contingent on the time it takes the court to decide the case but not on account of any discretion lodged in the court, taking into account the probability that the accused may use his office to hamper his prosecution.Q and A 3Is the preventive suspension of an elected public official an interruption of his term of office for purposes of the three-term limit rule under Section 8, Article X of the Constitution and Section 43(b) of Republic Act No. 7160 (RA 7160, or the Local Government Code)?__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Authority of the Ombudsman to Impose PreventiveR.A. 6770, the Ombudsman Law, grants the Office of the Ombudsman the statutory power to conduct administrative investigations. Thus, Section 19 of said law provides:

Sec. 19. Administrative Complaints. The Ombudsman shall act on all complaints relating, but not limited to acts or omissions which:

1. Are contrary to law or regulation;

2. Are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or discriminatory;

3. Are inconsistent with the general course of an agency's functions, though in accordance with law;

4. Proceed from a mistake of law or an arbitrary ascertainment of facts;

5. Are in the exercise of discretionary powers but for an improper purpose; or

6. Are otherwise irregular, immoral or devoid of justification.

Sec. 21 of R.A. 6770 names the officials subject to the Ombudsman's disciplinary authority:

Sec. 21. Officials Subject To Disciplinary Authority;Exceptions. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including Members of the Cabinet, local government, government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries, except over officials who may be removed only by impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the Judiciary.

In the case of Mayor Garcia vs. Hon. Mojica, September 10, 1999, the court reminded us that the power of the Office of the Ombudsman to preventively suspend an official subject to its administrative investigation is provided by specific provision of law. Under Section 24 of R.A. 6770

Sec. 24. Preventive Suspension. The Ombudsman or his Deputy may preventively suspend any officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation, if in his judgment the evidence of guilt is strong, and (a) the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the charges would warrant removal from the service; or (c) the respondent's continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him.

The Court clearly explained:

x x x [T]he preventive suspension shall continue until the case is terminated by the Office of the Ombudsman but not more than six months, without pay, except when the delay in the disposition of the case by the Office of the Ombudsman is due to the fault, negligence or petition of the respondent, in which case the period of such delay shall not be counted in computing the period of suspension herein provided.

We have previously interpreted the phrase "under his authority" to mean that the Ombudsman can preventively suspend all officials under investigation by his office, regardless of the branch of government in which they are employed, excepting of course those removable by impeachment, members of Congress and the Judiciary.

Moreover, the court further said that [t]he determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong as to warrant preventive suspension rests with the Ombudsman. The discretion as regards the period of such suspension also necessarily belongs to the Ombudsman, except that he cannot extend the period of suspension beyond that provided by law.

Q and A 4

Has the Ombudsman under R.A. No. 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, been divested of his or her authority to conduct administrative investigations over local elective officials by virtue of the subsequent enactment of R.A. No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991?__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________VACANCYThere is a vacancy when an office is empty and without a legally qualified incumbent appointed or elected to it with a lawful right to exercise its powers and perform its duties. There can be no appointment to a non-vacant position (Ateneo Political Law Reviewer and Memory Aid).

MODES OF TERMINATION OF OFFICIAL RELATIONSThe different modes of terminating official relations may be classified into natural causes, acts or neglect of officer and acts of the government and people.Natural Causes

1. Expiration of the Term or Tenure of Office

2. Reaching the Age Limit (Retirement)

3. Death or Permanent Disability

Acts / Neglect of Officer

1. Resignation

2. Acceptance of an Incompatible Office

3. Abandonment of Office

4. Prescription of Right to Office

Acts of the Government or People

1. Removal

2. Impeachment

3. Abolition of Office

4. Conviction of a Crime

5. RecallTask 10The class will be divided into groups. Each group will be assigned to research at least two (2) modes of terminating official relations. Thereafter, the designated group will creatively present the assigned topics in the class.Group 1

Expiration of the Term or Tenure of Office

Reaching the Age Limit (Retirement)

Death or Permanent Disability

Group 2

Resignation

Acceptance of an Incompatible Office

Abandonment of Office

Prescription of Right to Office

Group 3

Removal

Abolition of Office

Conviction of a Crime

Group 4

ImpeachmentRecallSPECIAL LAWS

Task 11

Read the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA No. 6713) and the Anti-Red Tape Actof 2007 (RA No. 9485). Thereafter, write a 1000-word written report on the following statutes. Please follow the format below:A. Important FeaturesB. Insights and Reaction; andC. Conclusion.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The business of a law school is not sufficiently described when you merely say that it is to teach law or to make lawyers; it is to teach law in the grand manner, and to make great lawyers.

-Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.Page 16 of 28