-
PUB. CORP. 2015
1
FIRST DIVISION [G.R. No. 145368. April 12, 2002] SALVADOR H.
LAUREL, petitioner, vs. HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, in his capacity as
Ombudsman, respondent. D E C I S I O N KAPUNAN, J.: On June 13,
1991, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Administrative Order No.
223 constituting a Committee for the preparation of the National
Centennial Celebration in 1998. The Committee was mandated to take
charge of the nationwide preparations for the National Celebration
of the Philippine Centennial of the Declaration of Philippine
Independence and the Inauguration of the Malolos Congress.[1]
Subsequently, President Fidel V. Ramos issued Executive Order No.
128, reconstituting the Committee for the preparation of the
National Centennial Celebrations in 1998. It renamed the Committee
as the National Centennial Commission. Appointed to chair the
reconstituted Commission was Vice-President Salvador H. Laurel.
Presidents Diosdado M. Macapagal and Corazon C. Aquino were named
Honorary Chairpersons.[2] Characterized as an ad-hoc body, the
existence of the Commission shall terminate upon the completion of
all activities related to the Centennial Celebrations.[3] Like its
predecessor Committee, the Commission was tasked to take charge of
the nationwide preparations for the National Celebration of the
Philippine Centennial of the Declaration of Philippine Independence
and the Inauguration of the Malolos Congress. Per Section 6 of the
Executive Order, the Commission was also charged with the
responsibility to prepare, for approval of the President, a
Comprehensive Plan for the Centennial Celebrations within six (6)
months from the effectivity of the Executive Order. E.O. No. 128
also contained provisions for staff support and funding: Sec. 3.
The Commission shall be provided with technical and administrative
staff support by a Secretariat to be composed of, among others,
detailed personnel from the Presidential Management Staff, the
National Commission for Culture and the Arts, and the National
Historical Institute. Said Secretariat shall be headed by a full
time Executive Director who shall be designated by the President.
Sec. 4. The Commission shall be funded with an initial budget to be
drawn from the Department of Tourism and the presidents Contingent
Fund, in an amount to be recommended by the Commission, and
approved by the President. Appropriations for succeeding years
shall be incorporated in the budget of the Office of the President.
Subsequently, a corporation named the Philippine Centennial Expo 98
Corporation (Expocorp) was created.[4] Petitioner was among the
nine (9) Expocorp incorporators, who were also its first nine (9)
directors. Petitioner was elected Expocorp Chief Executive Officer.
On August 5, 1998, Senator Ana Dominique Coseteng delivered a
privilege speech in the Senate denouncing alleged anomalies in the
construction and operation of the Centennial Exposition Project at
the Clark Special Economic Zone. Upon motion of Senator Franklin
Drilon, Senator Cosetengs privilege speech was referred to the
Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigation
(The Blue Ribbon Committee) and several other Senate Committees for
investigation. On February 24, 1999, President Joseph Estrada
issued Administrative Order No. 35, creating an ad hoc and
independent citizens committee to investigate all the facts and
circumstances surrounding the Philippine centennial projects,
including its component activities. Former Senator Rene A.V.
Saguisag was appointed to chair the Committee. On March 23, 1999,
the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee filed with the Secretary of the
Senate its Committee Final Report No. 30 dated February 26, 1999.
Among the Committees recommendations was the prosecution by the
Ombudsman/DOJ of Dr. Salvador Laurel, chair of NCC and of EXPOCORP
for violating the rules on public bidding, relative to the award of
centennial contracts to AK (Asia Construction & Development
Corp.); for exhibiting manifest bias in the issuance of the NTP
(Notice to Proceed) to AK to construct the FR (Freedom Ring) even
in the absence of a valid contract that has caused material injury
to government and for participating in the scheme to preclude audit
by COA of the funds infused by the government for the
implementation of the said contracts all in violation of the
anti-graft law.[5] Later, on November 5, 1999, the Saguisag
Committee issued its own report. It recommended the further
investigation by the Ombudsman, and indictment, in proper cases of,
among others, NCC Chair Salvador H. Laurel for violations of
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, Section 4(a) in relation to Section
11 of R.A. No. 6713, and Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. The
Reports of the Senate Blue Ribbon and the Saguisag Committee were
apparently referred to the Fact-finding and Intelligence Bureau of
the Office of the Ombudsman. On January 27, 2000, the Bureau issued
its Evaluation Report, recommending: 1. that a formal complaint be
filed and preliminary investigation be conducted before the
Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau (EPIB), Office of
the Ombudsman against former NCC and EXPOCORP chair Salvador H.
Laurel, former EXPOCORP President Teodoro Q. Pea and AK President
Edgardo H. Angeles for violation of Sec. 3(e) and (g) of R.A. No.
3019, as amended in relation to PD 1594 and COA Rules and
Regulations; 2. That the Fact Finding and Intelligence Bureau of
this Office, act as the nominal complainant.[6] In an Order dated
April 10, 2000, Pelagio S. Apostol, OIC-Director of the Evaluation
and Preliminary Investigation Bureau, directed petitioner to submit
his counter-affidavit and those of his witnesses. On April 24,
2000, petitioner filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a Motion to
Dismiss questioning the jurisdiction of said office. In an Order
dated June 13, 2000, the Ombudsman denied petitioners motion to
dismiss. On July 3, 2000, petitioner moved for a reconsideration of
the June 13, 2000 Order but the motion was denied in an Order dated
October 5, 2000.
-
PUB. CORP. 2015
2
On October 25, 2000, petitioner filed the present petition for
certiorari. On November 14, 2000, the Evaluation and Preliminary
Investigation Bureau issued a resolution finding probable cause to
indict respondents SALVADOR H. LAUREL and TEODORO Q. PEA before the
Sandiganbayan for conspiring to violate Section 3(e) of Republic
Act No. 3019, in relation to Republic Act No. 1594. The resolution
also directed that an information for violation of the said law be
filed against Laurel and Pea. Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto approved
the resolution with respect to Laurel but dismissed the charge
against Pea. In a Resolution dated September 24, 2001, the Court
issued a temporary restraining order, commanding respondents to
desist from filing any information before the Sandiganbayan or any
court against petitioner for alleged violation of Section 3(e) of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. On November 14, 2001, the
Court, upon motion of petitioner, heard the parties in oral
argument. Petitioner assails the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman on
the ground that he is not a public officer because: A. EXPOCORP,
THE CORPORATION CHAIRED BY PETITIONER LAUREL WHICH UNDERTOOK THE
FREEDOM RING PROJECT IN CONNECTION WITH WHICH VIOLATIONS OF THE
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES WERE ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED, WAS A
PRIVATE CORPORATION, NOT A GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED
CORPORATION. B. THE NATIONAL CENTENNIAL COMMISSION (NCC) WAS NOT A
PUBLIC OFFICE. C. PETITIONER, BOTH AS CHAIRMAN OF THE NCC AND OF
EXPOCORP WAS NOT A PUBLIC OFFICER AS DEFINED UNDER THE ANTI-GRAFT
& CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT.[7] In addition, petitioner in his
reply[8] invokes this Courts decision in Uy vs. Sandiganbayan,[9]
where it was held that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman was
limited to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, i.e., over public
officers of Grade 27 and higher. As petitioners position was
purportedly not classified as Grade 27 or higher, the Sandiganbayan
and, consequently, the Ombudsman, would have no jurisdiction over
him. This last contention is easily dismissed. In the Courts
decision in Uy, we held that it is the prosecutor, not the
Ombudsman, who has the authority to file the corresponding
information/s against petitioner in the regional trial court. The
Ombudsman exercises prosecutorial powers only in cases cognizable
by the Sandiganbayan. In its Resolution of February 22, 2000, the
Court expounded: The clear import of such pronouncement is to
recognize the authority of the State and regular provincial and
city prosecutors under the Department of Justice to have control
over prosecution of cases falling within the jurisdiction of the
regular courts. The investigation and prosecutorial powers of the
Ombudsman relate to cases rightfully falling within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan under Section 15 (1) of R.A. 6770
(An Act Providing for the Functional and Structural Organization of
the Office of the Ombudsman, and for other purposes) which vests
upon the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by
the Sandiganbayan And this is further buttressed by Section 11 (4a)
of R.A. 6770 which emphasizes that the Office of the Special
Prosecutor shall have the power to conduct preliminary
investigation and prosecute criminal cases within the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan. Thus, repeated references to the
Sandiganbayans jurisdiction clearly serve to limit the Ombudsmans
and Special Prosecutors authority to cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan. [Emphasis in the original.] The foregoing ruling in
Uy, however, was short-lived. Upon motion for clarification by the
Ombudsman in the same case, the Court set aside the foregoing
pronouncement in its Resolution dated March 20, 2001. The Court
explained the rationale for this reversal: The power to investigate
and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and
unqualified. It pertains to any act or omission of any public
officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be
illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. The law does not make a
distinction between cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and those
cognizable by regular courts. It has been held that the clause any
illegal act or omission of any public official is broad enough to
embrace any crime committed by a public officer or employee. The
reference made by RA 6770 to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan,
particularly in Section 15(1) giving the Ombudsman primary
jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, and
Section 11(4) granting the Special Prosecutor the power to conduct
preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal cases within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, should not be construed as
confining the scope of the investigatory and prosecutory power of
the Ombudsman to such cases. Section 15 of RA 6770 gives the
Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan. The law defines such primary jurisdiction as
authorizing the Ombudsman to take over, at any stage, from any
investigatory agency of the government, the investigation of such
cases. The grant of this authority does not necessarily imply the
exclusion from its jurisdiction of cases involving public officers
and employees by other courts. The exercise by the Ombudsman of his
primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan is
not incompatible with the discharge of his duty to investigate and
prosecute other offenses committed by public officers and
employees. Indeed, it must be stressed that the powers granted by
the legislature to the Ombudsman are very broad and encompass all
kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance committed by
public officers and employees during their tenure of office.
Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman should
not be equated with the limited authority of the Special Prosecutor
under Section 11 of RA 6770. The Office of the Special Prosecutor
is merely a component of the Office of the Ombudsman and may only
act under the supervision and control and upon authority of the
Ombudsman. Its power to conduct preliminary investigation and to
prosecute
-
PUB. CORP. 2015
3
is limited to criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. Certainly, the lawmakers did not intend to confine
the investigatory and prosecutory power of the Ombudsman to these
types of cases. The Ombudsman is mandated by law to act on all
complaints against officers and employees of the government and to
enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability in every
case where the evidence warrants. To carry out this duty, the law
allows him to utilize the personnel of his office and/or designate
any fiscal, state prosecutor or lawyer in the government service to
act as special investigator or prosecutor to assist in the
investigation and prosecution of certain cases. Those designated or
deputized to assist him work under his supervision and control. The
law likewise allows him to direct the Special Prosecutor to
prosecute cases outside the Sandiganbayans jurisdiction in
accordance with Section 11 (4c) of RA 6770. The prosecution of
offenses committed by public officers and employees is one of the
most important functions of the Ombudsman. In passing RA 6770, the
Congress deliberately endowed the Ombudsman with such power to make
him a more active and effective agent of the people in ensuring
accountability in public office. A review of the development of our
Ombudsman law reveals this intent. [Emphasis in the original.]
Having disposed of this contention, we proceed to the principal
grounds upon which petitioner relies. We first address the argument
that petitioner, as Chair of the NCC, was not a public officer. The
Constitution[10] describes the Ombudsman and his Deputies as
protectors of the people, who shall act promptly on complaints
filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees
of the government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Among the awesome powers, functions, and duties vested by the
Constitution[11] upon the Office of the Ombudsman is to
[i]nvestigate any act or omission of any public official, employee,
office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal,
unjust, improper, or inefficient. The foregoing constitutional
provisions are substantially reproduced in R.A. No. 6770, otherwise
known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989. Sections 13 and 15(1) of said
law respectively provide: SEC. 13. Mandate. The Ombudsman and his
Deputies, as protectors of the people shall act promptly on
complaints file in any form or manner against officers or employees
of the Government, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and
enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability in every
case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient
service by the Government to the people. SEC. 15. Powers, Functions
and Duties. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following
powers, functions and duties: (1) Investigate and prosecute on its
own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any
public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or
omission appears to be illegal unjust, improper or inefficient. It
has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan
and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may take
over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government,
the investigation of such cases; x x x. The coverage of the law
appears to be limited only by Section 16, in relation to Section
13, supra: SEC 16. Applicability. The provisions of this Act shall
apply to all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance
that have been committed by any officer or employee as mentioned in
Section 13 hereof, during his tenure of office. In sum, the
Ombudsman has the power to investigate any malfeasance, misfeasance
and non-feasance by a public officer or employee of the government,
or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations.[12] Neither the
Constitution nor the Ombudsman Act of 1989, however, defines who
public officers are. A definition of public officers cited in
jurisprudence[13] is that provided by Mechem, a recognized
authority on the subject: 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.[14] The characteristics of a public office, according to
Mechem, include the delegation of sovereign functions, its creation
by law and not by contract, an oath, salary, continuance of the
position, scope of duties, and the designation of the position as
an office.[15] Petitioner submits that some of these
characteristics are not present in the position of NCC Chair,
namely: (1) the delegation of sovereign functions; (2) salary,
since he purportedly did not receive any compensation; and (3)
continuance, the tenure of the NCC being temporary. Mechem
describes the delegation to the individual of some of the sovereign
functions of government as [t]he most important characteristic in
determining whether a position is a public office or not. The most
important characteristic which distinguishes an office from an
employment or contract is that the creation and conferring of an
office involves a delegation to the individual of some of the
sovereign functions of government, to be exercised by him for the
benefit of the public; that some portion of the sovereignty of the
country, either legislative, executive or judicial, attaches, for
the time being, to be exercised for the public benefit. Unless the
powers conferred are of this nature, the individual is not a public
officer.[16] Did E.O. 128 delegate the NCC with some of the
sovereign functions of government? Certainly, the law did not
delegate upon the NCC functions that can be described as
legislative or judicial. May the functions of the NCC then be
described as executive? We hold that the NCC performs executive
functions. The executive power is generally defined as the power to
enforce and administer the laws. It is the power of carrying the
laws into practical operation and enforcing their due
observance.[17] The executive function, therefore, concerns the
implementation of the policies as set forth by law. The
Constitution provides in Article XIV (Education, Science and
Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports) thereof:
-
PUB. CORP. 2015
4
Sec. 15. Arts and letters shall enjoy the patronage of the
State. The State shall conserve, promote, and popularize the
nations historical and cultural heritage and resources, as well as
artistic creations. In its preamble, A.O. No. 223 states the
purposes for the creation of the Committee for the National
Centennial Celebrations in 1998: Whereas, the birth of the Republic
of the Philippines is to be celebrated in 1998, and the centennial
presents an important vehicle for fostering nationhood and a strong
sense of Filipino identity; Whereas, the centennial can effectively
showcase Filipino heritage and thereby strengthen Filipino values;
Whereas, the success of the Centennial Celebrations may be insured
only through long-range planning and continuous developmental
programming; Whereas, the active participation of the private
sector in all areas of special expertise and capability,
particularly in communication and information dissemination, is
necessary for long-range planning and continuous developmental
programming; Whereas, there is a need to create a body which shall
initiate and undertake the primary task of harnessing the
multisectoral components from the business, cultural, and business
sectors to serve as effective instruments from the launching and
overseeing of this long-term project; x x x. E.O. No. 128,
reconstituting the Committee for the National Centennial
Celebrations in 1998, cited the need to strengthen the said
Committee to ensure a more coordinated and synchronized
celebrations of the Philippine Centennial and wider participation
from the government and non-government or private organizations. It
also referred to the need to rationalize the relevance of
historical links with other countries. The NCC was precisely
created to execute the foregoing policies and objectives, to carry
them into effect. Thus, the Commission was vested with the
following functions: (a) To undertake the overall study,
conceptualization, formulation and implementation of programs and
projects on the utilization of culture, arts, literature and media
as vehicles for history, economic endeavors, and reinvigorating the
spirit of national unity and sense of accomplishment in every
Filipino in the context of the Centennial Celebrations. In this
regard, it shall include a Philippine National Exposition 98 within
Metro Manila, the original eight provinces, and Clark Air Base as
its major venues; (b) To act as principal coordinator for all the
activities related to awareness and celebration of the Centennial;
(c) To serve as the clearing house for the preparation and
dissemination of all information about the plans and events for the
Centennial Celebrations; (d) To constitute working groups which
shall undertake the implementation of the programs and projects;
(e) To prioritize the refurbishment of historical sites and
structures nationwide. In this regard, the Commission shall
formulate schemes (e.g. lease-maintained-and-transfer,
build-operate-transfer, and similar arrangements) to ensure the
preservation and maintenance of the historical sites and
structures; (f) To call upon any government agency or
instrumentality and corporation, and to invite private individuals
and organizations to assist it in the performance of its tasks;
and, (g) Submit regular reports to the President on the plans,
programs, projects, activities as well as the status of the
preparations for the Celebration.[18] It bears noting the
President, upon whom the executive power is vested,[19] created the
NCC by executive order. Book III (Office of the President), Chapter
2 (Ordinance Power), Section 2 describes the nature of executive
orders: SEC. 2. Executive Orders. Acts of the President providing
for rules of a general or permanent character in implementation or
execution of constitutional or statutory powers shall be
promulgated in executive orders. [Underscoring ours.] Furthermore,
the NCC was not without a role in the countrys economic
development, especially in Central Luzon. Petitioner himself
admitted as much in the oral arguments before this Court: MR.
JUSTICE REYNATO S. PUNO: And in addition to that expounded by
Former President Ramos, dont you agree that the task of the
centennial commission was also to focus on the long term over all
socio economic development of the zone and Central Luzon by
attracting investors in the area because of the eruption of Mt.
Pinatubo. FORMER VICE PRESIDENT SALVADOR H. LAUREL: I am glad Your
Honor touched on that because that is something I wanted to touch
on by lack of material time I could not but that is a very
important point. When I was made Chairman I wanted the Expo to be
in Batangas because I am a Batangeo but President Ramos said Mr.
Vice President the Central Luzon is suffering, suffering because of
the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo let us try to catalize [sic] economic
recovery in that area by putting this Expo in Clark Field and so it
was done I agreed and Your Honor if I may also mention we wanted to
generate employment aside from attracting business investments and
employment. And the Estrada administration decided to junk this
project there 48, 40 thousand people who lost job, they were
employed in Expo. And our target was to provide 75 thousand jobs.
It would have
-
PUB. CORP. 2015
5
really calibrated, accelerated the development of Central Luzon.
Now, I think they are going back to that because they had the
airport and there are plan to revive the Expo site into key park
which was the original plan. There can hardly be any dispute that
the promotion of industrialization and full employment is a
fundamental state policy.[20] Petitioner invokes the ruling of this
Court in Torio vs. Fontanilla[21] that the holding by a
municipality of a town fiesta is a proprietary rather than a
governmental function. Petitioner argues that the holding of a
nationwide celebration which marked the nations 100th birthday may
be likened to a national fiesta which involved only the exercise of
the national governments proprietary function.[22] In Torio, we
held: [Section 2282 of the Chapter on Municipal Law of the Revised
Administrative Code] simply gives authority to the municipality to
[celebrate] a yearly fiesta but it does not impose upon it a duty
to observe one. Holding a fiesta even if the purpose is to
commemorate a religious or historical event of the town is in
essence an act for the special benefit of the community and not for
the general welfare of the public performed in pursuance of a
policy of the state. The mere fact that the celebration, as
claimed, was not to secure profit or gain but merely to provide
entertainment to the town inhabitants is not a conclusive test. For
instance, the maintenance of parks is not a source of income for
the town, nonetheless it is [a] private undertaking as
distinguished from the maintenance of public schools, jails, and
the like which are for public service. As stated earlier, there can
be no hard and fast rule for purposes of determining the true
nature of an undertaking or function of a municipality; the
surrounding circumstances of a particular case are to be considered
and will be decisive. The basic element, however beneficial to the
public the undertaking may be, is that it is government in essence,
otherwise, the function becomes private or propriety in character.
Easily, no governmental or public policy of the state is involved
in the celebration of a town fiesta. Torio, however, did not intend
to lay down an all-encompassing doctrine. Note that the Court
cautioned that there can be no hard and fast rule for purposes of
determining the true nature of an undertaking or function of a
municipality; the surrounding circumstances of a particular case
are to be considered and will be decisive. Thus, in footnote 15 of
Torio, the Court, citing an American case, illustrated how the
surrounding circumstances plus the political, social, and cultural
backgrounds could produce a conclusion different from that in
Torio: We came across an interesting case which shows that
surrounding circumstances plus the political, social, and cultural
backgrounds may have a decisive bearing on this question. The case
of Pope v. City of New Haven, et al. was an action to recover
damages for personal injuries caused during a Fourth of July
fireworks display resulting in the death of a bystander alleged to
have been caused by defendants negligence. The defendants demurred
to the complaint invoking the defense that the city was engaged in
the performance of a public governmental duty from which it
received no pecuniary benefit and for negligence in the performance
of which no statutory liability is imposed. This demurrer was
sustained by the Superior Court of New Haven Country. Plaintiff
sought to amend his complaint to allege that the celebration was
for the corporate advantage of the city. This was denied. In
affirming the order, the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut
held inter alia: Municipal corporations are exempt from liability
for the negligent performance of purely public governmental duties,
unless made liable by statute. A municipality corporation, which
under permissive authority of its charter or of statute, conducted
a public Fourth of July celebration, including a display of
fireworks, and sent up a bomb intended to explode in the air, but
which failed to explode until it reached the ground, and then
killed a spectator, was engaged in the performance of a
governmental duty. (99 A.R. 51) This decision was concurred in by
three Judges while two dissented. At any rate the rationale of the
Majority Opinion is evident from [this] excerpt: July 4th, when
that date falls upon Sunday, July 5th, is made a public holiday,
called Independence Day, by our statutes. All or nearly all of the
other states have similar statutes. While there is no United States
statute making a similar provision, the different departments of
the government recognize, and have recognized since the government
was established, July 4th as a national holiday. Throughout the
country it has been recognized and celebrated as such. These
celebrations, calculated to entertain and instruct the people
generally and to arouse and stimulate patriotic sentiments and love
of country, frequently take the form of literary exercises
consisting of patriotic speeches and the reading of the
Constitution, accompanied by a musical program including patriotic
air sometimes preceded by the firing of cannon and followed by
fireworks. That such celebrations are of advantage to the general
public and their promotion a proper subject of legislation can
hardly be questioned. x x x Surely, a town fiesta cannot compare to
the National Centennial Celebrations. The Centennial Celebrations
was meant to commemorate the birth of our nation after centuries of
struggle against our former colonial master, to memorialize the
liberation of our people from oppression by a foreign power. 1998
marked 100 years of independence and sovereignty as one united
nation. The Celebrations was an occasion to reflect upon our
history and reinvigorate our patriotism. As A.O. 223 put it, it was
a vehicle for fostering nationhood and a strong sense of Filipino
identity, an opportunity to showcase Filipino heritage and thereby
strengthen Filipino values. The significance of the Celebrations
could not have been lost on petitioner, who remarked during the
hearing: Oh, yes, certainly the State is interested in the unity of
the people, we wanted to rekindle the love for freedom, love for
country, that is the over-all goal that has to make everybody feel
proud that he is a Filipino, proud of our history, proud of what
our forefather did in their time. x x x. Clearly, the NCC performs
sovereign functions. It is, therefore, a public office, and
petitioner, as its Chair, is a public officer. That petitioner
allegedly did not receive any compensation during his tenure is of
little consequence. A salary is a usual but not a necessary
criterion for determining the nature of the position. It is not
conclusive. The salary is a mere incident and forms no part of the
office. Where a salary or fees is annexed, the office is provided
for it is a naked or honorary office, and is supposed to be
accepted merely for the public good.[23] Hence, the office of
petitioner as NCC Chair may be characterized as an honorary office,
as opposed to a lucrative office or an office of profit, i.e., one
to which salary, compensation or fees are attached.[24] But it is a
public office, nonetheless. Neither is the fact that the NCC was
characterized by E.O. No. 128 as an ad-hoc body make said
commission less of a public office.
-
PUB. CORP. 2015
6
The term office, it is said, embraces the idea of tenure and
duration, and certainly a position which is merely temporary and
local cannot ordinarily be considered an office. But, says Chief
Justice Marshall, if a duty be a continuing one, which is defined
by rules prescribed by the government and not by contract, which an
individual is appointed by government to perform, who enters on the
duties pertaining to his station without any contract defining
them, if those duties continue though the person be changed, -- it
seems very difficult to distinguish such a charge or employment
from an office of the person who performs the duties from an
officer. At the same time, however, this element of continuance can
not be considered as indispensable, for, if the other elements are
present it can make no difference, says Pearson, C.J., whether
there be but one act or a series of acts to be done, -- whether the
office expires as soon as the one act is done, or is to be held for
years or during good behavior.[25] Our conclusion that petitioner
is a public officer finds support in In Re Corliss.[26] There the
Supreme Court of Rhode Island ruled that the office of Commissioner
of the United States Centennial Commission is an office of trust as
to disqualify its holder as elector of the United States President
and Vice-President. (Under Article II of the United States
Constitution, a person holding an office of trust or profit under
the United States is disqualified from being appointed an elector.)
x x x. We think a Commissioner of the United States Centennial
Commission holds an office of trust under the United States, and
that he is therefore disqualified for the office of elector of
President and Vice-President of the United States. The commission
was created under a statute of the United States approved March 3,
1871. That statute provides for the holding of an exhibition of
American and foreign arts, products, and manufactures, under the
auspices of the government of the United States, and for the
constitution of a commission, to consist of more than one delegate
from each State and from each Territory of the United States, whose
functions shall continue until close of the exhibition, and whose
duty it shall be to prepare and superintend the execution of the
plan for holding the exhibition. Under the statute the
commissioners are appointed by the President of the United States,
on the nomination of the governor of the States and Territories
respectively. Various duties were imposed upon the commission, and
under the statute provision was to be made for it to have exclusive
control of the exhibit before the President should announce, by
proclamation, the date and place of opening and holding the
exhibition. By an act of Congress approved June 1st, 1872, the
duties and functions of the commission were further increased and
defined. That act created a corporation, called The Centennial
Board of Finance, to cooperate with the commission and to raise and
disburse the funds. It was to be organized under the direction of
the commission. The seventh section of the act provides that the
grounds for exhibition shall be prepared and the buildings erected
by the corporation, in accordance with plans which shall have been
adopted by the United States Centennial Commission; and the rules
and regulations of said corporation, governing rates for entrance
and admission fees, or otherwise affecting the rights, privileges,
or interests of the exhibitors, or of the public, shall be fixed
and established by the United States Centennial Commission; and no
grant conferring rights or privileges of any description connected
with said grounds or buildings, or relating to said exhibition or
celebration, shall be made without the consent of the United States
Centennial Commission, and said commission shall have power to
control, change, or revoke all such grants, and shall appoint all
judges and examiners and award all premiums. The tenth section of
the act provides that it shall be the duty of the United States
Centennial Commission to supervise the closing up of the affairs of
said corporation, to audit its accounts, and submit in a report to
the President of the United States the financial results of the
centennial exhibition. It is apparent from this statement, which is
but partial, that the duties and functions of the commission were
various, delicate, and important; that they could be successfully
performed only by men of large experience and knowledge of affairs;
and that they were not merely subordinate and provisional, but in
the highest degree authoritative, discretionary, and final in their
character. We think that persons performing such duties and
exercising such functions, in pursuance of statutory direction and
authority, are not to be regarded as mere employees, agents, or
committee men, but that they are, properly speaking, officers, and
that the places which they hold are offices. It appears, moreover,
that they were originally regarded as officers by Congress; for the
act under which they were appointed declares, section 7, that no
compensation for services shall be paid to the commissioners or
other officers, provided for in this act, from the treasury of the
United States. The only other officers provided for were the
alternates appointed to serve as commissioners when the
commissioners were unable to attend. Having arrived at the
conclusion that the NCC performs executive functions and is,
therefore, a public office, we need no longer delve at length on
the issue of whether Expocorp is a private or a public corporation.
Even assuming that Expocorp is a private corporation, petitioners
position as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Expocorp arose from
his Chairmanship of the NCC. Consequently, his acts or omissions as
CEO of Expocorp must be viewed in the light of his powers and
functions as NCC Chair.[27] Finally, it is contended that since
petitioner supposedly did not receive any compensation for his
services as NCC or Expocorp Chair, he is not a public officer as
defined in Republic Act No. 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act) and is, therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of the
Ombudsman. Respondent seeks to charge petitioner with violation of
Section 3 (e) of said law, which reads: SEC. 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: x x x (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. A public officer, under R.A. No.
3019, is defined by Section 2 of said law as follows: SEC. 2.
Definition of terms. As used in this Act, the term x x x
-
PUB. CORP. 2015
7
(b) Public officer includes elective and appointive officials
and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or
unclassified or exemption service receiving compensation, even
nominal, from the government as defined in the preceding paragraph.
[Emphasis supplied.] It is clear from Section 2 (b), above, that
the definition of a public officer is expressly limited to the
application of R.A. No. 3019. Said definition does not apply for
purposes of determining the Ombudsmans jurisdiction, as defined by
the Constitution and the Ombudsman Act of 1989. Moreover, the
question of whether petitioner is a public officer under the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act involves the appreciation of
evidence and interpretation of law, matters that are best resolved
at trial. To illustrate, the use of the term includes in Section 2
(b) indicates that the definition is not restrictive.[28] The
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act is just one of several laws
that define public officers. Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code,
for example, provides that a public officer is: x x x any person
who, by direct provision of law, popular election or appointment by
competent authority, takes part in the performance of public
functions in the Government of Philippines, or performs in said
Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee,
agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class. Section 2 (14)
of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code of
1987,[29] on the other hand, states: 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 person in the exercise of governmental power,
officer includes any government employee, agent or body having
authority to do the act or exercise that function. It bears noting
that under Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 6713 (The Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees),
one may be considered a public official whether or not one receives
compensation, thus: Public Officials include elective and
appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether
in the career or non-career service including military and police
personnel, whether or not they receive compensation, regardless of
amount. Which of these definitions should apply, if at all?
Assuming that the definition of public officer in R.A. No. 3019 is
exclusive, the term compensation, which is not defined by said law,
has many meanings. Under particular circumstances, compensation has
been held to include allowance for personal expenses, commissions,
expenses, fees, an honorarium, mileage or traveling expenses,
payments for services, restitution or a balancing of accounts,
salary, and wages.[30] How then is compensation, as the term is
used in Section 2 (b) of R.A. No. 3019, to be interpreted? Did
petitioner receive any compensation at all as NCC Chair? Granting
that petitioner did not receive any salary, the records do not
reveal if he received any allowance, fee, honorarium, or some other
form of compensation. Notably, under the by-laws of Expocorp, the
CEO is entitled to per diems and compensation.[31] Would such fact
bear any significance? Obviously, this proceeding is not the proper
forum to settle these issues lest we preempt the trial court from
resolving them. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The
preliminary injunction issued in the Courts Resolution dated
September 24, 2001 is hereby LIFTED. SO ORDERED. Puno, and
Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), no
part due to close relation to a party. [1] A.O. 223, Section 1. The
same section provided for the Committees composition as follows: x
x x. The Committee shall be composed of six (6) representatives
from the Presidential Commission for Culture and the Arts (PCCA),
and five (5) representatives from the Philippine Centennial
Foundation, Inc. (PCFI). They shall be appointed by the President
upon their nomination by their respective groups. The Committee
members shall elect among themselves the Chairman and
Vice-Chairman, and such other officers as they may deem necessary.
The Committee was also granted the following duties and powers: 1.
To undertake the overall study, formulation and implementation of
programs and projects on the utilization of culture, arts, and
media as vehicles for value education in the context of the
Centennial Celebration; 2. To act as principal coordinator for all
the activities related to awareness and celebration of the
centennial; 3. To constitute sub-committees and working groups
which shall undertake the implementation of the program and
projects; and 4. To call upon the assistance of any government
agency or instrumentality and corporation, and to invite private
individuals and organizations to assist it in the performance of
its tasks. (Id., at Section 2.)
-
PUB. CORP. 2015
8
[2] Other members of the Commission were the Secretaries of
Education, Culture and Sports, National Defense, Interior and Local
Government, Tourism, Trade and Industry, Public Works and Highways,
Transportation and Communications, and Budget and Management, the
Press Secretary, two (2) representatives each from the Senate and
the House of Representatives, two (2) representatives from the
Judiciary, the Executive Director of the National Historical
Institute, three (3) representatives from the National Commission
for Culture and Arts, three (3) representatives from the Philippine
Centennial Foundation, Inc., and other members from the government
and the private sectors, as may be designated later. (E.O. No. 128,
Section 1.) [3] Id., at Section 5. [4] The purposes of the
corporation were set forth in Article 2 of the Articles of
Incorporation, thus: PRIMARY PURPOSE To set up and establish the
Philippine Centennial International Exposition 1998 (EXPO 98), a
project of the National Centennial Commission envisioned and
mandated under Executive Order No. 128, series of 1993, in the
Clark Special Economic Zone (CSEZ) within the Provinces of Pampanga
and Tarlac, Philippines as created, defined and delineated under
Proclamation No. 163, series 1993, of the President of the
Philippines and furtherance of said purpose; 1. To operate,
administer, manage, implement, and develop EXPO 98 conformably to
and in accordance with the Detailed Feasibility study and Master
Plan for said Exposition prepared by DOUGLAS/GALLAGHER, INC. and
approved by the President of the Philippines; 2. To exercise
oversight functions and overall jurisdiction over the operations of
EXPO 98 as well as manage and oversee all plans, programs, and
activities related to the implementation and operation of said
Exposition; 3. To regulate the establishment, operation, and
maintenance of utilities, services, and infrastructure works in all
the site components of EXPO 98 and its support facilities; 4. To
oversee the preparations for the implementation of the
participation of countries, groups, organizations, and entities at
EXPO 98; 5. To establish linkages with participating countries and
coordinate their programs and activities relevant to the theme of
EXPO 98; 6. To provide and prescribe the guidelines for the design
and fabrication of the pavilions of participating countries that
played a significant role in Philippine historical development and
of other participating groups, organizations, and entities which
would be reflective of the following objectives of EXPO 98 -- a)
showcase the national vision of the Philippines, highlighted by a
rich history and culture, and its traditional heritage and diverse
cultural influences; b) express eloquently the Filipinism sentiment
of the Philippine Centennial; c) strengthen cultural and historical
linkages between Philippines and participating countries; d) create
an image of the Philippines as a country with rich trade and
tourism potentials; and e) project the Filipino character and
strengthen the sense of national pride and patriotism among the
Filipino people. 7. To conceive and devise varied promotional
strategies towards creating awareness and appreciation of EXPO 98
as the centerpiece of the national celebrations in 1998 of the
centennial of the declaration of Philippine Independence and beyond
that as a permanent site for the Filipino people to honor their
rich heritage; 8. To encourage and invite the active and meaningful
participation of the private sector in managing and overseeing EXPO
98; and 9. To forge strategic partnerships and joint ventures with
local and international investors and developers in the
development, maintenance, operation, and management of EXPO 98 on a
turn-key basis. SECONDARY PURPOSES (1) To purchase, acquire, own,
lease, sell and convey real properties such as lands, buildings,
factories and warehouses and machineries, equipment and other
personal properties as may be necessary or incidental to the
conduct of the corporate business, and to pay in cash, shares of
its capital stock, debentures and other evidences of indebtedness,
or other securities, as may be deemed expedient, for any business
or property acquired by the corporation. (2) To borrow or raise
money necessary to meet the financial requirements of its business
by the issuance of bonds, promissory notes and other evidences of
indebtedness, and to secure the repayment thereof by mortgage,
pledge, deed of trust or lien upon the properties of the
corporation or to issue pursuant to law shares of its capital
stock, debentures and other evidences of indebtedness in payment
for properties acquired by the corporation or for money borrowed in
the prosecution of its lawful business; (3) To invest and deal with
the money and properties of the corporation in such manner as may
from time to time be considered wise or expedient for the
advancement of its interests and to sell, dispose of or transfer
the business, properties and goodwill of the corporation or any
part thereof for such consideration and under such terms as it
shall see fit to accept; (4) To aid in any manner any corporation,
association, or trust estate, domestic or foreign, or any firm or
individual, any shares of stock in which or any bonds, debentures,
notes, securities, evidences of indebtedness, contracts, or
obligations of which are held by or for this corporation, directly
or indirectly or through other corporations or otherwise;
-
PUB. CORP. 2015
9
(5) To enter into any lawful arrangement for sharing profits,
union of interest, unitization or farmout agreement, reciprocal
concession, or cooperation, with any corporation, association,
partnership, syndicate, entity, person or governmental, municipal
or public authority, domestic or foreign, in the carrying on of any
business or transaction deemed necessary, convenient or incidental
to carrying out any of the purposes of this corporation; (6) To
acquire or obtain from any government or authority, national,
provincial, municipal or otherwise, or a corporation, company or
partnership or person, such charter, contracts, franchise,
privileges, exemption, licenses and concessions as may be conducive
to any of the objects of the corporation; (7) To establish and
operate one or more branch offices of agencies and to carry on any
or all of its operations and business without any restrictions as
to place or amount including the right to hold, purchase or
otherwise acquire, lease, mortgage, pledge and convey or otherwise
deal in with real and personal property anywhere within the
Philippines; (8) To conduct and transact any and all lawful
business, and to do or cause to be done any one or more of the acts
and things herein set forth as its purposes, within or without the
Philippines, and in any and all foreign countries, and to do
everything necessary, desirable or incidental to the accomplishment
of the purposes or the exercise of any one or more of the powers
herein enumerated, or which shall at any time appear conducive to
or expedient for the protection or benefit of this corporation. [5]
Rollo, p. 10. [6] Id., at 134-135. [7] Id., at 15. [8] Id., at
296-297. [9] 312 SCRA 77 (1999). [10] Art. XI, Sec. 12. [11] Art.
XI, Sec. 13 (1). [12] Section 22 extends these investigatory
powers, under certain conditions, to private persons: SEC. 22.
Investigatory Power. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the
power to investigate any serious misconduct in office allegedly
committed by officials removable by impeachment, for the purpose of
filing a verified complaint for impeachment or over Members of
Congress, and the Judiciary. In all cases of conspiracy between an
officer or employee of the government and a private person, the
Ombudsman and his Deputies shall have jurisdiction to include such
private person as the evidence may warrant. The officer or employee
and the private person shall be tried jointly and shall be subject
to the same penalties and liabilities. [13] E.g., Fernandez vs.
Ledesma, 7 SCRA 620 (1963); Aparri vs. Court of Appeals, 127 SCRA
231 (1984). [14] F.R. Mechem, A Treatise on the law of Public
Offices and Officers, 1. [15] Id., at 4-10. See also 63C Am Jur 2d,
Public Officers and Employees 1. [16] Id., at 4. [17] Ople vs.
Torres, 293 SCRA 141 (1998). [18] Id., at Sec. 2. [19]
Constitution, Article VII, Section 1. [20] Article XII (National
Economy and Patrimony) of the Constitution provides: Section 1. x x
x. The State shall promote industrialization and full employment
based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform,
through industries that make full and efficient use of human and
natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and
foreign markets. x x x. In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors
of the economy and all regions of the country shall be given
optimum opportunity to develop. x x x. [21] 85 SCRA 599 (1978).
[22] Rollo, p. 466. [23] Id, at 7, 15. See also Triste vs. Leyte
State College Board of Trustees, 192 SCRA 326 (1990) [24] Id., at
13. [25] Id., at 8. Emphasis supplied.
-
PUB. CORP. 2015
10
[26] 23 Am Rep. 538 (1876). [27] See Yasay vs. Desierto, 300
SCRA 494 (1998). [28] Preclaro vs. Sandiganbayan, 247 SCRA 454
(1995). [29] Executive Order No. 292. [30] 15 C.J.S. Compensation,
p. 654. [31] Rollo, p. 470. ============= Facts: President Corazon
C. Aquino issued Administrative Order No. 223 "constituting a
Committee which was mandated "to take charge of the nationwide
preparations for the National Celebration of the Philippine
Centennial of the Declaration of Philippine Independence and the
Inauguration of the Malolos Congress."Subsequently, President Fidel
V. Ramos issued Executive Order No. 128, "reconstituting the said
Committee and renamed it as the "National Centennial Commission."
Appointed to chair was Vice-President Salvador H. Laurel.
Presidents Diosdado M. Macapagal and Corazon C. Aquino were named
Honorary Chairpersons. Vice President Laurel by virtue of his
chairmanship also became the chairman of EXPOCORP, a corporation
organized to undertake the Freedom Ring Project in relation to the
centennial celebration. Later in 1999, investigation was conducted
by an independent committed due to allegations of graft and
corruption against Laurel as NCC and EXPOCORP chair. The committee
recommended the filing of charges by the Ombudsman upon which the
Office of the Ombudsman took cognizance of the case. Laurel then
questioned the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman by filing this
petition, saying that (1) EXPOCORP was a private corporation, (2)
that NCC is not a public office and (3) that he is not a public
officer as defined in the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Issue: Whether or not the contentions of Vice President Laurel are
correct. Held: No. The Ombudsman has the power to investigate any
malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance by a public officer or
employee of the government, or of any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations. However, is NCC a public office? Yes, it is because
it exercises executive functions by implementing the policies set
forth in the Constitution regarding history and cultural heritage,
thus satisfying an important element of public office: the
delegation of sovereign functions. It also follows that Laurel is a
public officer. That he did not receive compensation is of no
consequence. A salary is a usual but not a necessary criterion for
determining the nature of the position. It is not conclusive. The
salary is a mere incident and forms no part of the office. Where a
salary or fees is annexed, the office is provided for it is a naked
or honorary office, and is supposed to be accepted merely for the
public good. Hence, the office of petitioner as NCC Chair may be
characterized as an honorary office, as opposed to a lucrative
office or an office of profit, i.e., one to which salary,
compensation or fees are attached. It bears noting that under
Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 6713 (The Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), one may be
considered a public official whether or not one receives
compensation, thus: Public Officials include elective and
appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether
in the career or non-career service including military and police
personnel, whether or not they receive compensation, regardless of
amount. ======================== Laurel v Desierto digest Laurel v.
Desierto GR No. 145368, April 12, 2002 Facts: 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. He
further filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied,
hence this petition for certiorari. 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 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. - See more at:
http://lawsandfound.blogspot.com/2012/08/laurel-v-desierto-digest.html#sthash.VeIqHRBs.dpuf
============== Art. 14, Sec. 15, COnsti -- ARTS AND CULTURE Section
14. The State shall foster the preservation, enrichment, and
dynamic evolution of a Filipino national culture based on the
principle of unity in diversity in a climate of free artistic and
intellectual expression.
-
PUB. CORP. 2015
11
=== Today is Saturday, June 20, 2015 search REPUBLIC ACT No.
3019 ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT Section 1. Statement of
policy. It is the policy of the Philippine Government, in line with
the principle that a public office is a public trust, to repress
certain acts of public officers and private persons alike which
constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto.
Section 2. Definition of terms. As used in this Act, that term (a)
"Government" includes the national government, the local
governments, the government-owned and government-controlled
corporations, and all other instrumentalities or agencies of the
Republic of the Philippines and their branches. (b) "Public
officer" includes elective and appointive officials and employees,
permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified
or exempt service receiving compensation, even nominal, from the
government as defined in the preceding subparagraph. (c) "Receiving
any gift" includes the act of accepting directly or indirectly a
gift from a person other than a member of the public officer's
immediate family, in behalf of himself or of any member of his
family or relative within the fourth civil degree, either by
consanguinity or affinity, even on the occasion of a family
celebration or national festivity like Christmas, if the value of
the gift is under the circumstances manifestly excessive. (d)
"Person" includes natural and juridical persons, unless the context
indicates otherwise. 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: (a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public
officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and
regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense
in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing
himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such
violation or offense. (b) Directly or indirectly requesting or
receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for
himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or
transaction between the Government and any other part, wherein the
public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the
law. (c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,
present or other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or for
another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any manner
or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any
Government permit or license, in consideration for the help given
or to be given, without prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act.
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment
in a private enterprise which has pending official business with
him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its
termination. (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. (f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or
request, without sufficient justification, to act within a
reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of
obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in
the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for
the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage
in favor of or discriminating against any other interested party.
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or
transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same,
whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.
(h) Director or indirectly having financing or pecuniary interest
in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which
he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which
he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any
interest. (i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for
personal gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or
act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which he
is a member, and which exercises discretion in such approval, even
if he votes against the same or does not participate in the action
of the board, committee, panel or group. Interest for personal gain
shall be presumed against those public officers responsible for the
approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular
transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to which they
belong. (j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit,
privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for or
not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or
advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one who is not
so qualified or entitled. (k) Divulging valuable information of a
confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account
of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such
information in advance of its authorized release date.
-
PUB. CORP. 2015
12
The person giving the gift, present, share, percentage or
benefit referred to in subparagraphs (b) and (c); or offering or
giving to the public officer the employment mentioned in
subparagraph (d); or urging the divulging or untimely release of
the confidential information referred to in subparagraph (k) of
this section shall, together with the offending public officer, be
punished under Section nine of this Act and shall be permanently or
temporarily disqualified in the discretion of the Court, from
transacting business in any form with the Government. Section 4.
Prohibition on private individuals. (a) It shall be unlawful for
any person having family or close personal relation with any public
official to capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family
or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or
receiving any present, gift or material or pecuniary advantage from
any other person having some business, transaction, application,
request or contract with the government, in which such public
official has to intervene. Family relation shall include the spouse
or relatives by consanguinity or affinity in the third civil
degree. The word "close personal relation" shall include close
personal friendship, social and fraternal connections, and
professional employment all giving rise to intimacy which assures
free access to such public officer. (b) It shall be unlawful for
any person knowingly to induce or cause any public official to
commit any of the offenses defined in Section 3 hereof. Section 5.
Prohibition on certain relatives. It shall be unlawful for the
spouse or for any relative, by consanguinity or affinity, within
the third civil degree, of the President of the Philippines, the
Vice-President of the Philippines, the President of the Senate, or
the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to intervene, directly
or indirectly, in any business, transaction, contract or
application with the Government: Provided, That this section shall
not apply to any person who, prior to the assumption of office of
any of the above officials to whom he is related, has been already
dealing with the Government along the same line of business, nor to
any transaction, contract or application already existing or
pending at the time of such assumption of public office, nor to any
application filed by him the approval of which is not discretionary
on the part of the official or officials concerned but depends upon
compliance with requisites provided by law, or rules or regulations
issued pursuant to law, nor to any act lawfully performed in an
official capacity or in the exercise of a profession. Section 6.
Prohibition on Members of Congress. It shall be unlawful hereafter
for any Member of the Congress during the term for which he has
been elected, to acquire or receive any personal pecuniary interest
in any specific business enterprise which will be directly and
particularly favored or benefited by any law or resolution authored
by him previously approved or adopted by the Congress during the
same term. The provision of this section shall apply to any other
public officer who recommended the initiation in Congress of the
enactment or adoption of any law or resolution, and acquires or
receives any such interest during his incumbency. It shall likewise
be unlawful for such member of Congress or other public officer,
who, having such interest prior to the approval of such law or
resolution authored or recommended by him, continues for thirty
days after such approval to retain such interest. Section 7.
Statement of assets and liabilities. Every public officer, within
thirty days after the approval of this Act or after assuming
office, and within the month of January of every other year
thereafter, as well as upon the expiration of his term of office,
or upon his resignation or separation from office, shall prepare
and file with the office of the corresponding Department Head, or
in the case of a Head of Department or chief of an independent
office, with the Office of the President, or in the case of members
of the Congress and the officials and employees thereof, with the
Office of the Secretary of the corresponding House, a true detailed
and sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including a
statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of
his personal and family expenses and the amount of income taxes
paid for the next preceding calendar year: Provided, That public
officers assuming office less than two months before the end of the
calendar year, may file their statements in the following months of
January. Section 8. Dismissal due to unexplained wealth. If in
accordance with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered One
thousand three hundred seventy-nine, a public official has been
found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name
or in the name of other persons, an amount of property and/or money
manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful
income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or removal.
Properties in the name of the spouse and unmarried children of such
public official may be taken into consideration, when their
acquisition through legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily
shown. Bank deposits shall be taken into consideration in the
enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any provision of law
to the contrary. Section 9. Penalties for violations. (a) Any
public officer or private person committing any of the unlawful
acts or omissions enumerated in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act
shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than one year nor
more than ten years, perpetual disqualification from public office,
and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the Government of any
prohibited interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of
proportion to his salary and other lawful income. Any complaining
party at whose complaint the criminal prosecution was initiated
shall, in case of conviction of the accused, be entitled to recover
in the criminal action with priority over the forfeiture in favor
of the Government, the amount of money or the thing he may have
given to the accused, or the value of such thing. (b) Any public
officer violation any of the provisions of Section 7 of this Act
shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred pesos nor
more than one thousand pesos, or by imprisonment not exceeding one
year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of
the Court. The violation of said section proven in a proper
administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or
dismissal of a public officer, even if no criminal prosecution is
instituted against him. Section 10. Competent court. Until
otherwise provided by law, all prosecutions under this Act shall be
within the original jurisdiction of the proper Court of First
Instance. Section 11. Prescription of offenses. All offenses
punishable under this Act shall prescribe in ten years. Section 12.
Termination of office. No public officer shall be allowed to resign
or retire pending an investigation, criminal or administrative, or
pending a prosecution against him, for any offense under this Act
or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery.
-
PUB. CORP. 2015
13
Section 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. Any public officer
against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information
under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on
bribery is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Should
he be convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or
gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he shall
be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which
he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime
administrative proceedings have been filed against him. Section 14.
Exception. Unsolicited gifts or presents of small or insignificant
value offered or given as a mere ordinary token of gratitude or
friendship according to local customs or usage, shall be excepted
from the provisions of this Act. Nothing in this Act shall be
interpreted to prejudice or prohibit the practice of any
profession, lawful trade or occupation by any private person or by
any public officer who under the law may legitimately practice his
profession, trade or occupation, during his incumbency, except
where the practice of such profession, trade or occupation involves
conspiracy with any other person or public official to commit any
of the violations penalized in this Act. Section 15. Separability
clause. If any provision of this Act or the application of such
provision to any person or circumstances is declared invalid, the
remainder of the Act or the application of such provision to other
persons or circumstances shall not be affected by such declaration.
Section 16. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect on its
approval, but for the purpose of determining unexplained wealth,
all property acquired by a public officer since he assumed office
shall be taken into consideration. Approved: August 17, 1960 The
Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation ====== DMCI can demolish
Torre de Manila if it wanted to activist Celdran June 17, 2015
5:49pm 2389 110 0 2706 Tags: DMCI Holdings SC stops construction of
Torre de Manila SC stops construction of Torre de Manila. The
controversial 46-storey Torre de Manila condominium looms in the
background from the Rizal Monument at Luneta Park in Manila on
Tuesday, June 16. The Supreme Court ordered the stop in the
construction of the high-rise building which has outraged
Philippine conservationists for allegedly ruining views of a
national monument. AFP/Jay Directo Culture activist Carlos Celdran
claimed on Wednesday that real estate developer D.M. Consunji Inc.
(DMCI Homes) has the capabilities to demolish the high-rise
condominium Torre de Manila that mars the visual corridors of Rizal
Monument in Luneta Park. "DMCI ito. They are a mining company. If
they can make Semirara Island disappear, they can make that
building disappear. DMCI is very good in demolishing things. They
are into mining... To tear down is not a technological
impossibility. Kayang kaya nila iyon," he claimed in an interview
with GMA News TV's "News To Go" on Wednesday. DMCI Holdings Inc.,
the parent of DMCI homes, also holds the exclusive rights to
explore, mine and develop the coal resources in the 5,500-hectare
Semirara Island in Caluya, Antique. Other minerals on the island
are limestone and silica. Celdran issued his statement after the
Supreme Court imposed a temporary restraining order suspending the
construction of Torre de Manila. The high-rise condominium is
already 30.7 percent complete, with ongoing structural activities
at the 32nd floor, according to DMCI's construction update as of
December 19, 2014. According to the "Guidelines on Monuments
Honoring National Heroes, Illustrious Filipinos and other
Personages" of the National Historical Commission of the
Philippines (NHCP), vista points and visual corridors to monuments
should be clear for "unobstructed viewing appreciation and
photographic opportunities." But DMCI also broke the zoning laws,
Celdran pointed out. "The real problem here is that they broke the
zoning laws. Iyong floor-to-height ratio diyan, kailangan seven
stories high lang... May permit sila, but we need to investigate
how they got those papers," he said. Also a tour guide of Manila,
Celdran said that most of the tourists he encountered so far
frowned upon Torre de Manila. "Some people say that this would
never happen in their country. If they have a national hero and a
national monument, they would never allow a large corporation or
the whims of a rich man do something like this," he said. Celdran
lauded the SC ruling since it showed that the Filipino people can
go after large corporations and their mistakes. "The thing I like
about this TRO is that it showed the Filipino people that oligarchs
or large corporations like this can be questioned, can be stopped,
and can be taken to task for things that they do and abuses that
they do," he added. Trisha Macas/VS, GMA News More from:
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/505618/news/metromanila/dmci-can-demolish-torre-de-manila-if-it-wanted-to-activist-celdran
-
PUB. CORP. 2015
14
======== Today is Saturday, June 20, 2015 search Republic of the
Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 166715 August 14,
2008 ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST (formerly AASJS)1 OFFICERS/MEMBERS
SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, ED VINCENT S. ALBANO, ROMEO R. ROBISO, RENE B.
GOROSPE and EDWIN R. SANDOVAL, petitioners, vs. HON. CESAR V.
PURISIMA, in his capacity as Secretary of Finance, HON. GUILLERMO
L. PARAYNO, JR., in his capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue, and HON. ALBERTO D. LINA, in his Capacity as
Commissioner of Bureau of Customs, respondents. D E C I S I O N
CORONA, J.: This petition for prohibition1 seeks to prevent
respondents from implementing and enforcing Republic Act (RA) 93352
(Attrition Act of 2005). RA 9335 was enacted to optimize the
revenue-generation capability and collection of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC). The law
intends to encourage BIR and BOC officials and employees to exceed
their revenue targets by providing a system of rewards and
sanctions through the creation of a Rewards and Incentives Fund
(Fund) and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board (Board).3 It
covers all officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC with at
least six months of service, regardless of employment status.4 The
Fund is sourced from the collection of the BIR and the BOC in
excess of their revenue targets for the year, as determined by the
Development Budget and Coordinating Committee (DBCC). Any incentive
or reward is taken from the fund and allocated to the BIR and the
BOC in proportion to their contribution in the excess collection of
the targeted amount of tax revenue.5 The Boards in the BIR and the
BOC are composed of the Secretary of the Department of Finance
(DOF) or his/her Undersecretary, the Secretary of the Department of
Budget and Management (DBM) or his/her Undersecretary, the Director
General of the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) or
his/her Deputy Director General, the Commissioners of the BIR and
the BOC or their Deputy Commissioners, two representatives from the
rank-and-file employees and a representative from the officials
nominated by their recognized organization.6 Each Board has the
duty to (1) prescribe the rules and guidelines for the allocation,
distribution and release of the Fund; (2) set criteria and
procedures for removing from the service officials and employees
whose revenue collection falls short of the target; (3) terminate
personnel in accordance with the criteria adopted by the Board; (4)
prescribe a system for performance evaluation; (5) perform other
functions, including the issuance of rules and regulations and (6)
submit an annual report to Congress.7 The DOF, DBM, NEDA, BIR, BOC
and the Civil Service Commission (CSC) were tasked to promulgate
and issue the implementing rules and regulations of RA 9335,8 to be
approved by a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created for
such purpose.9 Petitioners, invoking their right as taxpayers filed
this petition challenging the constitutionality of RA 9335, a tax
reform legislation. They contend that, by establishing a system of
rewards and incentives, the law "transform[s] the officials and
employees of the BIR and the BOC into mercenaries and bounty
hunters" as they will do their best only in consideration of such
rewards. Thus, the system of rewards and incentives invites
corruption and undermines the constitutionally mandated duty of
these officials and employees to serve the people with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. Petitioners also
claim that limiting the scope of the system of rewards and
incentives only to officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC
violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. There is
no valid basis for classification or distinction as to why such a
system should not apply to officials and employees of all other
government agencies. In addition, petitioners assert that the law
unduly delegates the power to fix revenue targets to the President
as it lacks a sufficient standard on that matter. While Section
7(b) and (c) of RA 9335 provides that BIR and BOC officials may be
dismissed from the service if their revenue collections fall short
of the target by at least 7.5%, the law does not, however, fix the
revenue targets to be achieved. Instead, the fixing of revenue
targets has been delegated to the President without sufficient
standards. It will therefore be easy for the President to fix an
unrealistic and unattainable target in order to dismiss BIR or BOC
personnel. Finally, petitioners assail the creation of a
congressional oversight committee on the ground that it violates
the doctrine of separation of powers. While the legislative
function is deemed accomplished and completed upon the enactment
and approval of the law, the creation of the congressional
oversight committee permits legislative participation in the
implementation and enforcement of the law. In their comment,
respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, question
the petition for being premature as there is no actual case or
controversy yet. Petitioners have not asserted any right or claim
that will necessitate the exercise of this Courts jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, respondents acknowledge that public policy requires
the resolution of the constitutional issues involved in this case.
They assert that the allegation that the reward system will breed
mercenaries is mere speculation and does not suffice to invalidate
the law.
-
PUB. CORP. 2015
15
Seen in conjunction with the declared objective of RA 9335, the
law validly classifies the BIR and the BOC because the functions
they perform are distinct from those of the other government
agencies and instrumentalities. Moreover, the law provides a
sufficient standard that will guide the executive in the
implementation of its provisions. Lastly, the creation of the
congressional oversight committee under the law enhances, rather
than violates, separation of powers. It ensures the fulfillment of
the legislative policy and serves as a check to any
over-accumulation of power on the part of the executive and the
implementing agencies. After a careful consideration of the
conflicting contentions of the parties, the Court finds that
petitioners have failed to overcome the presumption of
constitutionality in favor of RA 9335, except as shall hereafter be
discussed. Actual Case And Ripeness An actual case or controversy
involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal
claims susceptible of judicial adjudication.10 A closely related
requirement is ripeness, that is, the question must be ripe for
adjudication. And a constitutional question is ripe for
adjudication when the governmental act being challenged has a
direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it.11 Thus, to
be ripe for judicial adjudication, the petitioner must show a
personal stake in the outcome of the case or an injury to himself
that can be redressed by a favorable decision of the Court.12 In
this case, aside from the general claim that the dispute has
ripened into a judicial controversy by the mere enactment of the
law even without any further overt act,13 petitioners fail either
to assert any specific and concrete legal claim or to demonstrate
any direct adverse effect of the law on them. They are unable to
show a personal stake in the outcome of this case or an injury to
themselves. On this account, their petition is procedurally infirm.
This notwithstanding, public interest requires the resolution of
the constitutional issues raised by petitioners. The grave nature
of their allegations tends to cast a cloud on the presumption of
constitutionality in favor of the law. And where an action of the
legislative branch is alleged to have infringed the Constitution,
it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary
to settle the dispute.14 Accountability of Public Officers Section
1, Article 11 of the Constitution states: Sec. 1. 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. Public office is a public trust. It
must be discharged by its holder not for his own personal gain but
for the benefit of the public for whom he holds it in trust. By
demanding accountability and service with responsibility,
integrity, loyalty, efficiency, patriotism and justice, all
government officials and employees have the duty to be responsive
to the needs of the people they are called upon to serve. Public
officers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of
their duties. This presumption necessarily obtains in favor of BIR
and BOC officials and employees. RA 9335 operates on the basis
thereof and reinforces it by providing a system of rewards and
sanctions for the purpose of encouraging the officials and
employees of the BIR and the BOC to exceed their revenue targets
and optimize their revenue-generation capability and collection.15
The presumption is disputable but proof to the contrary is required
to rebut it. It cannot be overturned by mere conjecture or denied
in advance (as petitioners would have the Court do) specially in
this case where it is an underlying principle to advance a declared
public policy. Petitioners claim that the implementation of RA 9335
will turn BIR and BOC officials and employees into "bounty hunters
and mercenaries" is not only without any factual and legal basis;
it is also purely speculative. A law enacted by Congress enjoys the
strong presumption of constitutionality. To justify its
nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the
Constitution, not a doubtful and equivocal one.16 To invalidate RA
9335 based on petitioners baseless supposition is an affront to the
wisdom not only of the legislature that passed it but also of the
executive which approved it. Public service is its own reward.
Nevertheless, public officers may by law be rewarded for exemplary
and exceptional performance. A system of incentives for exceeding
the set expectations of a public office is not anathema to the
concept of public accountability. In fact, it recognizes and
reinforces dedication to duty, industry, efficiency and loyalty to
public service of deserving government personnel. In United States
v. Matthews,17 the U.S. Supreme Court validated a law which awards
to officers of the customs as well as other parties an amount not
exceeding one-half of the net proceeds of forfeitures in violation
of the laws against smuggling. Citing Dorsheimer v. United
States,18 the U.S. Supreme Court said: The offer of a portion of
such penalties to the collectors is to stimulate and reward their
zeal and industry in detecting fraudulent attempts to evade payment
of duties and taxes. In the same vein, employees of the BIR and the
BOC may by law be entitled to a reward when, as a consequence of
their zeal in the enforcement of tax and customs laws, they exceed
their revenue targets. In addition, RA 9335 establishes safeguards
to ensure that the reward will not be claimed if it will be either
the fruit of "bounty hunting or mercenary activity" or the product
of the irregular performance of official duties. One of these
precautionary measures is embodied in Section 8 of the law: SEC. 8.
Liability of Officials, Examiners and Employees of the BIR and the
BOC. The officials, examiners, and employees of the [BIR] and the
[BOC] who violate this Act or who are guilty of negligence, abuses
or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance or fail to exercise
extraordinary diligence in the performance of their duties shall be
held liable for any loss or injury suffered by any business
establishment or taxpayer as a result of such violation,
negligence, abuse, malfeasance, misfeasance or failure to exercise
extraordinary diligence. Equal Protection
-
PUB. CORP. 2015
16
Equality guaranteed under the equal protection clause is
equality under the same conditions and among persons similarly
situated; it is equality among equals, not similarity of treatment
of persons who are classified based on substantial differences in
relation to the object to be accomplished.19 When things or persons
are different in fact or circumstance, they may be treated in law
differently. In Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union,20 this
Court declared: The guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not
a guaranty of equality in the application of the laws upon all
citizens of the [S]tate. It is not, therefore, a requirement, in
order to avoid the constitutional prohibition against inequality,
that every man, woman and child should be affected alike by a
statute. Equality o