Article 11: Accountability of Public Officers: Section 2

Article 11: Accountability of Public Officers
Section 2
1. While the manner and cause of removal are left to congressional determination, this must still be consistent with constitutional
guarantees and principles namely the right to procedural and substantive due process; the constitutional guarantee of security
of tenure; the principle of separation of powers and the principle of checks and balances. THUS it cannot through by Law allow
the OFFICE of the PRESIDENT to dismiss a deputy ombudsman.
Section 3
1. The issue here is whether Justice Fernan, a member of the Supreme Court, can be the subject of disbarment proceedings.
Members of the SC, must, under Art.8 (7)(1) of the Constitution, be members of the Philippine Bar and may be removed only by
impeachment. To grant a complaint for disbarment of an SC member during his incumbency would in effect circumvent and
hence to run afoul of the constitutional mandate.
2. After Erap ‘”resigned”, several cases previously filed before the Ombudsman were set in motion. Erap was saying that these
cases should be prohibited because he had not been convicted in the impeachment proceedings against him. The SC rejected
this argument, as his impeachment proceedings were deemed functus officio by the Senate. Such plea by Erap, if granted,
would be a perpetual bar against his prosecution.
3. It clear that the framers intended "initiation" to start with the filing of the complaint. Therefore, initiation takes place by:
a. The act of filing the impeachment/verified complaint; AND
b. Congress' taking initial action of said complaint by its referral to the house committee of justice.
4. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated in the foregoing manner, another may not be filed with the same official
w/in 1 year.
5. Petitioner is alleging that the 2 impeachment complaints go against the 1-year bar and that the rules were published a day after
ruling the sufficiency of the complaints. SC ruled that the Consti did not prescribe a specific method of promulgation; hence it
was up to Congress to determine how to promulgate its Impeachment Rules.
6. There mere filing of a complaint is not the “initiation” contemplated by the Consti. Referring the complaint to the proper
committee ignites the impeachment proceeding. Only 1 impeachment PROCEEDING should be filed against the impeachable
officer per year, not COMPLAINTS. Hence multiple complaints are allowed as long as they are consolidated.
7. WHEREFORE, in accordance with Article XI, Section 3 (7) of the Constitution, the penalty of removal from office and
disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines is hereby imposed upon respondent Chief Justice Renato
C. Corona. Senate Rules on Impeachment DO NOT provide a penalty upon conviction but mere disqualification to hold any other
office.
Section 4
1. It is clear from the Consti that SB has jurisdictional competence not only over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt
practices committed by public officers and employees but also over other crimes committed by them in relation to their office.
The information clearly alleged that he took advantage of his position as mayor when he intimidated the gas station’s owner
and took over its operations.
Section 7
1. Petitioner as a governor, sought to restrain the SB and the Tanodbayan from proceeding with the prosecution of his case on the
ground that the cases were filed by the latter without legal and constitutional authority. He argues that under the 1987 Consti,
it is only the Ombudsman who has the authority to file cases with the SB. Since the power to investigate has been given Sec.13
(1) to the Ombudsman, the Special Prosecutor could neither investigate nor prosecute unless authorized by the Ombudsman.
Section 12
1. An unsigned anonymous letter is a valid complaint to the Ombudsman cause it is provided in Section 12 ombudsman shall act
on complaints filed in ANY FORM OR MANNER
2. The SC ruled that the power of the Ombudsman to determine and impose administrative liability is not merely
recommendatory but actually mandatory. The implementation of the order imposing the penalty is, however, to be coursed
through the proper officer.
3. If OP is given the power to remove deputy ombudsman therefore it will affect the investigatory powers of the ombudsman if its
deputies are subjected to removal by the president.
Section 13
1. The SC ruled that even if the Ombudsman has the primary jurisdiction under the Ombudsman’s Act over the cases cognizable by
the Sandiganbayan, this authority is not exclusive but is concurrent with other similarly authorized agencies of the gov’t. Thus
the authority of the PCGG to conduct preliminary investigation of ill-gotten wealth and/or unexplained wealth is maintained.
(but in this case it was a case not under the Marcos cronies so the authority of the PCGG to investigate this case had to be
assigned by the President)
2. NOTE: the difference between the Truth Commission (Aquino to investigate Arroyo admin) and the PCGG was that the latter
was made under the legislative power of Cory Aquino before the enactment of the 1987 Consti. But remember that held that
the President had the power to create the Truth Commission, it just didn’t pass the equal protection test.
3. The Ombudsman also has no jurisdiction to entertain questions on the constitutionality of a law, therefore acting in GAD.
4. Ombudsman can impose penalties in administrative disciplinary cases and these are immediately executory.
5. Condonation doctrine is ALREADY ABANDONED.
6. In order to conduct an investigation in an expeditious and efficient manner, the Ombudsman may need to suspend the
respondent. The suspension given was merely preventive and there is nothing improper with such act. The power of the
Ombudsman to “recommend the suspension” refers to suspension as a punitive measure.
7. Ombudsman has the power to directly impose administrative penalties including removal from office. Word “recommend” must
be taken in conjunction with the phrase “and ensure compliance therewith.”
8. The Ombudsman has the power to investigate and prosecute of any crime committed by a public official regardless of whether
they are related to or connected with or arise from the performance of his official duty. It’s enough that it was committed by a
public official.
9. Ombudsman is authorized to call on prosecutors for assistance under the Ombudsman Act. Even if the preliminary investigation
had been given over to the Provincial Prosecutor to conduct, his determination of the nature of the offense to be charged
would still be subject to the approval of the Office of the Ombudsman.
10. SC will not ordinarily interfere with the findings of the Ombudsman or in general in the prosecution of cases except when:
a. Protection to the constitutional rights of the accused
b. Justice to avoid oppression
c. Prejudicial questions which is sub-judice
d. Acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority
e. Invalid law
f. Double jeopardy is clear
g. Court has no J
h. Chrages are manifestly false
i. No prima facie case
Section 18
1. Holding a green card is evidence that he is a permanent resident of US
2. Absent clear evidence that there is an irrevocable waiver before he ran for mayor, the conclusion is he is disqualified to run for
said public office.

Article 11: Accountability of Public Officers: Section 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article 11: Accountability of Public Officers: Section 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article 11: Accountability of Public Officers: Section 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article 11: Accountability of Public Officers

You might also like