ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

IMPEACHMENT

1.) Who are the impeachable officers? (EXCLUSIVE TO THE FOLLOWING)

- President, Vice President, Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court,
Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman
2.) Congress passed a law mandating that the Presiding Justice of the CA can only be removed from
office by impeachment. Valid?
- No. List of impeachable officers stated above are exclusive.
3.) The Office of the Ombudsman conducted an investigation after a complaint was filed against the
Assoc. Justice of the SC for graft and corruption. The Ombudsman clarif ied that its investigation
is only for the purpose of establishing whether or not there is a ground that can be used by
Congress to impeach the said Assoc. Justice. Is the action of the Ombudsman valid?
- Yes. An investigation by the Ombudsman for the sole purpose of establishing W/N there is
ground for impeachment is valid and within the exercise of its jurisdiction.

INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS

4.) Explain the three ways of initiating Impeachment Proceedings.

- a verified complaint for impeachment filed by any Member of the House of Representatives; or
- a verified complaint filed by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member
thereof; or
- a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filed by at least one -third (1/3) of all
Members of the House.
5.) You are a new lawyer who has just signed the Roll of Attorneys. A client comes to you and asks
your help because he wants to file an impeachment complaint against the President of the Phils.
for betrayal of public trust. What will be your advice to him or what will you do to help him
granting that he has a valid ground?

GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT

6.) Is failure to disclose a real property in his SALN a valid ground for impeachment? If not, why? If
yes, what will be that ground?
7.) Is adultery or having a common law wife a ground for impeachment?
8.) How about obtaining a loan from China and using our claims in the West Philippine Sea as
collateral?
9.) How about calling God stupid?

INITIATING

10.) Atty. B, a private practitioner, filed an impeachment complaint against the Chairman of the
COMELEC for betrayal of public trust on July 23, 2018. The day after the filing, the complaint was
included in the order of business of the HR. On July 25, 2018, Rep. Buaya filed another complaint
against the COMELEC Chairman for graft and corruption. It was included in the order of business
on the same day of its filing.
 LIMITATIONS

11.) On what ground, if any, can you validly move for the dismissal of the first complaint? How about
for the dismissal of the second complaint?
- Move for the dismissal of the first complaint on the ground that Atty. B should file a verified
complaint upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member of the HR;
- Move for the dismissal of the second complaint by citing the limitation on initiating
impeachment cases w/c is not more than once within a period of one year against the same
official.
12.) How will you know that the complaint is already deemed initiated?
- SC ruled that the impeachment case is deemed initiated when the complaint with the
accompanying resolution of indorsement has been filed with the HR and referred to the
appropriate Committee (Francisco vs. House of Rep.; GR No. 160261; November 10, 2003)
13.) Can an impeachment complaint be forwarded to the Senate without passing through the
Committee on Justice?
- Yes. If the verified complaint is filed by at least 1/3 of all the members of the HR, it shall
constitute as the Articles of Impeachment and trial by the Senate shall then proceed.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE

14.) The Committee on Justice recommended that the impeachment complaint be dismissed for lack
of form and substance. Is there a chance that the complaint may still be forwarded to the
Senate for trial?
- Sec. 4: …If the committee finds that the complaint is insufficient in form, it shall return the
same to the Secretary General within three (3) session days with a written explanation of
the insufficiency. The Secretary General shall return the same to the complaint(s) together
with the committee's written explanation within three (3) session days from receipt of the
committee resolution finding the complaint insufficient in form. Should the committee find
the complaint sufficient in form, it shall then determine if the complaint is sufficient in
substance. The requirement of substance is met if there is a recital of facts constituting the
offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the committee. If the committee
finds that the complaint is not sufficient in substance, it shall dismiss the complaint and shall
submit its report as provided hereunder.
15.) If the Committee on Justice recommended that the complaint is sufficient in form and
substance, thus enough to constitute Articles of Impeachment, is there a chance that the
complaint can still be dismissed?
- Sec. 5: If the committee finds the complaint sufficient in form and substance, it shall
immediately furnish the respondent(s) with a copy of the resolution and/or verified
complaint, as the case may be, with written notice thereof and serve a copy of the answer
to the complaint(s). No motion to dismiss shall be allowed within the period to answer the
complaint. Sec. 6: After receipt of the pleadings and affidavits and counter-affidavits and
relevant documents provided for in Section 5, or the expiration of the time within which
they may be filed, the Committee shall determine whether the complaint alleges sufficient
 grounds for impeachment. If it finds that sufficient grounds for impeachment do not exist,
the Committee shall dismiss the complaint and submit the report required hereunder.

EFFECT OF CONVICTION

16.) Explain what are the effects if one is convicted in an impeachment proceeding?
- Removal from office, and/or;
- Permanent disqualification from holding further office
17.) Can criminal cases be filed against him?
18.) Are impeachment proceedings subject to judicial review?
- The Supreme Court has the power to review cases of impeachment, to see if they conform
to the procedures and requirements enumerated in the Constitution. What the Supreme
Court does not have the power to do, it said, is to comment on the actual charges. The
charges themselves, since an impeachment is a political trial, are beyond judicial review.
(Francisco vs. HR)
19.) In the case of Chief Justice Corona, the SC was not able to resolve the justiciable issues raised in
connection with the impeachment proceedings. Why?
-

SANDIGANBAYAN

20.) How many divisions are there in the Sandiganbayan?

-Seven (7) divisions of three (3) members each
21.) Can a private individual be tried by the Sandiganbayan?
- It should be noted that private individuals can be sued in cases before the
Sandiganbayan if they are alleged to be in conspiracy with the public officer.
22.) Are the Board of Directors/Trustees of a GOCC under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan?
- Membership in the Board of Directors/Trustees of GOCCs is a public office under the
Executive Department and thus under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
23.) How about the City Assessor of Iloilo whose position carries SG 26?

RA 9165, as amended

24.) In the case of De Lima vs. Guerrero , October 10, 2017, the SC ruled that the RTCs be designated
as Drugs Courts and have jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165, as amended, regardless of
whether the violation of the law was committed in relation to the public official’s office. RA
10660 is a general law on jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over crimes committed by high-
ranking public officers in relation to their office. Sec. 90 of RA 9165 is the special law excluding
from the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction any violation of RA 9165 committed by publ ic officers.
*SPECIAL LAW > GENERAL LAW

OMBUDSMAN

25.) President Digong appointed Pantaleon Alvarez as the next Ombdsman on July 23, 2018. Alvarez
gave up his seat in the HR before taking his oath as Ombudsman. Is the appointment valid?
26.) Can the Ombudsman or a Deputy Ombudsman own a 7/11 franchise?

DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY

27.) Due to his negligence in resolving the administrative case of a police officer who eventually
turned hostage taker in Luneta, the Deputy Ombudsman was ordered dismissed b y the
President after conducting a series of hearings which complied with the requirement of due
process. Is the dismissal valid? Does the President have the power to suspend/dismiss the
Deputy Ombudsman?
- No. The Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzales III vs the Office of the President (2014),
ruled that Section 8(2) of RA 6770 or The Ombudsman Act of 1989 was unconstitutional by
granting disciplinary jurisdiction to the president over a deputy ombudsman as it violates
the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman. Section 8(2) of RA 6770 states that "A
Deputy, or the Special Prosecutor, may be removed from office by the President for any of
the grounds provided for the removal of the Ombudsman, and after due process."

28.) How about if the one charged is the Special Prosecutor?

- Valid and constitutional. It is only the Office of the Ombudsman and her deputies which are
endowed with constitutional independence. The inclusion of the Special Prosecutor in the
aforementioned provision does not ipso facto mean that it must be afforded the same level
of constitutional independence as that of the Ombudsman and her deputies. It merely
defines how the Special Prosecutor is attached and therefore, coordinated with the Office of
the Ombudsman.

JURISDICTION

29.) Beth Kerwin is an employee of PAL, a GOCC organized under the Corporation Code of the
Philippines. She was charged before the Ombudsman for graft and corruption. Does the
Ombudsman have jurisdiction over her?
30.) Will your answer be the same if Beth is an employee of PetroPhil, also a GOCC, under the
Corporation Code of the Philippines?

RECONCILE THE RULINGS

31.) How can you reconcile the rulings of the SC in the cases of Quimpo vs. Tanodbayan, Leyson vs.
Ombudsman, and Khan vs. Office of the Ombudsman?
- In Quimpo vs. Tanodbayan, SC held that Tanodbayan has jurisdiction over officials and
employees of PetroPhil Corp. even if does not have an original charter.
- In Leyson vs. Ombudsman, it was held that jurisdiction of the Ombudsman over GOCCs
should be understood in relation to Par. 13, Sec 2 of 1987 Admin. Code which defines
GOCCs. The ff requisites must be present: a. agency organized as a stock/non-stock
corporation; b. vested w/ functions relating to public needs, whether governmental or
proprietary; and c. owned by the Government directly/through its instrumentalities, either
wholly or at least 51% of its capital stock (for stock corporations). GranPhil and United
Coconut were not vested with functions related to public needs and do not fall within
jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
 - In Khan vs. Office of the Ombudsman, the Office of the Ombudsman reiterated that it has no
jurisdiction to investigate employees of GOCCs organized under the Corporation Code as it
only has jurisdiction over public officials/employees of GOCCs with original charters.
32.) Will the character of their principal functions make a difference in your answer?
- Yes. One of the requisites is that the GOCC must be vested w/ functions relating to public
needs, whether governmental or proprietary. Without the existence of such requisite, the
Office of the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction.
33.) What is the effect if the GOCC was organized under the special charter?

JURISDICTION

34.) Sec. 12, Art. XI. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, 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, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the
action taken and the result thereof.
35.) Sec. 13 (2). Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or employee of the
Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as of any
government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter, to perform and expedite
any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or impropriety in the
performance of duties.
36.) Does the Office of the Ombudsman have disciplinary authority over members of Congress?
- No. Under Sec 21 of RA 6770, Members of Congress are exempted from such authority.
Officials Subject to Disciplinary Authority; Exceptions. — The Office of the Ombudsman shall
have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the Government and its
subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including Members of the Cabinet, local
government, government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries, except over
officials who may be removed only by impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the
Judiciary.
37.) How about members of the Judiciary?
- No, also exempted.
38.) Why is it that Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago was ordered suspended in the case of Santiago vs.
Sandiganbayan (356 SCRA 636)?
- The authority of the Sandiganbayan to order the preventive suspension of an incumbent
public official charged with violation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 3019 has both
legal and jurisprudential support.
- It would appear to be a ministerial duty of the court to issue an order of suspension upon
determination of the validity of the information filed before it. Once the information is
found to be sufficient in form and substance, the court is bound to issue an order of
suspension as a matter of course
- It is not a penalty because it is not imposed as a result of judicial proceedings. In fact, if
acquitted, the official concerned shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and
benefits which he failed to receive during suspension. (Bayot vs. Sandiganbayan)
- In issuing the preventive suspension of petitioner, the Sandiganbayan merely adhered to the
clear and unequivocal mandate of the law, as well as the jurisprudence in which the Court
 has, more than once, upheld Sandiganbayan’s authority to decree the suspension of public
officials and employees indicted before it.

INVESTIGATORY POWER

Section 22, RA 6770. 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, if warranted.

FORM OF COMPLAINT

39.) Can the Office of the Ombudsman conduct an investigation against any public official even
without a complaint filed?
- Yes. Sec. 15, RA 6770. 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
its primary jurisdiction; it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of
Government, the investigation of such cases…
40.) How about if the complaint is simply unsigned and without any return address?
41.) How about if only through a text message?

POWERS OF THE OMBUDSMAN

42.) A complaint for rape was filed against Mayor Butod before the Office of the Ombudsman. It was
allegedly committed during a party and the victim was a member of the band that entertained
the guests. Obviously, the offense was not committed in connection with the functions of his
office. Can Mayor Butod validly ask for the dismissal of the complaint?

POWERS

43.) If an administrative case is filed before the Office of the Ombudsman against a Mayor, and after
conducting an investigation, it is found that the Mayor is liable; can the Ombudsman order the
dismissal of the Mayor?
44.) If no, why not?
45.) How about if the case filed is criminal case? Can the Office of the Ombudsman find guilt beyond
reasonable doubt?

FINDING PROBABLE CAUSE

46.) Is the authority of the Ombudsman to investigate criminal complaints against public officials
with SG 27 or up, exclusive? If yes, what is the legal basis? If not, is it concurrent with what
office?

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE
 47.) In an administrative case filed against the Municipal Mayor Astig, the Ombudsman found him
guilty for simple neglect of duty and imposed the penalty of one month suspension. Astig,
believing that he is not negligent, filed an appeal before the CA. The Office of the Ombudsman
filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the decision is immediately executory
and no appeal is allowed. Is the Ombudsman correct? – Yes. Where penalty is suspension of not
more than one, decision shall be final, executory, and unappealable.

IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY

48.) In a case for gross misconduct, the Ombudsman found City Treasurer Asab guilty and imposed
upon him the penalty of dismissal from office. Asab immediately filed an appeal before the CA
and moved for the issuance of a TRO and preliminary injunction. The CA did not act on his
motion for the issuance of a TRO. While the appeal was being heard, the Ombudsman issued an
order addressed to the DILG and the Mayor to implement the di smissal of Asab. Is the order of
the Ombudsman valid?
- Sec. 27, RA 6770. (1) All provisionary orders of the Office of the Ombudsman are
immediately effective and executory.

SUSPENSION

49.) Will your answer be different if the penalty is suspension of 6 months?

- Sec. 27, RA 6770. (1) All provisionary orders of the Office of the Ombudsman are
immediately effective and executory.
50.) Suppose the Mayor who received the order of the Ombudsman to implement the dismissal of
Asab, refused to implement the order. Can the Ombudsman file an Administrative case against
him? – Section 26, RA 6770: (4) Any delay or refusal to comply with the referral or directive of
the Ombudsman or any of his Deputies, shall constitute a ground for administrative disciplinary
action against the officer or employee to whom it was addressed.
51.) Suppose Asab won his appeal and he was ordered reinstated, is he entitled to receive back
salaries and other emoluments that he did not receive while being out of his office?
- In case the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent wins such appeal, he shall
be considered as having been under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary and
such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal.

AMENDMENT OF RULE III, ADM. ORDER NO. 07

Rule III, Adm. Order No. 07 of the Office of the Ombudsman was already amended by Adm. Order No.
17. Among others, the amendments clearly point out that in dismissal cases and suspension of more
than one month, the appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory.

CA’s WRIT OF INJUNCTION

52.) An administrative case was grave misconduct was filed against Mayor B before the Office of the
Ombudsman. During the conduct of its investigation, the Ombudsman issued a preventive
suspension against the Mayor for 6 months. The Mayor filed a petition for certiorari before the
Court of Appeals with a motion for the issuance of a TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction
 contending that he cannot be investigated anymore under the Condonation Doctrine. The CA
issued a TRO and WPI. Is the action of the CA valid?

RTC, MTCC, MTC, AND MCTC

If the official is not among those listed under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, his case will
be tried in the Regional Trial Courts or Courts of the First Level, in accordance with B.P. Bilang 129.

PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION

53.) A case was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman against BID Commissioner MDS for
violation of RA 3019, The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Ombudsman was able to file
the case before the Sandiganbayan when MDS was already a Senator. Pursuant to the provisions
of RA 3019, the court issued an order placing MDS under preventive suspension. Can the
suspension be implemented against MDS even without the 2/3 votes of his colleagues?

LATEST DECISION OF THE SC

In De Lima vs Hon. Juanita Guererro, et. al. GR No. 229781, October 10, 2017:

Cases filed for violations of RA 9165, as amended, should be under the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Courts and not under the Sandiganbayan.

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

 Ombudsman to be known as the TANODBAYAN

 One over-all Deputy, one Deputy from Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao and the Military
 An independent body, not under any branch of Government
 Ombudsman has appointing power, except for the Deputies; also has administrative
control and supervision of the Office.

QUALIFICATIONS

On July 15, 2017, Rep. LD was appointed by President Dugong as Deputy Ombudsman for
Visayas, to replace Jose Darna who died. Darna was appointed on July 28, 2011. LD resigned from
Congress before taking his oath of office.

54.) Is the appointment valid?

55.) Granting that it is valid, can LD assume immediately?
56.) When will the term of LD end?

POWERS AND FUNCTIONS

Juan filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against Pedro, an employee of a
GOCC without original charter, for the latter’s refusal to pay his debts which became due and
demandable.
 57.) Does the Office of the Ombudsman have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint?
- According to Atty. G, yes.
58.) Is non-payment of debt a complaint which is within the jurisdiction of the Office of the
Ombudsman?
- According to Atty. G, yes. Because indi lng daw super exclusive jurisdiction nila.

INVESTIGATIVE POWERS

As part of its investigation regarding the complaint against President Dugong, the Office of the
Ombudsman ordered an in camera inspection of the account of the President in the BPI. The BPI
manager refused on the ground that the bank will be violating the Secrecy of Bank Deposit Law.

59.) Can the Office of the Ombudsman compel BPI to comply with its order?
60.) Under what conditions, is in camera inspection allowed?

EXECUTION OF DECISION

a. The public official is exonerated or convicted where the penalty imposed is public
censure, reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to
one month salary, the decision shall be FINAL, EXECUTORY, AND UNAPPEALABLE.
b. In all other cases, the decision may be appealed to the Court of Appeals on a verified
petition for review under the requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the
Rules of Court, within 15 days from receipt of the written Notice of Decision or Order
denying the MR.

EFFECT OF APPEAL

An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. In case the penalty is suspension or
removal and the respondent wins such appeal, he shall be considered as having been under preventive
suspension and shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of
the suspension/removal. (A.O. No. 17, Series of 2003)

RELEVANT CASES

 Buencamino vs. Court of Appeals, et. al. G.R. No. 175895, April 12, 2007
 Office of the Ombudsman vs. Alex M. Valencerina, G.R. No. 178343, July 14, 2014

ACTIONS FOR RECOVERY

Actions for recovery of ill-gotten wealth do not prescribe. This applies only to civil cases for
recovery of ill-gotten wealth. It does not apply to criminal cases. This must not be given retroactive
application in order not to violate the ex post facto provision of the Bill of Rights.

FINANCIAL ACCOMODATION

Prohibition applies only if the purpose of the loan, guaranty, or other form of financial
accommodation is for BUSINESS PURPOSE.
 SALN

President, VP, Members of the Cabinet, Congress, Supreme Court, Constitutional Commissions
and Offices, and Officers of the Armed Forces with General or Flag rank – must disclose to the public in
the manner provided by law.

61.) Is the summary of the contents in the SALN enough?

62.) Relevant entries are blocked out?