SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
ARTICLE XI
ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC
OFFICERS
SECTION 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.
SECTION 2. The President, the Vice-
President, the Members of the Supreme
Court, the Members of the Constitutional
Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be
removed from office, on impeachment for,
and conviction of, culpable violation of the
Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and
corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal
of public trust. All other public officers and
employees may be removed from office as
provided by law, but not by impeachment.
SECTION 3. (1) The House of
Representatives shall have the exclusive
power to initiate all cases of impeachment.
(2) A verified complaint for impeachment
may be filed by any Member of the House of
Representatives or by any citizen upon a
resolution of endorsement by any Member
thereof, which shall be included in the
Order of Business within ten session days,
and referred to the proper Committee
within three session days thereafter. The
Committee, after hearing, and by a
majority vote of all its Members, shall
submit its report to the House within sixty
COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER
session days from such referral, together
with the corresponding resolution. The
resolution shall be calendared for
consideration by the House within ten
session days from receipt thereof.
(3) A vote of at least one-third of all the
Members of the House shall be necessary
either to affirm a favorable resolution with
the Articles of Impeachment of the
Committee, or override its contrary
resolution. The vote of each Member shall
be recorded.
(4) In case the verified complaint or
resolution of impeachment is filed by at
least one-third of all the Members of the
House, the same shall constitute the
Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the
Senate shall forthwith proceed.
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be
initiated against the same official more
than once within a period of one year.
(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to
try and decide all cases of impeachment.
When sitting for that purpose, the Senators
shall be on oath or affirmation. When the
President of the Philippines is on trial, the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall
preside, but shall not vote. No person shall
be convicted without the concurrence of
two-thirds of all the Members of the
Senate.
(7) Judgment in cases of impeachment
shall not extend further than removal from
office and disqualification to hold any
office under the Republic of the Philippines,
Page | 1
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

but the party convicted shall nevertheless
be liable and subject to prosecution, trial,
and punishment according to law.
(8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules
on impeachment to effectively carry out
the purpose of this section.
SECTION 4. The present anti-graft court
known as the Sandiganbayan shall
continue to function and exercise its
jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be
provided by law.
SECTION 5. There is hereby created the
independent Office of the Ombudsman,
composed of the Ombudsman to be known
as Tanodbayan, one overall Deputy and at
least one Deputy each for Luzon, Visayas,
and Mindanao. A separate Deputy for the
military establishment may likewise be
appointed.
SECTION 6. The officials and employees of
the Office of the Ombudsman, other than
the Deputies, shall be appointed by the
Ombudsman according to the Civil Service
Law.
SECTION 7. The existing Tanodbayan shall
hereafter be known as the Office of the
Special Prosecutor. It shall continue to
function and exercise its powers as now or
hereafter may be provided by law, except
those conferred on the Office of the
Ombudsman created under this
Constitution.
SECTION 8. The Ombudsman and his
Deputies shall be natural-born citizens of
COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER
the Philippines, and at the time of their
appointment, at least forty years old, of
recognized probity and independence, and
members of the Philippine Bar, and must
not have been candidates for any elective
office in the immediately preceding
election. The Ombudsman must have for
ten years or more been a judge or engaged
in the practice of law in the Philippines.
During their tenure, they shall be subject to
the same disqualifications and prohibitions
as provided for in Section 2 of Article IX-A
of this Constitution.
SECTION 9. The Ombudsman and his
Deputies shall be appointed by the
President from a list of at least six
nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar
Council, and from a list of three nominees
for every vacancy thereafter. Such
appointments shall require no
confirmation. All vacancies shall be filled
within three months after they occur.
SECTION 10. The Ombudsman and his
Deputies shall have the rank of Chairman
and Members, respectively, of the
Constitutional Commissions, and they shall
receive the same salary, which shall not be
decreased during their term of office.
SECTION 11. The Ombudsman and his
Deputies shall serve for a term of seven
years without reappointment. They shall
not be qualified to run for any office in the
election immediately succeeding their
cessation from office.

Page | 2
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

SECTION 12. 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.
SECTION 13. The Office of the Ombudsman
shall have the following powers, functions,
and duties:
(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint
by any person, 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.
(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.
(4) Direct the officer concerned, in any
appropriate case, and subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law, to
furnish it with copies of documents relating
to contracts or transactions entered into by
his office involving the disbursement or use
of public funds or properties, and report
any irregularity to the Commission on
Audit for appropriate action.
(5) Request any government agency for
assistance and information necessary in
the discharge of its responsibilities, and to
examine, if necessary, pertinent records
and documents.
(6) Publicize matters covered by its
investigation when circumstances so
warrant and with due prudence.
(7) Determine the causes of inefficiency,
red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and
corruption in the Government and make
recommendations for their elimination and
the observance of high standards of ethics
and efficiency.
(8) Promulgate its rules of procedure and
exercise such other powers or perform such
functions or duties as may be provided by
law.

(3) Direct the officer concerned to take SECTION 14. The Office of the Ombudsman
appropriate action against a public official shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Its approved
or employee at fault, and recommend his annual appropriations shall be
removal, suspension, demotion, fine, automatically and regularly released.
censure, or prosecution, and ensure
compliance therewith. SECTION 15. The right of the State to
recover properties unlawfully acquired by
public officials or employees, from them or
COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 3
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

from their nominees or transferees, shall [REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8249]

not be barred by prescription, laches, or
estoppel.
SECTION 16. No loan, guaranty, or other
form of financial accommodation for any
business purpose may be granted, directly
or indirectly, by any government-owned or
controlled bank or financial institution to
the President, the Vice-President, the
Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the
Supreme Court, and the Constitutional
Commissions, the Ombudsman, or to any
firm or entity in which they have
controlling interest, during their tenure.
SECTION 17. A public officer or employee
shall, upon assumption of office and as
often thereafter as may be required by law,
submit a declaration under oath of his
assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case
of the President, the Vice-President, the
Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the
Supreme Court, the Constitutional
Commissions and other constitutional
offices, and officers of the armed forces
with general or flag rank, the declaration
shall be disclosed to the public in the
manner provided by law.
AN ACT FURTHER DEFINING THE
JURISDICTION OF
THE SANDIGANBAYAN, AMENDING FOR
THE PURPOSE PRESIDENTIAL DECREE
NO. 1606, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING
FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the Philippines in
Congress assembled:
SECTION 1. The first paragraph of Section
1 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as
amended, is hereby further amended to
read as follows:
“SECTION. 1. Sandiganbayan; Composition,
Qualifications; Tenure; Removal and
Compensation. – A special court, of the
same level as the Court of Appeals and
possessing all the inherent powers of a
court of justice, to be known as
the Sandiganbayan is hereby created
composed of a presiding justice and
fourteen associate justices who shall be
appointed by the President.”

SECTION 18. Public officers and employees SEC. 2. Section 2 of the same decree is
owe the State and this Constitution hereby further amended to read as
allegiance at all times, and any public follows:
officer or employee who seeks to change his
citizenship or acquire the status of an “SEC. 2. Official Station; Place of Holding
immigrant of another country during his Sessions. – The Sandiganbayan shall have
tenure shall be dealt with by law. its principal office in the Metro Manila
area and shall hold sessions thereat for
the trial and determination of cases filed
with it: Provided, however, That cases
COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 4
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

originating from the principal are officials occupying the following

geographical regions of the country, that
is, from Luzon, Visayas or Mindanao, shall
be heard in their respective regions of
origin except only when the greater
convenience of the accused and of the
witnesses, or other compelling
considerations require the contrary, in
which instance a case originating from
one geographical region may be heard in
another geographical region: Provided,
further, That for this purpose the
presiding justice shall authorize any
divisions of the court to hold sessions at
any time and place outside Metro Manila
and, where the interest of justice so
requires, outside the territorial
boundaries of the Philippines.
The Sandiganbayan may require the
services of the personnel and the use of
facilities of the courts or other
government offices where any of the
divisions is holding sessions and the
personnel of such courts or offices shall
be subject to the orders of
the Sandiganbayan.”
SEC. 3. The second paragraph of Section 3
of the same decree is hereby deleted.
SEC. 4. Section 4 of the same decree is
hereby further amended to read as
follows:
“a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as
amended, otherwise known as the Anti-
graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic
Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2,
Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal
Code, where one or more of the accused
COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER
positions in the government whether in a
permanent, acting or interim capacity, at
the time of the commission of the offense:
“(1) Officials of the executive branch
occupying the positions of regional
director and higher, otherwise classified
as Grade ’27’ and higher, of the
Compensation and Position Classification
Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758),
specifically including:
“(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors,
members of the sangguniang
panlalawigan and provincial treasurers,
assessors, engineers and other provincial
department heads;
“(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members
of the sangguniang panlungsod, city
treasurers, assessors engineers and other
city department heads;
“(c) Officials of the diplomatic service
occupying the position of consul and
higher;
“(d) Philippine army and air force
colonels, naval captains, and all officers of
higher rank;
“(e) Officers of the Philippine National
Police while occupying the position of
provincial director and those holding the
rank of senior superintendent or higher;
“(f) City and provincial prosecutors and
their assistants, and officials and

Page | 5
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

prosecutors in the Office of the salary grade ’27’ or higher, as prescribed

Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
“(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or
managers of government-owned or -
controlled corporations, state universities
or educational institutions or
foundations;
“(2) Members of Congress and officials
thereof classified as Grade ’27’ and up
under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989;
“(3) Members of the judiciary without
prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution;
“(4) Chairmen and members of
Constitutional Commissions, without
prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution; and
“(5) All other national and local officials
classified as Grade’27’and higher under
the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989.
“b. Other offenses or felonies whether
simple or complexed with other crimes
committed by the public officials and
employees mentioned in subsection a of
this section in relation to their office.
in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or
military or PNP officers mentioned above,
exclusive original jurisdiction thereof
shall be vested in the proper regional trial
court, metropolitan trial court, municipal
trial court and municipal circuit trial
court as the case may be, pursuant to
their respective jurisdiction as provided
in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.
“The Sandiganbayan shall exercise
exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final
judgments, resolutions or orders or
regional trial courts whether in the
exercise of their own original jurisdiction
or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein
provided.
“The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction over petitions for the
issuance of the writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary
writs and processes in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction and over petitions of similar
nature, including quo warranto, arising or
that may arise in cases filed or which may
be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2,
14 and 14-A, issued in
1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over
these petitions shall not be exclusive of
the Supreme Court.

“c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant “The procedure prescribed in Batas
to and in connection with Executive Order Pambansa Blg. 129, as well as the
Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986. implementing rules that the Supreme
Court has promulgated and may hereafter
“In cases where none of the accused are promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions
occupying positions corresponding to for review to the Court of Appeals, shall
COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 6
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

apply to appeals and petitions for review
filed with the Sandiganbayan. In all cases
elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from
the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court,
the Office of the Ombudsman, through its
special prosecutor, shall represent the
People of the Philippines, except in cases
filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1,
2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
“In case private individuals are charged as
co-principals, accomplices or accessories
with the public officers or employees,
including those employed in government-
owned or controlled corporations, they
shall be tried jointly with said public
officers and employees in the proper
courts which shall exercise exclusive
jurisdiction over them.
“Any provisions of law or Rules of Court
to the contrary notwithstanding, the
criminal action and the corresponding
civil action for the recovery of civil
liability shall at all times be
simultaneously instituted with, and
jointly determined in, the same
proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the
appropriate courts, the filing of the
criminal action being deemed to
necessarily carry with it the filing of the
civil action, and no right to reserve the
filing of such civil action separately from
the criminal action shall be
recognized: Provided, however, That
where the civil action had therefore been
filed separately but judgment therein has
not yet been rendered, and the criminal
case is hereafter filed with
the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate
COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER
court, said civil action shall be transferred
to the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate
court, as the case may be, for
consolidation and joint determination
with the criminal action, otherwise the
separate civil action shall be deemed
abandoned.”
SEC. 5. Section 7 of the same decree is
hereby further amended to read as
follows:
“SEC. 7. Form, Finality and Enforcement of
Decisions. – All decisions and final orders
determining the merits of a case or finally
disposing of the action or proceedings of
the Sandiganbayan shall contain complete
findings of the facts and the law on which
they are based, on all issues properly
raised before it and necessary in deciding
the case.
“A petition for reconsideration of any final
order or decision may be filed within
fifteen (15) days from promulgation or
notice of the final order on judgment, and
such motion for reconsideration shall be
decided within thirty (30) days from
submission thereon.
“Decisions and final orders of
the Sandiganbyan shall be appealable to
the Supreme Court by petition for review
on certiorari raising pure questions of law
in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court. Whenever, in any case decided by
the Sandiganbayan, the penalty
of reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment
or death is imposed, the decision shall be

Page | 7
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
appealable to the Supreme Court in the
manner prescribed in the Rules of Court.
“Judgments and orders of
the Sandiganbayan shall be executed and
enforced in the manner provided by law.
“Decisions and final orders of other courts
in cases cognizable by said courts under
this decree as well as those rendered by
them in the exercise of their appellate
jurisdiction shall be appealable to, or be
reviewable by, the Sandiganbayan in the
manner provided by Rule 122 of the Rules
of the Court.
“In case, however, the imposed penalty by
the Sandiganbayan or the regional trial
court in the proper exercise of their
respective jurisdictions, is death, review
by the Supreme Court shall be automatic,
whether or not accused files an appeal.”
SEC. 6. Appropriations. – The amount
necessary to carry out the initial
implementation of this Act shall be
charged against the current fiscal year
appropriations of the Sandiganbayan.
Thereafter, such sums as may be needed
for its continued implementation shall be
included in the annual General
Appropriations Act.
SEC. 7. Transitory Provision. – This Act
shall apply to all cases pending in any
court over which trial has not begun as of
the approval hereof.
SEC. 8. Separability of Provisions. – If for
any reason any provision of this Act is
COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER
declared unconstitutional or invalid, such
parts or portions not affected thereby
shall remain in full force and effect.
SEC. 9. Repealing Clause. – All acts,
decrees, general orders and circulars, or
parts thereof inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act are hereby repealed
or modified accordingly.
SEC. 10. Effectivity. – This Act shall take
effect fifteen (15) days after its complete
publication in at least two (2) newspapers
of general circulation.
Approved,
[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1379]
AN ACT DECLARING FORFEITURE IN
FAVOR OF THE STATE ANY PROPERTY
FOUND TO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY
ACQUIRED BY ANY PUBLIC OFFICER OR
EMPLOYEE AND PROVIDING FOR THE
PROCEEDINGS THEREFOR. Be it enacted
by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the Philippines in
Congress assembled:
Section 1. Definitions. –
(a) For the purposes of this Act, a "public
officer or employee" means any person
holding any public office or employment
by virtue of an appointment, election or
contract, and any person holding any
office or employment, by appointment or
Page | 8
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
contract, in any State owned or controlled
corporation or enterprise.
(b) "Other legitimately acquired
property" means any real or personal
property, money or securities which the
respondent has at any time acquired by
inheritance and the income thereof, or by
gift inter vivos before his becoming a
public officer or employee, or any
property (or income thereof) already
pertaining to him when he qualified for
public office or employment, or the fruits
and income of the exclusive property of
the respondent's spouse. It shall not
include:
1. Property unlawfully acquired by the
respondent, but its ownership is
concealed by its being recorded in the
name of, or held by, the respondent's
spouse, ascendants, descendants,
relatives, or any other person.
2. Property unlawfully acquired by the
respondent, but transferred by him to
another person or persons on or after the
effectivity of this Act.
3. Property donated to the respondent
during his incumbency, unless he can
prove to the satisfaction of the court that
the donation is lawful.
Section 2. Filing of petition. — Whenever
any public officer or employee has
acquired during his incumbency an
amount of property which is manifestly
out of proportion to his salary as such
public officer or employee and to his
other lawful income and the income from
COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER
legitimately acquired property, said
property shall be presumed prima facie to
have been unlawfully acquired. The
Solicitor General, upon complaint by any
taxpayer to the city or provincial fiscal
who shall conduct a previous inquiry
similar to preliminary investigations in
criminal cases and shall certify to the
Solicitor General that there is reasonable
ground to believe that there has been
committed a violation of this Act and the
respondent is probably guilty thereof,
shall file, in the name and on behalf of the
Republic of the Philippines, in the Court of
First Instance of the city or province
where said public officer or employee
resides or holds office, a petition for a
writ commanding said officer or
employee to show cause why the
property aforesaid, or any part thereof,
should not be declared property of the
State: Provided, That no such petition
shall be filed within one year before any
general election or within three months
before any special election.
The resignation, dismissal or separation
of the officer or employee from his office
or employment in the Government or in
the Government-owned or controlled
corporation shall not be a bar to the filing
of the petition: Provided, however, That
the right to file such petition shall
prescribe after four years from the date of
the resignation, dismissal or separation or
expiration of the term of the officer or
employee concerned, except as to those
who have ceased to hold office within ten
years prior to the approval of this Act, in
which case the proceedings shall
Page | 9
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
prescribe after four years from the
approval hereof.
Section 3. The petition. — The petition
shall contain the following information:
(a) The name and address of the
respondent.
(b) The public office or employment he
holds and such other public offices or
employment which he has previously held.
(c) The approximate amount of property
he has acquired during his incumbency in
his past and present offices and
employments.
(d) A description of said property, or such
thereof as has been identified by the
Solicitor General.
(e) The total amount of his government
salary and other proper earnings and
incomes from legitimately acquired
property, and
(f) Such other information as may enable
the court to determine whether or not the
respondent has unlawfully acquired
property during his incumbency.
Section 4. Period for the answer. — The
respondent shall have a period of fifteen
(15) days within which to present his
answer.
Section 5. Hearing. — The Court shall set
a date for a hearing, which may be open to
the public, and during which the
respondent shall be given ample
opportunity to explain, to the satisfaction
COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER
of the court, how he has acquired the
property in question.
Section 6. Judgment. — If the respondent
is unable to show to the satisfaction of the
court that he has lawfully acquired the
property in question, then the court shall
declare such property, forfeited in favor
of the State, and by virtue of such
judgment the property aforesaid shall
become property of the State: Provided,
That no judgment shall be rendered
within six months before any general
election or within three months before
any special election. The Court may, in
addition, refer this case to the
corresponding Executive Department for
administrative or criminal action, or both.
Section 7. Appeal. — The parties may
appeal from the judgment of the Court of
First Instance as provided in the Rules of
Court for appeals in civil cases.
Section 8. Protection against self-
incrimination. — Neither the respondent
nor any other person shall be excused
from attending and testifying or from
producing books, papers, correspondence,
memoranda and other records on the
ground that the testimony or evidence,
documentary or otherwise, required of
him may tend to incriminate him or
subject him to prosecution; but no
individual shall be prosecuted criminally
for or on account of any transaction,
matter or thing concerning which he is
compelled, after having claimed his
privilege against self-incrimination, to
testify or produce evidence, documentary
or otherwise, except that such individual
Page | 10
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

so testifying shall not be exempt from
prosecution and conviction for perjury or
false testimony committed in so testifying
or from administrative proceedings.
Section 9. Immunity. — The Solicitor
General may grant immunity from
criminal prosecution to any person who
testifies to the unlawful manner in which
the respondent has acquired any of the
property in question in cases where such
testimony is necessary to prove violations
of this Act.
Section 10. Effect of record of title. — The
fact that any real property has been
recorded in the Registry of Property or
office of the Register of Deeds in the name
of the respondent or of any person
mentioned in paragraphs (1) and (2) of
subsection (b) of section one hereof shall
not prevent the rendering of the judgment
referred to in section six of this Act.
Section 11. Laws on prescription. — The
laws concerning acquisitive prescription
and limitation of actions cannot be
invoked by, nor shall they benefit the
respondent, in respect of any property
unlawfully acquired by him.
Section 12. Penalties. — Any public officer
or employee who shall, after the effective
date of this Act, transfer or convey any
unlawfully acquired property shall be
repressed with imprisonment for a term
not exceeding five years, or a fine not
exceeding ten thousand pesos, or both
such imprisonment and fine. The same
repression shall be imposed upon any
person who shall knowingly accept such
transfer or conveyance.
Section 13. Separability of provisions. —
If any provision of this Act or the
application thereof to any person or
circumstance, is held invalid, the
remainder of the Act and the application
of such provision to other persons or
circumstances shall not be affected
thereby.
Section 14. Effective date. — This Act
shall take effect on its approval, and shall
apply not only to property thereafter
unlawfully acquired but also to property
unlawfully acquired before the effective
date of this Act. Approved: June 18 , 1955
ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. vs. THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
G.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003.
FACTS: On July 22, 2002, the House of
Representatives adopted a Resolution,
sponsored by Representative Felix
William D. Fuentebella, which directed
the Committee on Justice "to conduct an
investigation, in aid of legislation, on the
manner of disbursements and
expenditures by the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of the Judiciary
Development Fund (JDF)." On June 2,
2003, former President Joseph E. Estrada
filed an impeachment complaint against
Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and
seven Associate Justices of this Court for
"culpable violation of the Constitution,
betrayal of the public trust and other high

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 11
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

crimes." The complaint was endorsed by 2. Whether the resolution thereof is a

Representatives Rolex T. Suplico, Ronaldo
B. Zamora and Didagen Piang Dilangalen,
and was referred to the House Committee.
The House Committee on Justice ruled on
October 13, 2003 that the first
impeachment complaint was "sufficient in
form," but voted to dismiss the same on
October 22, 2003 for being insufficient in
substance. To date, the Committee Report
to this effect has not yet been sent to the
House in plenary in accordance with the
said Section 3(2) of Article XI of the
Constitution. Four months and three
weeks since the filing on June 2, 2003 of
the first complaint or on October 23, 2003,
a day after the House Committee on
Justice voted to dismiss it, the second
impeachment complaint was filed with
the Secretary General of the House by
Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr.
and Felix William B. Fuentebella against
Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., founded
on the alleged results of the legislative
inquiry initiated by above-mentioned
House Resolution. This second
impeachment complaint was
accompanied by a "Resolution of
Endorsement/Impeachment" signed by at
least one-third (1/3) of all the Members
of the House of Representatives.
political question – has resulted in a
political crisis.
HELD:
1. Having concluded that the initiation
takes place by the act of filing of the
impeachment complaint and referral to
the House Committee on Justice, the
initial action taken thereon, the meaning
of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes
clear. Once an impeachment complaint
has been initiated in the foregoing
manner, another may not be filed against
the same official within a one year period
following Article XI, Section 3(5) of the
Constitution. In fine, considering that the
first impeachment complaint, was filed by
former President Estrada against Chief
Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., along with
seven associate justices of this Court, on
June 2, 2003 and referred to the House
Committee on Justice on August 5, 2003,
the second impeachment complaint filed
by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr.
and Felix William Fuentebella against the
Chief Justice on October 23, 2003 violates
the constitutional prohibition against the
initiation of impeachment proceedings
against the same impeachable officer
within a one-year period.

ISSUES: 2.From the foregoing record of the

1. Whether or not the filing of the second proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional
impeachment complaint against Chief Commission, it is clear that judicial power
Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. with the is not only a power; it is also a duty, a
House of Representatives falls within the duty which cannot be abdicated by the
one year bar provided in the Constitution. mere specter of this creature called the
political question doctrine. Chief Justice
Concepcion hastened to clarify, however,
COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 12
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

that Section 1, Article VIII was not
intended to do away with "truly political
questions." From this clarification it is
gathered that there are two species of
political questions: (1) "truly political
questions" and (2) those which "are not
truly political questions." Truly political
questions are thus beyond judicial review,
the reason for respect of the doctrine of
separation of powers to be maintained.
On the other hand, by virtue of Section 1,
Article VIII of the Constitution, courts can
review questions which are not truly
political in nature.
KHAN VS. OMBUDSMAN
G.R. No. 125296, July 20, 2006
FACTS: Petitioners Ismael G. Khan, Jr. and
Wenceslao L. Malabanan, former officers
of Philippine Airlines (PAL), were charged
before the Deputy Ombudsman (Visayas)
with violation of RA 3019 (the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act) for using their
positions in PAL to secure a contract for
Synergy Services Corporation, a Petitioners
corporation engaged in hauling and
janitorial services in which they were
shareholders.
Petitioners filed an omnibus motion to
dismiss the complaint on the following
grounds: (1) the Ombudsman had no
jurisdiction over them since PAL was a
private entity and (2) they were not
public officers, hence, outside
theapplication of RA 3019.
The Deputy Ombudsman denied
petitioners' omnibus motion to dismiss,
ruling that although PAL was originally
organized as a private corporation, its
controlling stock was later acquired by
the government through the GSIS.
Therefore, it became a government-
owned or controlled corporation (GOCC)
as enunciated in Quimpo v. Tanodbayan.
The Deputy Ombudsman also held that
petitioners were public officers within the
definition of RA 3019, Section 2 (b).
Under that provision, public officers
included "elective, appointive officials and
employees, permanent or temporary,
whether in the classified or unclassified
orexempt service receiving compensation,
even nominal, from the Government."
Petitioners appealed the order to the
Ombudsman which affirmed the decision
of the Deputy Ombudsman.
Petitioners, thus, filed a petition for
certiorari before the Supreme Court.
argue that: (1) the
Ombudsman's jurisdiction only covers
GOCCs with original charters and these do
not include PAL, a private entity created
under the general corporation law; (2)
Quimpo does not apply to the case at bar
and (3) RA 3019 only concerns "public
officers," thus, they cannot be
investigated or prosecuted under that law.
ISSUE:

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 13
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

1. Whether or not the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over public officials/

jurisdiction over GOCC without original
charter
2. Whether or not the Quimpo case apply
to the case at bar
3. Whether or not petitioners PAL officers
are public officers
HELD:
1. Jurisdiction of the ombudsman over
GOCCS is confined only to those with
original charters
Article XI, Section 13(2) of the 1987
Constitution provides:
Sec. 13. The Office of the Ombudsman
shall have the following powers, functions,
and duties:
xxx xxx xxx
(2) Direct, upon complaint or at its own
instance, any public officialor employee of
the Government, or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, as well
as any government-owned or controlled
corporation with original charter, to
perform and expediteany act or duty
required by law, or to stop, prevent, and
correct any abuse or impropriety in the
performance of duties. (italics supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
Based on the foregoing provision, the
Office of the Ombudsman exercises
COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER
employees of GOCCs with original
charters. This being so, it can only
investigate and prosecute acts or
omissions of the officials/employees of
government corporations.
Therefore, although the government later
on acquired the controlling interest in
PAL, the fact remains that the latter did
not have an "original charter" and its
officers/employees could not be
investigated and/or prosecuted by the
Ombudsman.
In Juco v. National Labor Relations
Commission, we ruled that the phrase
"with original charter" means "chartered
by special law as distinguished from
corporations organized under the
Corporation Code." PAL, being originally a
private corporation seeded by private
capital and created under the general
corporation law, does not fall within the
jurisdictional powers of the Ombudsman
under Article XI, Section 13(2) of the
Constitution. Consequently, the latter is
devoid of authority to investigate or
prosecute petitioners.
2. Quimpo Not Applicable to the Case at
Bar
Quimpo is not applicable to the case at
bar. In that case, Felicito Quimpo charged
in 1984 two officers of PETROPHIL in the
Tanodbayan (now Ombudsman) for
violation of RA 3019. These officers
sought the dismissal of the case on the
ground that the Tanodbayan had no

Page | 14
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

jurisdiction over them as was qualified by the 1987 Constitution to

officers/employees of a private company.
The Court declared that the Tanodbayan
had jurisdiction over them because
PETROPHIL ceased to be a private entity
when Philippine National Oil Corporation
(PNOC) acquired its shares.
In hindsight, although Quimpo appears,
on first impression, relevant to this case
(like PETROPHIL, PAL's shares were also
acquired by the government), closer
scrutiny reveals that it is not actually on
all fours with the facts here.
In Quimpo, the government acquired
PETROPHIL to "perform functions related
to government programs and policies on
oil." The fact that the purpose in acquiring
PETROPHIL was for it to undertake
governmental functions related to oil was
decisive in sustaining the Tanodbayan's
jurisdiction over it. This was certainly not
the case with PAL. The records indicate
that the government acquired
thecontrolling interest in the airline as
a result of the conversion into equity of its
unpaid loans in GSIS. No governmental
functions at all were involved.
refer only to those with original charters.
3. Petitioners, as then Officers of PAL,
were not Public Officers
Neither the 1987 Constitution nor RA
6670 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989)
defines who "public officers" are. Instead,
its varied definitions and concepts are
found in different statutes and
jurisprudence. Usually quoted in our
decisions is Mechem, a recognized
authority on the subject. In the 2002 case
of Laurel v.Desierto,15 the Court
extensively quoted his exposition on the
term "public officers":
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.

Furthermore, Quimpo was decided prior The characteristics of a public office,

to the 1987 Constitution. In fact, it was
the 1973 Constitution which the Court
relied on in concluding that the
Tanodbayan had jurisdiction over
PETROPHIL's accused officers,
particularly Article XIII, Section 6. The
term "government-owned or controlled
corporations" in the 1973 Constitution
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.
xxx xxx xxx

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 15
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Mechem describes the delegation to the petitioners for violation of RA 3019.

individual of the sovereign functions of Accordingly, their assailed orders of July
government as "[t]he most important 13, 1989 and February 22, 1996,
characteristic" in determining whether a respectively, are SET ASIDE and
position is a public office or not. ANNULLED.

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 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6770
functions of government to be exercised
by him for the benefit of the public; − that
some portion of the sovereignty of the AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE
country, either legislative, executive, or FUNCTIONAL AND STRUCTURAL
judicial, attaches, for the time being, to be ORGANIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE
exercised for the public benefit. Unless OMBUDSMAN AND FOR OTHER
the powers conferred are of this nature, PURPOSES.
the individual is not a public officer.

From the foregoing, it can be reasonably Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as “The Ombuds
inferred that "public officers" are those
endowed with the exercise of sovereign Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State shall maintain h
executive, legislative or judicial functions. service and take positive and effective measures against
The explication of the term is also Public office is a public trust and must at all times be acc
consistent with the Court's with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, efficiency,
pronouncement in Quimpo that, in the lead modest lives.
case of officers/employees in GOCCs, they
are deemed "public officers" if their Sec. 3. Office of the Ombudsman. - The Office of the Ombu
corporations are tasked to carry out Overall Deputy, the Office of the Deputy for Luzon, the O
governmental functions. Office of the Deputy for Mindanao, the Office of the Dep
Office of the Special Prosecutor. The President may appo
for it may arise, as recommended by the Ombudsman.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby
GRANTED. Public respondents Deputy Sec. 4. Appointment. - The Ombudsman and his Deputie
Ombudsman (Visayas) and Office of the shall be appointed by the President from a list of at
Ombudsman are restrained from prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council, and from a l
proceeding with the investigation or vacancy thereafter, which shall be filled within three (
prosecution of the complaint against which list shall be published in a newspaper of general ci
COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 16
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

In the organization of the Office of the Ombudsman any business,

for filling
or beup financially
of positionsinterested
therein,in any contract
regional, cultural or ethnic considerations shall privilege
be taken granted
into account
by thetogovernment
the end thatorthe any subdivision
Office shall be as much as possible representativeincluding
of the regional,
government-owned
ethnic and cultural
or controlled
make- corporation
up of the Filipino nation. strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their o
run for any office in the election immediately followin
Sec. 5. Qualifications. - The Ombudsman and his Deputies,
shall not including
be allowed the toSpecial
appearProsecutor,
or practice before th
shall be natural born citizens of the Philippines, following
at least forty
their(40)
cessation
years old,
fromofoffice.
recognized
probity and independence, members of the Philippine Bar, and must not have been
candidates for any elective national or local office
No spouse
in the immediately
or relative bypreceding
consanguinity election
or affinity within
whether regular or special. The Ombudsman must business
have, foror ten
professional
(10) yearspartneror more, orbeen
associate
a of the Om
judge or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.
Prosecutor within one (1) year preceding the appointme
on any matter pending before the Office of the Ombudsm
Sec. 6. Rank and Salary. - The Ombudsman and indirectly
his Deputiestherewith.
shall have the same ranks,
salaries and privileges as the Chairman and members, respectively of a Constitutional
Commission. Their salaries shall not be decreasedThis
during disqualification
their term of office.
shall apply during the tenure
The members of the prosecution, investigation disqualification
and legal staff likewise
of the extends
Officetoofthethelaw, business
Ombudsman shall receive salaries which shall not period.chan
be less than robles
those
virtual
given law
tolibrary
comparable
positions in any office in the Government.
Sec. 10. Disclosure of Relationship. - It shall be the duty
Sec. 7. Term of Office. - The Ombudsman and his Deputies,
including including
the Specialthe Prosecutor
Special Prosecutor,
to make under oath, to
shall serve for a term of seven (7) years without reappointment.
information, a public disclosure of the identities of, and
referred to in the preceding section.
Sec. 8. Removal; Filling of Vacancy. -
The disclosure shall be filed with the Office of the
(1) In accordance with the provisions of Article XIOmbudsman
of theConstitution,
before thetreason,
appointee
bribery,
assumes
graft office and ev
and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public
made pursuant
trust. to this section shall form part of the pub
(2) A Deputy, or the Special Prosecutor, may beany removed from person office by the President or for entity
any of the grounds provided for the removal of the Ombudsman, and after due process.
(3) In case of vacancy in the Office of the Ombudsman
Sec. 11.
due Structural
to death,Organization.
resignation, removal
- The authority
or and re
permanent disability of the incumbent Ombudsman mandateshallofhave
the Office
been of appointed
the Ombudsman
for a fulland for the dis
term. In case the Overall Deputy cannot assume shallthe
be vested
role ofin Acting
the Ombudsman,
Ombudsman, who the
shall have superv
President may designate any of the deputies, or the Special Prosecutor, as Acting
Ombudsman. (1) The Office of the Ombudsman may organize such d
(4) In case of temporary absence or disability ofallied
the Ombudsman,
services as the mayOverall
be necessary
Deputy shall for the effective
perform the duties of the Ombudsman until the appointed
Ombudsman as directors
returns ororisheadsable to
shall
perform
have the rank and s
his duties.
(2) The Office of the Overall Deputy shall oversee and
Sec. 9. Prohibition and Disqualifications. - The Ombudsman,
different officeshis under
Deputies theandOffice
theofSpecial
the Ombudsman. it
Prosecutor shall not, during their tenure, hold anyfunctions
other office
and duties
or employment.
assigned to Theyit by the
shall
Ombudsman.
not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly practice any other profession, participate in
COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 17
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

(3) The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall be composed

following powers,
of the Special
functions
Prosecutor
and duties: and his
prosecution staff. The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall be an organic component of the
Office of the Ombudsman and shall be under the supervision
(1) Investigateandand control
prosecute
of the Ombudsman.
on its own or on complaint
of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when
(4) The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall, under
illegal,
theunjust,
supervision
improperand orcontrol
inefficient.
and uponIt has primary ju
the authority of the Ombudsman, have the following the powers:
Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of his primary ju
stage, from any investigatory agency of government, the
(a) To conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal cases within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan; (2) Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance,
(b) To enter into plea bargaining agreements; andGovernment, or of any subdivision, agency or instru
(c) To perform such other duties assigned to it bygovernment-owned
the Ombudsman. or controlled corporations with
The Special Prosecutor shall have the rank and salary
expedite
of a Deputy
any actOmbudsman.
or duty required by law, or to stop,
impropriety in the performance of duties;
(5) The position structure and staffing pattern of the Office of the Ombudsman, including
the Office of the Special Prosecutor, shall be approved
(3) Direct
and prescribed
the officer by concerned
the Ombudsmanto take appropriate
shall appoint all officers and employees of the Office
employee
of the Special
at faultProsecutor,
or who neglectsin accordance
to perform an act or di
with the civil service law, rules and regulations. recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, ce
compliance therewith; or enforce its disciplinary author
Sec. 12. Official Stations. - The Ombudsman, the Overall
Act: Provided,
Deputy,That the the
Deputy
refusal
forbyLuzon,
any officer
and without jus
the Deputy for the Armed Forces shall hold officethein Metropolitan
OmbudsmanManila; to remove,
the Deputy
suspend, for the
demote, fine, ce
Visayas, in Cebu City; and the Deputy for Mindanao,employee
in Davao
who City.
is at fault
The Ombudsman
or who neglects mayto perform an
transfer their stations within their respective geographical
law shall beregions,
a groundasfor public
disciplinary
interestaction
may against said
require.
(4) Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case,
Sec. 13. Mandate. - The Ombudsman and his Deputies,may provide
as protectors
in its rules
of theofpeople,
procedures,
shall actto furnish it wi
promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner contracts
against
or transactions
officers or employees
entered into of the
by his office inv
government, or of any subdivision, agencypublic or instrumentality
funds or properties, thereof,
and including
report any irregularit
government-owned or controlled corporations, and appropriate
enforce action;
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. (5) Request any government agency for assistance a
discharge of its responsibilities, and to examine, if
Sec. 14. Restrictions. - No writ of injunction shall
documents;
be issued by any court to delay an
investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman under this Act, unless there is a prima
facie evidence that the subject matter of the investigation
(6) Publicizeis outside
mattersthe covered
jurisdiction
by its of investigation
the of the
Office of the Ombudsman. (1), (2), (3) and (4) hereof, when circumstanc
No court shall hear any appeal or application for prudence:
remedy against
Provided,the that
decision
the or
Ombudsman
findings of under its rul
the Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court, on pure whatquestion
cases mayof law.chan
not be robles
made virtual
public:law Provided further
library Ombudsman shall be balanced, fair and true;

Sec. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. - The Office

(7) Determine
of the Ombudsman
the causes ofshall
inefficiency,
have thered tape, misma
COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 18
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

the government and make recommendations forfurtherance

their elimination
of its constitutional
and the observance
functions
of and statutory
high standards of ethics and efficiency; under this and the immediately preceding paragraph
criminal prosecution for perjury or false testimony nor s
(8) Administer oaths, issue subpoena and subpoenaremoval
ducesfrom
tecum,
office.
and take testimony in any
investigation or inquiry, including the power to examine
Any refusal
andto have
appear
access
or to
testify
bank pursuant
accounts to the aforec
and records; punishment for prompt contempt and removal of the imm

(9) Punish for contempt in accordance with the Sec. Rules

18. Rulesof of
Court
Procedure.
and under
- the same
procedure and with the same penalties provided therein;
(1) The Office of the Ombudsman shall promulgate its r
(10) Delegate to the Deputies, or its investigatorsexercise
or representatives
or performance suchof authority
its powers,or duty
functions, and dut
as shall ensure the effective exercise or performance(2) The of rules
the powers,
of procedure
functions,
shalland
include
dutiesa provision w
herein or hereinafter provided; suppletory.
(3) The rules shall take effect after fifteen days following
(11) Investigate and initiate the proper action in the
for Official
the recovery
Gazette ofor ill-gotten
in three (3) and/or
newspapers of ge
unexpired wealth amassed after February 25, one 1986of and
which the
is printed
prosecution
in theofnational
the parties
language.
involved therein.
The Ombudsman shall give priority to complaints Sec.filed
19. Administrative
against high ranking
Complaints.
government
- The Ombudsman s
officials and/or those occupying supervisory positions,
but notcomplaints
limited to acts
involving
or omissions
grave offenses
which:
as well as complaints involving large sums of money and/or properties.
(1) Are contrary to law or regulation;
Sec. 16. Applicability. - The provisions of this Act (2)
shallAre
apply
unreasonable,
to all kindsunfair,
of malfeasance,
oppressiveand or discriminator
non-feasance that have been committed by any officer (3) Are orinconsistent
employee aswith mentioned
the general
in Section
course of an agenc
13 hereof, during his tenure of office. with law; Proceed from a mistake of law or an arbitrar
exercise of discretionary powers but for an improper p
Sec. 17. Immunities. - In all hearings, inquiries, immoral
and proceedings
or devoid of justification.
of the Ombudsman,
including preliminary investigations of offenses, no person subpoenaed to testify as a
witness shall be excused from attending and testifying
Sec. 20.or Exceptions.
from producing
- The Office
books, ofpapers,
the Ombudsman
correspondence, memoranda and/or other records investigation
on the ground
of any administrative
that the testimony act ororomission comp
evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him, may tend to incriminate him or
subject him to prosecution: Provided, That no person (1) The shall
complainant
be prosecuted
has ancriminally
adequate forremedy
or in another
on account of any matter concerning which he(2)is The compelled,
complaintafterpertains
having to claimed
a matterthe outside the
privilege against self-incrimination, to testify Ombudsman;
and produce evidence, documentary or
otherwise. chan robles virtual law library (3) The complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made
(4) The complainant has no sufficient personal inte
Under such terms and conditions as it may determine grievance; taking
or into account the pertinent
provisions of the Rules of Court, the Ombudsman (5) Themaycomplaint
grant immunity
was filedfrom aftercriminal
one year from the
prosecution to any person whose possession complained and production of. of documents or other
evidence may be necessary to determine the truth in any hearing, inquiry or proceeding
being conducted by the Ombudsman or under its Sec.
authority,
21. Officials
in the
Subject
performance
to Disciplinary
or in Authority;
the Excepti
COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 19
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

shall have disciplinary authority over all elective The

and appointive
preventive officials
suspension
of the
shall
Government
continue until the case
and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies,
Ombudsman
including Members
but not more
of thethan
Cabinet,
six months,
local without p
government, government-owned or controlled corporations
disposition ofand
thetheir
casesubsidiaries,
by the Officeexcept
of the Ombudsma
over officials who may be removed only by impeachment
petition of
or the
overrespondent,
Members ofinCongress,
which case,
and the period of
the Judiciary. computing the period of suspension herein provided.

Sec. 22. Investigatory Power. - The Office of the Sec.Ombudsman

25. Penalties.shall
- have the power to
investigate any serious misconduct in office allegedly
(1) In committed
administrative
by officials
proceedings
removable
under byPresidential Dec
impeachment, for the purpose of filing a verified complaint
provided therein
for impeachment,
shall be applied.
if warranted.
In all cases of conspiracy between an officer or employee
(2) In otherof the
administrative
governmentproceedings,
and a private the penalty ran
person, the Ombudsman and his Deputies shallfor haveonejurisdiction
year to dismissal
to includewithsuch
forfeiture
privateof benefits or
person in the investigation and proceed against pesos
such private
(P5,000.00)
person to as
twice
the the
evidence
amountmay malversed, ille
warrant. The officer or employee and the privatediscretion
person shall
of the
be tried
Ombudsman,
jointly andtaking
shall into
be considerati
subject to the same penalties and liabilities. aggravate the liability of the officer or employee found gu

Sec. 23. Formal Investigation. - Sec. 26. Inquiries. -

(1) The Office of the Ombudsman shall inquire into ac
(1) Administrative investigations conducted by employee,
the Office of office
the orOmbudsman
agency which, shall from
be in the reports o
accordance with its rules of procedure and consistent
Ombudsman
with due or process.chan
his Deputies consider
robles virtual
to be:
law library
(2) At its option, the Office of the Ombudsman may(a) contrary
refer certain
to law complaints
or regulation;
to the proper
disciplinary authority for the institution of appropriate
(b) unreasonable,
administrative unfair,
proceedings
oppressive,against
irregular or inconsi
erring public officers or employees, which shall be
operations
terminated andwithin
functions
the period
of a public
prescribed
officer, employee, of
in the civil service law. Any delay without just cause
(c) aninerror
actinginontheany
application
referral madeor interpretation
by the of law,
Office of the Ombudsman shall be a ground for administrative
palpable erroraction
in the against
appreciation
the officers
of facts;
or
employees to whom such referrals are addressed (d) based
and onshall
improper
constitute
motives
a graft
or corrupt
offenseconsiderations
punishable by a fine of not exceeding five thousand
(e)pesos
unclear
(P5,000.00).
or inadequately explained when reasons shou
(3) In any investigation under this Act, the Ombudsman
(f) inefficiently
mayperformed
(a) enter or and otherwise
inspect the
objectionable.
premises of any office, agency, commission or tribunal; (b) examine and have access to any
book, record, file document or paper; and (c) (2)hold
The Office
privateof hearings
the Ombudsman
with both shallthe
receive compla
complaining individual and the official concerned.form concerning an official act or omission. It shall act o
it finds the same entirely baseless, it shall dismiss the s
Sec. 24. Preventive Suspension. - The Ombudsmansuch or his
dismissal
Deputy citing
may preventively
the reasons suspend
therefor. If it finds a
any officer or employee under his authority pending
further,
an investigation,
it shall first furnish
if in his the
judgment,
respondent
the public offic
evidence of guilt is strong, and the complaint and require him to submit a written answ
(a) the charge against such officer or employeereceipt
involves thereof.
dishonesty,
If the answer
oppression
is found
or grave
satisfactory, it shal
misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty;
(b) the charges would warrant removal from the service; or
(c) the respondent’s continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him.

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 20
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

reiterated in the subsequent case of

VILLAVERT VS. DESIERTO Namuhe v. Ombudsman.

FACTS: An administrative charge for

grave misconduct was filed against
Villavert, Sales & Promotion Supervisor of
PCSO Cebu Branch. The Graft
Investigation Officer recommended the
dismissal of the case. However, Deputy
Ombudsman-Visayas issued
a Memorandum finding Villavert guilty of
the charge. Hence, this petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, in relation to Sec. 27 of RA 6770.
Issue: May decisions of the Ombudsman
in administrative cases be appealed to the
Supreme Court?
Held: No. In Fabian vs. Desierto, Sec. 27 of
RA 6770, which authorizes an appeal to
this Court from decisions of the Office of
the Ombudsman in
administrative disciplinary cases, was
declared violative of the proscription in
Sec. 30, Art. VI, of the Constitution against
a law which increases
the appellate jurisdiction of this Court
without its advice and consent. In
addition, the Court noted that Rule 45 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure precludes appeals from quasi-
judicial agencies, like the Office of the
Ombudsman, to the Supreme Court.
Consequently, appeals from decisions of
the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative cases should be taken to
the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, as
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v.
GERTRUDES MADRIAGA and ANA
MARIE BERNARDO
503 SCRA 631 (2006), THIRD DIVISION
(Carpio Morales, J.)
The Ombudsman’s authority to impose
administrative penalty and enforce
compliance therewith is not merely
recommendatory but mandatory within
the bounds of the law.
FACTS: The San Juan School Club filed a
letter-complaint filed before the Office of
the Ombudsman charging Gertrudes
Madriaga, school principal of San Juan
Elementary School and Ana Marie
Bernardo, Canteen Manager of the same
school, with violation of Section 1 of Rule
IV and Section 1 of Rule VI of the Rules
Implementing Republic Act (R.A.) No.
6713 otherwise known as the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees. They were
subsequently found guilty of the offense
charged. Consequently, they were meted
out the penalty of six (6) months
imprisonment.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals declared
that the six-month suspension meted out
by the Office of the Ombudsman to
Madriaga and Bernardo (Gertrudes) is
merely recommendatory to the

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 21
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Department of Education, the Office of the usurpation by the Ombudsman of the

Ombudsman filed the present Petition for
Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Office of the
Ombudsman has the authority to impose
administrative sanctions over public
officials
HELD: Article XI, Section 13 of the 1987
Constitution grants the Ombudsman
administrative disciplinary power to
direct the officer concerned to take
appropriate action against a public official
or employee at fault, and recommend his
removal, suspension, demotion, fine,
censure, or prosecution, and ensure
compliance therewith.
Section 15(3) of R.A. No. 6770 echoes the
constitutional grant to the Ombudsman of
the power to ―recommend‖ the
imposition of penalty on erring public
officials and employees and ensure
compliance therewith.
The Court notes that the proviso above
qualifies the "order" "to remove, suspend,
demote, fine, censure, or prosecute" an
officer or employee — akin to the
questioned issuances in the case at bar.
That the refusal, without just cause, of any
officer to comply with such an order of
the Ombudsman to penalize an erring
officer or employee is a ground for
disciplinary action, is a strong indication
that the Ombudsman's "recommendation"
is not merely advisory in nature but is
actually mandatory within the bounds of
law. This should not be interpreted as
COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER
authority of the head of office or any
officer concerned. It has long been settled
that the power of the Ombudsman to
investigate and prosecute any illegal act
or omission of any public official is not an
exclusive authority but a shared or
concurrent authority in respect of the
offense charged. By stating therefore that
the Ombudsman "recommends" the
action to be taken against an erring officer
or employee, the provisions in the
Constitution and in R.A. 6770 intended
that the implementation of the order be
coursed through the proper officer, which
in this case would be the head of the BID.
The word "recommend" in Sec. 15(3)
must thus be read in conjunction with the
phrases "ensure compliance therewith" or
"enforce its disciplinary authority as
provided in Section 21" of R.A. No. 6770.
In fine, the Ombudsman's authority to
impose administrative penalty and
enforce compliance therewith is not
merely recommendatory. It is mandatory
within the bounds of the law. The
implementation of the order imposing the
penalty is, however, to be coursed
through the proper officer.
GUTIERREZ VS HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON
JUSTICE 415 SCRA 44
JUNE 1, 2012 ACCOUNTABILITY OF
PUBLIC OFFICERS FILING AND
REFERRAL IMPEACHMENT MERCEDITAS

Page | 22
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

GUTIERREZOMBUDSMAN ONE-YEAR petitioner endorsed by Representatives

BAR Colmenares, Casiño, Mariano, Ilagan, Tinio
Certiorari and prohibition and De Jesus

QuickGuide: Petitioner-Ombudsman – HOR provisionally adopted the Rules of

challenges House Resolutions of Sept. 1 and 7,
2010 finding two impeachment complaints
against the petitioner, simultaneously
referred to the House Committee on Justice,
sufficient in form and substance on grounds
that she was denied due process and that the
said resolutions violated the one-year bar
rule on initiating impeachment proceedings
for impeachable officers. Court dismissed the
petition.
Procedure on Impeachment Proceedings of
the 14th Congress and HOR Sec-Gen
transmitted the complaint to House Speaker
Belmonte who then, on August 9, directed the
Committee on Rules to include it in the Order
of Business
– 11Aug2010: HOR simultaneously
referred the two complaints to the House
Committee on Justice (HCOJ for brevity)

FACTS: – After hearing, HCOJ by Resolution of

– 22July2010: 4 days before the
15th Congress opened its first session, private
respondents Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel,
Danilo Lim and spouses Pestaño (Baraquel
group) filed an impeachment complaint
against Gutierrez upon endorsement of
Party-List Representatives Walden Bello and
Arlene Bag-ao
– 27July2010: HOR Sec-Gen transmitted
the complaint to House Speaker Belmonte
who then, on August 2, directed the
Committee on Rules to include it in the Order
of Business
– 3Aug2010: private respondents Renato
Reyes Jr., Mother Mary John Mananzan,
Danilo Ramos, Edre Olalia, Ferdinand Gaite
and James Terry Ridon (Reyes group) filed an
impeachment complaint againsta herein
September 1, 2010, found both complaints
sufficient in form
– 2Sept2010: The Rules of Procedure of
Impeachment Proceedings of the
15 Congress was published
th
– After hearing, HCOJ by Resolution of
September 7, 2010 found the two complaints,
which both allege culpable violation of the
Constitution and betrayal of public trust,
sufficient in substance
– Petitioner filed petitions for certiorari
and prohibition challenging Resolutions of
September 1 and 7 alleging that she was
denied due process and that these violated
the one-year bar rule on initiating
impeachment proceedings

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 23
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

ISSUE(s): exercise of such discretion, through the

1. Whether the case presents a justiciable
controversy
2. Whether the belated publication of the
Rules of Procedure of Impeachment
Proceedings of the 15th Congress denied
due process to the Petitioner
3. Whether the simultaneous referral of the
two complaints violated the Constitution
RULING: Petition DISMISSED.
Ratio:
1. NOT A POLITICAL QUESTION
power of judicial review
2. DUE PROCESS: Is there a need to
publish as a mode of promulgation
the Rules of Procedure of
Impeachment Proceedings?
– (P) alleges that the finding of sufficiency
in form and substance of the impeachment
complaints is tainted with bias as the
Chairman of the HCOJ’s, Rep. Tupas, father
has a pending case with her at the
Sandiganbayan

– Francisco Jr. vs HOR: Judicial review is not – Presumption of regularity

only a power but a duty of the judiciary
– the 1987 Constitution, though vesting in the
House of Representatives the exclusive
power to initiate impeachment cases,
provides for several limitations to the
exercise of such power as embodied
in Section 3(2), (3), (4) and (5), Article
XI thereof. These limitations include
the manner of filing, required vote to impeach,
and the one year bar on the impeachment of
one and the same official.
-the Constitution did not intend to leave the
matter of impeachment to the sole discretion
of Congress. Instead, it provided for certain
well-defined limits, or in the language
of Baker v. Carr, “judicially discoverable
standards” for determining the validity of the
– The determination of sufficiency of
form and exponent of the express grant of
rule-making power in the HOR
– the Impeachment Rules are clear in
echoing the constitutional requirements
and providing that there must be
a “verified complaint or resolution”, and
that the substance requirement is met if
there is “a recital of facts constituting the
offense charged and determinative of the
jurisdiction of the committee”
– The Constitution itself did not provide
for a specific method of promulgating the
Rules.

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 24
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

– impeachment is primarily for the

protection of the people as a body politic, and
not for the punishment of the offender

3. THE ONE-YEAR BAR RULE

– (P): start of the one-year bar from

the filing of the first impeachment complaint
against her on July 22, 2010 or four days
before the opening on July 26, 2010 of the
15th Congress. She posits that within one A.M. No. 99-2-02-SC February 9,
year from July 22, 2010, no second 1999
impeachment complaint may be accepted
and referred to public respondent. IN RE: DENIAL OF APPEAL FROM ANY
DECISION OR FINAL RESOLUTION OR
ORDER OF THE OMBUDSMAN IN
– INITIATIVE: Filing of impeachment ADMINISTRATIVE CASES AND
complaint coupled with Congress’ taking DISMISSAL OF SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION
initial action of said complaint (referral of the RELATIVE TO SUCH DECISION,
complaint to the Committee on Justice) RESOLUTION OR ORDER

– IMPEACH: to file the case before the
Senate
– Rationale of the one-year bar: “that the
purpose of the one-year bar is two-fold: 1)”to
prevent undue or too frequent harassment;
and 2) to allow the legislature to do its
principal task [of] legislation,”
“…that there should only be ONE CANDLE
that is kindled in a year, such that once the
candle starts burning, subsequent
matchsticks can no longer rekindle the
candle.” (Gutierrez vs. HOR, 2011)
In light of the decision in Fabian v.
Ombudsman (G.R. No. 129742, 16
September 1998), any appeal by way of
petition for review from a decision or
final resolution or order of the
Ombudsman in administrative cases, or
special civil action relative to such
decision, resolution or order filed with
the Court after 15 March 1999 shall no
longer be referred to the Court of Appeals,
but must be forthwith DENIED or
DISMISSED respectively.
Let this Resolution be published in two
newspapers of general circulation in the
Philippines and copies thereof furnished

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 25
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and

the Ombudsman.

Promulgated this 9th day of February

1999.

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

“Fall down seven times, get up eight...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 26