Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

LAUREL v.

DESIERTO
April 12, 2002 | Kapunan, J. | Public Officers
Digester: Chua, Gian Angelo

SUMMARY: The Ombudsman sought to indict petitioner former Vice President Salvador Laurel for graft and corruption, among
others, for alleged anomalies during his tenure as Chair of the National Centennial Commission (NCC). NCC was mandated to take
charge of the nationwide preparations for the National Celebration of the Philippine Centennial of the Declaration of Philippine
Independence and the Inauguration of the Malolos Congress. Petitioner filed a petition with the SC arguing that the Ombudsman had
no jurisdiction over him because he, as Chair of the NCC, was not a public officer because the following elements of a public office
were missing: (1) the delegation of sovereign functions; (2) salary, since he purportedly did not receive any compensation; and (3)
continuance, the life of the NCC being temporary (ad-hoc). SC denied petitioner’s petition and held that the NCC was a public office
and that petitioner was therefore a public officer.
DOCTRINE: (1) Delegation of Sovereign Functions: We hold that the NCC performs executive functions. The executive power is
generally defined as the power to enforce and administer the laws. It is the power of carrying the laws into practical operation and
enforcing their due observance. The executive function, therefore, concerns the implementation of the policies as set forth by law.
NCC implements policies set forth by the constitution and other issuances.
(2) Salary: A salary is a usual but not a necessary criterion for determining the nature of the position. It is not conclusive. The salary
is a mere incident and forms no part of the office.
(3) Continuance: The element of continuance cannot be considered as indispensable, for, if the other elements are present it can
make no difference, whether there be but one act or a series of acts to be done, whether the office expires as soon as the one act is
done, or is to be held for years or during good behavior.

FACTS:
 President Corazon Aquino issued AO 223 constituting a Committee for the preparation of the National Centennial Celebration in
1998.
 Subsequently, President Fidel Ramos issued EO 128, reconstituting the Committee, renaming it as National Centennial
Commission (NCC). Appointed to chair was Vice President Salvador Laurel (petitioner).
 The NCC was mandated to take charge of the nationwide preparations for the National Celebration of the Philippine Centennial of
the Declaration of Philippine Independence and the Inauguration of the Malolos Congress.
 Subsequently, a corporation named the Philippine Centennial Expo 98 Corporation (Expocorp) was created. Petitioner was
an incorporator, a director, and was elected Expocorp Chief Executive Officer.
 Senator Ana Dominique Coseteng delivered a privilege speech in the Senate denouncing alleged anomalies in the construction
and operation of the Centennial Exposition Project at the Clark Special Economic Zone. This was referred to the Blue Ribbon
Committee for investigation.
 President Joseph Estrada issued AO 35, creating an ad hoc and independent citizens committee to investigate all the facts and
circumstances surrounding the Philippine centennial projects, including its component activities. Former Senator Rene Saguisag
was appointed to chair the Committee (Saguisag Committee).
 The Blue Ribbon Committee and the Saguisag Committee, issuing separate reports, recommended the further investigation by
the Ombudsman and indictment of petitioner for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), and Article 217
of the RPC, among others.
 The Fact-finding and Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman conducted preliminary investigation. It later issued a
resolution finding probable cause to indict petitioner. Ombudsman Aniano Desierto approved the resolution.
 Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the SC assailing the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman alleging that he (petitioner), as
Chair of the NCC, was not a public officer.

RULING: Petition denied.

Whether petitioner, as Chair of NCC, was a public officer – YES.


 Neither the Constitution nor the Ombudsman Act of 1989 defines who public officers are. A definition of public officers cited in
jurisprudence is that provided by Mechem, a recognized authority on the subject:
o A public office is the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for a given period, either
fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the
sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public. The individual so
invested is a public officer.
 The characteristics of a public office, according to Mechem, include the delegation of sovereign functions, its creation by law and
not by contract, an oath, salary, continuance of the position, scope of duties, and the designation of the position as an office.
 Petitioner submits that some of these characteristics are not present in the position of NCC Chair, namely: (1) the delegation of
sovereign functions; (2) salary, since he purportedly did not receive any compensation; and (3) continuance, the tenure of the
NCC being temporary.

I. Delegation of Sovereign Functions


 Mechem describes the delegation to the individual of some of the sovereign functions of government as the most important
characteristic in determining whether a position is a public office or not.
 We hold that the NCC performs executive functions. The executive power is generally defined as the power to enforce and
administer the laws. It is the power of carrying the laws into practical operation and enforcing their due observance. The
executive function, therefore, concerns the implementation of the policies as set forth by law.

(1) The NCC implements policies


 Section 15, Article XIV, 1987 Constitution – Arts and letters shall enjoy the patronage of the State. The State shall
conserve, promote, and popularize the nations historical and cultural heritage and resources, as well as artistic creations.
 Preamble, AO 223 – x x x Whereas, the centennial can effectively showcase Filipino heritage and thereby strengthen Filipino
values. x x x
 EO 128 – Cited the need to strengthen the said Committee to ensure a more coordinated and synchronized celebrations of the
Philippine Centennial and wider participation from the government and non-government or private organizations. It also referred
to the need to rationalize the relevance of historical links with other countries.
 The NCC was precisely created to execute the foregoing policies and objectives, to carry them into effect. Thus, the
Commission was vested with the following functions – x x x (a) To undertake the overall study, conceptualization, formulation
and implementation of programs and projects on the utilization of culture, arts, literature and media as vehicles for history,
economic endeavors, and reinvigorating the spirit of national unity and sense of accomplishment in every Filipino in the context
of the Centennial Celebrations. x x x (see notes for list)
 It bears noting the President, upon whom the executive power is vested, created the NCC by executive order. Book III, Chapter
2, Section 2, Administrative Code of 1987 describes the nature of executive orders – Acts of the President providing for rules of
a general or permanent character in implementation or execution of constitutional or statutory powers shall be promulgated in
executive orders.
 Moreover, NCC had a role in the countrys economic development, especially in Central Luzon. Petitioner himself admitted in the
oral arguments: x x x When I was made Chairman I wanted the Expo to be in Batangas because I am a Batangeno but President
Ramos said Mr. Vice President the Central Luzon is suffering, suffering because of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo let us try to
catalize economic recovery in that area by putting this Expo in Clark Field and so it was done I agreed and Your Honor if I may
also mention we wanted to generate employment aside from attracting business investments and employment. x x x
 There can hardly be any dispute that the promotion of industrialization and full employment is a fundamental state policy.

(2) Petitioner invokes Torio vs. Fontanilla where it was held that the holding by a municipality of a town fiesta is a proprietary rather
than a governmental function. Petitioner argues that the holding of a nationwide celebration which marked the nations 100 th birthday
may be likened to a national fiesta which involved only the exercise of the national governments proprietary function.
 Torio, however, did not intend to lay down an all-encompassing doctrine. Note that the Court cautioned that there can be no
hard and fast rule for purposes of determining the true nature of an undertaking or function of a municipality; the surrounding
circumstances of a particular case are to be considered and will be decisive.
 Surely, a town fiesta cannot compare to the National Centennial Celebrations. The Centennial Celebrations was meant to
commemorate the birth of our nation after centuries of struggle against our former colonial master, to memorialize the liberation
of our people from oppression by a foreign power. 1998 marked 100 years of independence and sovereignty as one united
nation. The Celebrations was an occasion to reflect upon our history and reinvigorate our patriotism and was a vehicle for
fostering nationhood and a strong sense of Filipino identity, an opportunity to showcase Filipino heritage and thereby strengthen
Filipino values.

(3) Clearly, the NCC performs sovereign functions. It is, therefore, a public office, and petitioner, as its Chair, is a public officer.

II. Compensation
 That petitioner allegedly did not receive any compensation during his tenure is of little consequence.
 A salary is a usual but not a necessary criterion for determining the nature of the position. It is not conclusive. The
salary is a mere incident and forms no part of the office. Where a salary or fees is annexed, the office is provided for it is
a naked or honorary office, and is supposed to be accepted merely for the public good.
 Hence, the office of petitioner as NCC Chair may be characterized as an honorary office, as opposed to a lucrative office or an
office of profit, i.e., one to which salary, compensation or fees are attached. But it is a public office, nonetheless.

III. Continuance
 Neither is the fact that the NCC was characterized by E.O. No. 128 as an ad-hoc body make said commission less of a public
office.
 The element of continuance cannot be considered as indispensable, for, if the other elements are present it can
make no difference, whether there be but one act or a series of acts to be done, whether the office expires as soon
as the one act is done, or is to be held for years or during good behavior.

IV. Conclusion
 Our conclusion that petitioner is a public officer finds support in In Re Corliss. There the Supreme Court of Rhode Island ruled
that the office of Commissioner of the United States Centennial Commission is an office of trust as to disqualify its holder as
elector of the United States President and Vice-President. (Under Article II of the United States Constitution, a person holding an
office of trust or profit under the United States is disqualified from being appointed an elector.)
 Having arrived at the conclusion that the NCC performs executive functions and is, therefore, a public office, we need no longer
delve at length on the issue of whether Expocorp is a private or a public corporation. Even assuming that Expocorp is a private
corporation, petitioners position as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Expocorp arose from his Chairmanship of the NCC.
Consequently, his acts or omissions as CEO of Expocorp must be viewed in the light of his powers and functions as NCC Chair.

Whether petitioner is a public officer as defined in RA 3019 – TO BE DETERMINED BY THE TRIAL COURT.
 Petitioner argues that since he supposedly did not receive any compensation for his services as NCC or Expocorp Chair, he is not
a public officer as defined in RA 3019 and is, therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
 A public officer, under R.A. No. 3019, is defined by Section 2 – Public officer includes elective and appointive officials and
employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exemption service receiving compensation,
even nominal, from the government as defined in the preceding paragraph.
 It is clear from Section 2 (b), above, that the definition of a public officer is expressly limited to the application of RA 3019. Said
definition does not apply for purposes of determining the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, as defined by the Constitution and the
Ombudsman Act of 1989
 Moreover, the question of whether petitioner is a public officer under the RA 3019 involves the appreciation of
evidence and interpretation of law, matters that are best resolved at trial.
 The use of the term includes in Section 2 (b) indicates that the definition is not restrictive. The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act is just one of several laws that define public officers. The RPC, Administrative Code of 1987, and Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees also has definitions of public officer.
 But even assuming that the definition of public officer in R.A. No. 3019 is exclusive, the term compensation, which is not defined
by said law, has many meanings.
 How then is compensation, as the term is used in Section 2 (b) of RA 3019, to be interpreted? Did petitioner receive any
compensation at all as NCC Chair? Granting that petitioner did not receive any salary, the records do not reveal if he received
any allowance, fee, honorarium, or some other form of compensation. Notably, under the by-laws of Expocorp, the CEO is
entitled to per diems and compensation. Would such fact bear any significance?
 Obviously, this proceeding is not the proper forum to settle these issues lest we preempt the trial court from resolving them.

NOTES:
 Petitioner, citing Uy v. Sandiganbayan, also argued that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman was limited to cases cognizable by
the Sandiganbayan i.e., over public officers of Grade 27 and higher. As petitioner’s position was purportedly not classified as
Grade 27 or higher, the Sandiganbayan and, consequently, the Ombudsman, would have no jurisdiction over him.
 But the Court said that the ruling in Uy, however, was short-lived. Upon motion for clarification by the Ombudsman in the same
case, the Court set aside the foregoing pronouncement in its Resolution dated March 20, 2001. The Court explained the rationale
for this reversal:
o The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. It pertains
to any act or omission of any public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be
illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. The law does not make a distinction between cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan and those cognizable by regular courts.
o Section 15 of RA 6770 gives the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
The law defines such primary jurisdiction as authorizing the Ombudsman to take over, at any stage, from any
investigatory agency of the government, the investigation of such cases. The grant of this authority does not
necessarily imply the exclusion from its jurisdiction of cases involving public officers and employees by other
courts.
o In sum, the Ombudsman has the power to investigate any malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance by a public
officer or employee of the government, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations.
 Functions of the NCC
o (a) To undertake the overall study, conceptualization, formulation and implementation of programs and projects on
the utilization of culture, arts, literature and media as vehicles for history, economic endeavors, and reinvigorating
the spirit of national unity and sense of accomplishment in every Filipino in the context of the Centennial
Celebrations. In this regard, it shall include a Philippine National Exposition 98 within Metro Manila, the original
eight provinces, and Clark Air Base as its major venues;
o (b) To act as principal coordinator for all the activities related to awareness and celebration of the Centennial;
o (c) To serve as the clearing house for the preparation and dissemination of all information about the plans and
events for the Centennial Celebrations;
o (d) To constitute working groups which shall undertake the implementation of the programs and projects;
o (e) To prioritize the refurbishment of historical sites and structures nationwide. In this regard, the Commission
shall formulate schemes (e.g. lease-maintained-and-transfer, build-operate-transfer, and similar arrangements) to
ensure the preservation and maintenance of the historical sites and structures;
o (f) To call upon any government agency or instrumentality and corporation, and to invite private individuals and
organizations to assist it in the performance of its tasks; and,
o (g) Submit regular reports to the President on the plans, programs, projects, activities as well as the status of the
preparations for the Celebration.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen