Republic Act 6713

Code of Conduct & Ethical Standards

for Public Officials & Employees
 Declaration of Policies

It is the policy of the State to promote high

standard of ethics in public service.
 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 1, Article XI, 1987
 Government – includes the National
Government, Local Governments, and all other
instrumentalities, agencies or branches of the
Republic of the Philippines including government
owned or controlled corporations.

Public Officials – includes elective and

appointive officials and employees, permanent or
temporary, whether in the career or non-career
service, including military and police personnel,
whether or not they receive compensation,
regardless of amount.
 Four (4) Divisions
Sec. 4 – Norms of Conduct of Public Official
Sec. 5 – Duties of Public Official
Sec. 7 – Prohibited Acts and Transactions
Sec. II – Penalties
1. COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC INTEREST

Public officials and employees shall

always uphold the public interest over
and above personal interest. All
government resources and powers of
their respective offices must be
employed and used efficiently,
effectively, honestly and economically,
particularly to avoid wastage in public
funds and revenues.
PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
OPLAN RED PLATE

The Office also intensifies its campaign for

judicious and responsible stewardship in the
utilization of government resources. (AO 239
Prohibiting the Use of Government Vehicles for
Purposes other than Official Business).
Ombudsman Visayas meted
a) a Six (6) month suspension upon a
Manager of the Cebu Ports Authority for
using the govt. vehicle in bringing his
children to school every morning and
fetching them from school every afternoon.
b) Six (6) month suspension upon a COA
Auditor of Bohol for using govt. vehicle
when she attended a wedding on a
Sunday.
c) a reprimand upon an official of the
CDA for using the govt. vehicle on a
Sunday while attending mass at the
Guadalupe Parish Church.
For the public- make a report through text
or other means: Plate no.; make or type,
place & time where it is spotted, pictures.
2. PROFESSIONALISM
Public officials and employees shall
perform and discharge their duties with
highest degree of excellence,
professionalism, intelligence and skill.
They shall enter public service with
utmost devotion and dedication to
duty. They shall endeavor to
discourage wrong perceptions of their
roles as dispensers or peddlers of
undue patronage.
3. JUSTNESS AND SINCERITY
Public officials and employees shall remain true to
the people at all times, act with justness and
sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone
especially the poor and the underprivileged. They
shall at all times respect the rights of others, and
shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law,
good morals, good customs, public policy, public
order, public safety and public interest. They shall
not dispense or extend undue favors on account
of their office to their relatives whether by
consanguinity or affinity except with appointments
considered strictly confidential or those whose
terms are co-terminous with theirs.
NEPOTISM
Cs. – Redentor Gaspay vs. Hon. Nicanor J. Cruz,
et. al. CA-GR-SP-58757 Feb. 27, 2002.

Casual Laborer is included in Nepotism.

That the appointment was later on disapproved

by CSC does not render the appointing authority
free of liability, as the act of Nepotism was
committed by the time the appointing authority
affixed his signature on the nepotistic
appointment.

Mayor Ted Plagata – Iloilo

Designation is included in the word “appointment.”
4. POLITICAL NEUTRALITY

Public officials and employees

shall provide service to
everyone without unfair
discrimination and regardless
of party affiliation or
preference.
5. RESPONSIVENESS TO THE PUBLIC

Public officials and employees shall

extend prompt, courteous and
adequate service to the public. They
shall provide information on their
policies and procedures in clear and
understandable language, ensure
openness of information, public
consultations and hearings whenever
appropriate, encourage suggestions,
simplify and systematize policy, rules &
procedure, avoid red tape.
6. NATIONALISM AND PATRIOTISM

Public officials and employees

shall at all times be loyal to the
Republic and to the Filipino people,
promote the use of locally
produced goods, resources and
technology and encourage
appreciation and pride of country
and people. They shall endeavor to
maintain and defend the Philippine
sovereignty against foreign
intrusion.
7. COMMITMENT TO DEMOCRACY
Public officials and employees shall
commit themselves to the democratic
way of life and values, maintain the
principle of public accountability and
manifest by deeds the supremacy of
civilian authority over the military. They
shall at all times uphold the
Constitution and put loyalty to country
above loyalty to persons or party.
 8. SIMPLE LIVING

Public officials and employees

and their families shall lead
modest lives appropriate to
their positions and income.
They shall not indulge in
extravagant or ostentatious
display of wealth in any form.
PHASES OF LIFESTYLE PROBE
Identification of Targets / Subjects
Data Gathering
Confirmation / Validation
Fact-Finding / Case Building
Formal Preliminary Investigation
Filing of Petition / Information in court
 Republic Act 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
therefore.

[1] Almeda Sr. vs. Perez – Proceedings for forfeiture is civil

5 SCRA 970 in nature and not criminal
[2] Cabal vs. Kapunan, Jr. – Proceedings for forfeiture
6 SCRA 1059 of property are deemed criminal
or penal, & hence the exemption
of defendants in criminal case
from the obligation to be witnesses
against themselves are applicable
thereto. The doctrine laid down in
Almeda vs. Perez that a forfeiture
proceedings is civil in nature refers
to the purely procedural aspect of
said proceeding.
 Statement of Assets & Liabilities Financial
Disclosure
Sec.8 (a) of R.A. 6713

Must be filed :
1.Within thirty (30) days after assumption of
office;
2.On or before April 30 of every year
thereafter;
3.Within thirty (30) days after separation from
the service
Section 5 (a) of R.A. 6713

Act promptly on letters and requests.

All public officials and employees
shall, within fifteen (15) working
days from receipt thereof respond
to letters, telegrams or other means of
communications sent by the public.
The reply must contain the action
taken on the request.
 RA No. 9485
Simple transactions – purely ministerial
action = 5 working days
Complex transaction – requires use of
discretion in complicated issues = 10
working days
Sec. 6 – Citizen’s Charter:
a) procedure to obtain a particular
service;
b) persons responsible for each step;
c) maximum time to conclude the
process;
 d) documents to be presented by the customer,
if necessary;
e) amount of fees, if necessary; and
f) procedure for filing complaints.
Sec. 11- Penalties:
a) Light offense: i) first offense- 30 days
suspension, w/o pay & attendance in Values
Orientation Program;
ii) second offense – 3 mos. Suspension
w/o pay;
 iii) third offense – dismissal and perpetual
disqualification from public service.
B) Grave offense – dismissal and perpetual
disqualification from public service.
Sec. 13- the finding of administrative
liability shall not be a bar to the filing of
criminal, civil or other related charges.
 PROHIBITED ACTS &
TRANSACTIONS
(Sec. 7 of R.A. 6713)

(a) Public officials and

employees shall not,
directly or indirectly,
have any financial or
material interest in any
transaction requiring
the approval of their
 Sec. 9 Divestment – A public
official or employee shall avoid conflict of
interest at all times. When a conflict of
interest arises, he shall resign from his
position to any private business enterprise
within 30 days from his assumption of office
and/or divest himself of his shareholdings
or interest within 60 days from such
assumption.
Prohibited Acts & Transactions. . . .
(b) Public officials and employees during
their incumbency shall not:

(1) Own, control, manage or

accept employment as officer,
employee, consultant, counsel
broker, agent, trustee or nominee
in any private enterprise
regulated, supervised or licensed
by their office unless expressly
Prohibited Acts &Transactions…

(2) Engage in the private practice

of their profession unless
authorized by the Constitution or
law, provided that such practice
will not conflict or tend to conflict
with their official function
Prohibited Acts & Transactions…

(3) Recommend any person

to any position in a private
enterprise which has a
regular or pending official
transaction with their office.
Prohibited Acts & Transactions…

( c ) Public officials and employees

shall not use or divulge, confidential
or classified information officially
known to them by reason of their
office and not made available to the
public, either: to further their
private interest, or give undue
advantage to anyone or to
prejudice the public interest.
Prohibited Acts &
Transactions…
(d) Public officials and employees shall not
solicit or accept, directly or indirectly,
any gift gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan
or anything of monetary value from any
person in the course of their official duties
or in connection with any operation being
regulated by, or any transaction which may
be affected by the functions of their office.
 Sec. 11 – Penalties:
Administrative liability
Fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6) months
salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year or
removal depending on the gravity of the offense.
Violation of Secs. 7, 8, & 9
Criminal & Administrative Liabilities
Imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years,
or a fine not exceeding P5,000.00 or both.
Discretion of the Court.
Disqualification to hold public office.
Private individuals can be charged if they
conspire with public official.
OFFICE OF THE

OMBUDSMAN
 Republic Act 6770
(The Ombudsman Act of 1989)
Signed by President Corazon Aquino on
November 17, 1989
Ombudsman – Now known
as TANODBAYAN

Dep. Ombudsman for Military – Now

known as Dep. Ombudsman for
MOLEO (Military and Other Law
Enforcement Offices)
Ombudsman – Swedish term “Ombuds Mater” –
“Protector of the People.”
Ombudsman/Tanodbayan – Impeachable public
official.
Deputy Ombudsmen and Special Prosecutor are not.
Omb-Vis. vs. DO Mojica – GR No. 146486 – 3/ 4/05.
 POLICY THRUST of the Office of the
Ombudsman under the leadership of the
Honorable Ombudsman CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES (2011-2018)

1. Enhanced efficiency, effectiveness,

transparency, accountability and credibility;

2. Enhanced responsiveness in the performance

of the mandate and functions of the Office
towards improvement of corruption prevention
and control.
 8-POINT PRIORITIES

1. Prioritize disposition of complaints

and cases involving high ranking
officials, large sums of money,
grand corruption cases and
celebrated cases;

2. Zero Backlog
3. Improved “survival” rate of fact-finding
cases;

4. Enforced monitoring of referred cases;

5. Improved responsiveness of public

assistance (RAS and mediation);

6. Improved anti-corruption policy and

Programme coordination among sectors;
7. Rationalization of the functional structure
of the Office;

8. Enhanced transparency and credibility of

the Office
 FIVE MAJOR FUNCTIONS
THE PROTECTOR OF THE PEOPLE

INVESTIGATION
PROSECUTION
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
GRAFT PREVENTION
 FIVE MAJOR FUNCTIONS

THE PROTECTOR OF THE PEOPLE

INVESTIGATION
The Office exercises unique
prerogatives. It has the power to
conduct preliminary investigation of
cases filed with the Office, as well as
the authority to initiate the fact-
finding investigation and gather
evidence for case building.
 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,
xxx (Section 12, Article XI, 1987 Constitution)
 Officials Subject To Disciplinary Authority & Exceptions:

Sec.21: (1) Elective Officials;

(2) Appointive Officials of the govt. & its subdivisions,
instrumentalities & agencies including members of the
cabinet, local govt., government-owned or controlled corp.
and their subsidiaries.
Exceptions: Officials – which can be removed only by
impeachment or members of Congress and Judiciary.

Members of Congress & Judiciary – only criminal jurisdiction.

[1] Bonifacio Sanz Maceda (RTC Judge-Antique) vs.

Ombudsman Conrado Vasquez (GR No. 202781)
- Before Ombudsman conducts preliminary investigation, if
acts are related to function, refer first to Supreme Court
Administrator before the Ombudsman acts on it.
[2] Gregorio Honasan II vs. Panel of Investigators of DOJ
(GR No. 159747, April 13, 2004)
- Authority of the Ombudsman to investigate public
officers is concurrent with other investigative agencies
(DOJ, PAGC).
Exceptions: - if the case is cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan, Ombudsman may take over at any stage
of the investigation in the exercise of primary jurisdiction.
 Sec. 13(5) Art. XI of the Constitution

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 of omission of any public
official, employee, office or agency, when such
act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust,
improper, or inefficient.
- As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Deloso vs.
Domingo - 191 SCRA 545, 550 (1990):
“The clause “any illegal act or omission of any
official” is broad enough to embrace any crime
committed by a public official. The law does not qualify
the nature of the illegal act or omission of the public
official or employee that the Ombudsman may
investigate. It does not require that the act or omission
be related to or be connected with, or arise from, the
performance of official duty. Since the law does not
distinguish, neither should we.”
- Palma Sr. vs. Fortich, et al. (149 SCRA 397)
- Festejo vs. Crisologo (17 SCRA 868)
When the crime involving moral turpitude is not linked with
the performance of official duties, conviction by final judgment
is required as condition precedent to administrative action.
Remolona vs. CSC - 362 SCRA 804 (2001)
The disciplining authority is not precluded from
adjudicating the administrative case against a public officer
notwithstanding that the act complained of, was not
committed in relation to office. It is so because the case
affects the right to continue in office and that when an
officer is disciplined, the object sought is not the
punishment of such officer but the improvement of public
service and preservation of public’s faith and confidence in
government.
The court added that the private life of an employee
cannot be segregated from his public life.
 2 Kinds of Investigation
[1] Fact-finding:
- Alvin Garcia vs. Hon. Primo C. Miro - GR No.148944 2/5/2003
“For purposes of initiating a public investigation before the
Ombudsman, a complaint “in any form or manner” is
sufficient.”
- In Almante vs. Vasquez - 244 SCRA 286 (1995)
that even unverified and anonymous letter may suffice to
start an investigation. In permitting the filing of complaint “in
any form or manner” the framer of the Constitution took into
account the well-known reticence of the people which keep
them from complaining against official wrong doings. The
Office of the Ombudsman is different from the other
investigatory and prosecutory agencies of the government
because those subject to its jurisdiction are public officials
who, through official pressure and influence, can quash,
delay or dismiss investigation held against them.”
 “Finally, the fact that SPO Tagaan already resigned
from his office and his name was withdrawn as
complainant from the case is of no fatal consequence.
First, Tagaan’s report & affidavit still forms part of the
records of the case. He could still be called by subpoena if
necessary.
Second, we agree with the Solicitor General, that Tagaan
was only a nominal party, whose duty was to investigate
the commission of crimes and file the complaint whenever
warranted. Since the illegal action imputed public offense,
the real complainant is the State, x x.”

[2] Preliminary Investigation

CRIMINAL CASES:
George Uy vs. Sandiganbayan et. al., GR No.
105965-70, March 20, 2001 case (Ombudsman
can only conduct preliminary investigation on
cases involving high-ranking public officials – SG
27 and above; City and Department Heads).
“The Office of the Ombudsman is duly vested with
the power to investigate and prosecute criminal
cases before the SB and cases with the regular
courts.”
Reiterated – OMB vs. CA, et. al., GR No. 160675,
June 16, 2006.
The remedy of the aggrieved parties from
resolutions of the office of the Ombudsman
finding probable cause in criminal cases, when
tainted with grave abuse of discretion, is to file an
original action for certiorari with the Supreme
Court and, not with the Court of Appeals ( Hagad
vs. Hon. Gozo Dadole, G.R. No. l08072,
December 12, 1995 and Jimenez vs. Tolentino-
G.R. No. 153578, Jan. 28, 2005 ).
 Effect of the filing of a Motion for
Reconsideration/Motion for
Reinvestigation- Shall not bar the filing of
the information in court on the basis of the
finding of probable cause in the resolution
subject of the motion- (Sec. 7 (b), Rule II,
A.O. No. 7).
 FIVE MAJOR FUNCTIONS

THE PROTECTOR OF THE PEOPLE

ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION

The Office has the authority to

impose appropriate administrative
sanctions such as suspension and
dismissal against erring public officers
and employees.
ADMIN. ADJUDICATION
PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION:
Gloria G. Lastimosa vs. Hon. OMB Conrado Vasquez, et. al., GR
No. 116801, April 6, 1995
“Neither is there any doubt as to the power of the Ombudsman to
discipline the petitioner should it be found that she is guilty of
Grave Misconduct, Insubordination and/or Neglect of Duty, nor of
the Ombudsman’s power to place her in the meantime under
Preventive Suspension. These pertinent provisions of the
Ombudsman Act of 1989 state:

“Section 21. 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.”
“Section 24. Preventive Suspension – The Ombudsman
or his Deputies may suspend any officer of employee under
his authority pending an investigation if in his judgment the
evidence of guilt is strong and (a) the charge against such
officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave
misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the
charges would warrant removal from service; (c) the
respondent’s continued stay may prejudice the case filed
against him.”

Petitioners contained that her suspension is invalid because

the order was issued without giving her and Prov’l.
Prosecutor Kintanar the opportunity to refute the charges
against them and because, at any rate, the evidence against
them is not as strong as required by Section 24.
The contention is without merit. Prior notice and hearing not
required, such suspension not being a penalty but only a
preliminary step in an administrative investigation. As held in
Nera vs. Garcia – 106 Phil. 1031:

“In connection with the suspension of petitioner before he could

file his answer for the administrative complaint, suffice it to say
that the suspension was not a punishment or penalty for the
acts of dishonesty and misconduct in office, but only as a
preventive measure. Suspension is a preliminary step in an
administrative investigation.”

“If
after such investigation, the charges are established and the
person investigated is found guilty of acts warranting his
removal, then he is removed or dismissed. This is the penalty.
There is, therefore, nothing improper in suspending an officer
pending his investigation and before the charges before them
are heard and be given an opportunity to prove his innocence
(emphasis added).”
Sec. 27, RA 6770
“In all administrative disciplinary cases,
orders, directives, or decisions of the Office
of the Ombudsman can be appealed to the
SC by filing a petition for Certiorari within
10 days from receipt of the written notice of
the orders, directives or decision or denial
of the M.R. according with Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court.
 Sec. 27 was struck down as unconstitutional in line
with the regulatory philosophy adopted –following the
Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, which provided
for a uniform procedure for appellate review of all
adjudications of quasi-judicial entities, which is now
embodied in Rule 43 of the l997 Rules of Civil Procedure
Gwendolyn R. Belleza vs. COA-7 – GR No.13349 2/27/02
- Forfeiture includes leave credits
Appeal to CA – Admin Cases - Sec. 27 was declared
by Supreme Court as unconstitutional (Fabian vs.
Desierto GR No. 129742, Sept. 16, 1998)
Tapiador vs. Office of the Ombudsman – 429 Phil.
47, 58 (2002).

“The Ombudsman has no authority to directly

dismiss public officials.” (Section 13 (3))
“recommend his removal, suspension, fine, etc.”

Atty. Ronaldo P. Ledesma vs. Hon. CA, et. al. –

GR No. 161629, July 29, 2005 379 SCRA – 322

Recommend and ensure compliance therewith.

“Section 15 (3). Direct the officer concerned to take
appropriate action against a public officer or employee at
fault or who neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty
required by law, and recommend his removal, suspension,
demotion, fine, censure or prosecution, and ensure
compliance therewith; or enforce its disciplinary authority
as provided in Section 21 of this Act: Provided, That the
refusal by any officer without just cause to comply with an
order of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote,
fine, censure, or prosecute and officer or employee who is
at fault or who neglects to perform an act or discharge a
duty required by law shall be a ground for disciplinary
action against the said officer.”

Word “recommendation” is not merely advisory in nature

but is actually mandatory within the bounds of law”.
 Rule III
(Rules & Procedure – Ombudsman)
“Section 7, Finality and execution of decision. –
Where the respondent is absolved of the charge,
and in case of conviction where the penalty
imposed is public censure or reprimand,
suspension of not more than one month, or a fine
equivalent to one month salary, the decision shall
be final, executory and unappealable. 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 the Decision or
Order denying the M.R.
“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 or
removal.”
“A Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in
Administrative Cases shall be executed as a matter
of course. The Office of the Ombudsman shall
ensure that the Decision shall be strictly enforced
and properly implemented. The refusal or failure by
any officer without just cause to comply with an
Order of the Office of the Ombudsman to remove,
suspend, demote, fine, or censure shall be ground
for disciplinary action against said officer.”

Dumaluan vs. Hon. Tanodbayan Gutierrez (CA-GR. SP. No.

02466, March 26, 2007)
Memorandum Circular No. 01-06
Immediate execution pending appeal – is in
pursuance to Memorandum Circular No. 01,
Series of 2006, addressed to all heads of
departments, offices, bureaus and agencies of
the national and local governments, including
govt. owned and controlled corp. enjoining all
concerned to implement all Ombudsman
decisions, orders or resolutions in administrative
disciplinary cases , immediately upon receipt.
Doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction
The Office of the Ombudsman has
concurrent jurisdiction with other govt.
agencies over certain officials and
employees. Under this doctrine, the office
where the administrative complaint is
initially filed acquires jurisdiction, to the
exclusion of the others & this continues
until terminated.
 Exception:
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Estandarte-G.R. No.
168670, April 13, 2007, The Supreme Court ruled
that jurisdiction is a matter of law. After the DECS-R-
VI (now DepEd) acquires jurisdiction over the case,
where the complainant filed her case, jurisdiction
was vested over the latter and it cannot be
transferred to the Ombudsman even with the
acquiescence of the DECS especially that the
proceedings had already commenced.

Filing another case before another agency would

constitute forum shopping.
Other issues in Adm. Adjudication

a) There is no prescription in adm.

cases – the object of a disciplinary
proceeding is the maintenance of the
dignity of public office & of the faith of
the populace in public service.
(Melchor vs Gironella - G.R.151138, Feb. 16, 2005).

This should not be confused with Sec. 20 of

RA6770: The Office of the Ombudsman may not
conduct the necessary investigation of any
administrative act or omission complained of if it
believes that: a) the complaint was filed one year
from the occurrence of the act or omission
complained of. The Supreme Court in the case of
Gironella said that this does not refer to the rule on
prescription but rather a discretion given to the
Ombudsman whether to investigate an
administrative complaint filed one year after.
 b) Withdrawal of the complaint,
desistance of complainant or amicable
settlement- no effect on administrative
cases- the object is to protect the
public service & these are not private
in nature.
(Bulado vs. Tiu, Jr. – AM. No. 26-1211,
March 21, 2000)
c) In general, criminal, civil and
administrative cases may proceed
independently of each other (Apolinario
vs.Flores - G.R. No. l52780, Jan. 22, 2007).

Exception:
a) Where the very basis of the
administrative case is conviction in the
criminal case (Larin vs. Executive Sec. –
G.R. No. 112745-Oct. 16, 1997);
b) where the administrative case is dismissed and
the basis for the dismissal constitutes an essential
element of the crime ( Nicolas vs. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. l75930-Feb. 11, 2008);

c) if the adm. charge is for conviction of a crime

involving moral turpitude (Provincial Board of
Zamboanga Del Norte vs. De Guzman-G.R. No.
23523- Nov. l8, l967 )
 FIVE MAJOR FUNCTIONS
THE PROTECTOR OF THE PEOPLE
PROSECUTION
The Office of the Special Prosecutor
prosecutes cases filed with the
Sandiganbayan.
- PD 1606 as amended by RA 7895
- SG 27 above

In Regular Courts, regular court

prosecutors are deputized by the Office
to handle prosecution and our own
GIPOs.
 FIVE MAJOR FUNCTIONS

THE PROTECTOR OF THE PEOPLE

GRAFT PREVENTION
It is a pro-active approach intended
to pre-empt or eliminate opportunities to
commit graft and corruption.
 OMB Graft Prevention Programs
Resident Ombudsman (RO)
Corruption Prevention Unit (CPU)
Junior Graftwatch Unit (JGU)
Research/Thesis Assistance Program
Teaching Exemplars for Elementary / High
School
Public Accountability Seminar
Ehem! Aha! Program
 FIVE MAJOR FUNCTIONS
THE PROTECTOR OF THE PEOPLE
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
As a preventive measure against
corruption, the Office extends assistance to
citizens to secure both smooth and
satisfactory delivery of government service.
Exercise of this function effectively
obviates the need for grease money and
influence peddling for government action.
CORRUPT PRACTICES OF
PUBLIC OFFICERS

Republic Act No. 3019,As Am.

Sec. 1 RA 3019 (Statement of Policy)

Garciano v. Oyao - 102 SCRA 195

Respondent’s failure to pay his debt for 12

years. Sued under the Statement of Policy -
(It is the policy of the Phil. Government in
line with the principle that a public office is a
public trust, to repress certain acts of public
officers & private persons alike which
constitute graft and corrupt practices act or
may lead thereto)
 SC – Although the actuations of the
respondent in the present case may not
clearly fall under any of the graft and
corrupt practices as defined by law, the
impropriety of the same is evidently
questionable for it may lead to any of these
prohibited acts. Respondent is
ADMONISHED.

SECTION 3 (e): Corrupt Practices Act

(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing
another public officer to perform an act
constituting a violation of rules and
regulations duly promulgated by
competent authority or an offense in
connection with the official duty of the
latter, or allowing himself to be
persuaded, induced, or influenced to
commit such violation or offense.
CORRUPT PRACTICES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or

receiving any gift, present, share,
percentage, or benefit, for himself for
any other person, in connection with
any contract or transaction between
the government and any other party,
wherein the public officer in his official
capacity has to intervene under the
law.
Soriano Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan - 131 SCRA l84.
- Whether a preliminary investigation of a
criminal complaint by a Prosecutor is a
“contract” or “ transaction” under Sec. b?
-- SC said no. It was not a transaction as the
latter should be construed as analogous to
the term which precedes it (contract). In a
contract, there must be consideration as in
credit transaction, which is absent therein.
But accused was convicted of Direct Bribery.
Mejia vs. Pamaran – 160 SCRA 457.
- Clerk of court was convicted, because she
took advantage of her position in demanding
money so the party can get a favorable
ruling.
Javarata vs. Sandiganbaayan – 127 SCRA 363.
- Whether Javarata as an Asst. Principal of a
high school in Tubao, La Union “in his official
capacity has to intervene under the law” in the
payment of the salary differentials of the
teachers?
– SC said no. What he did was only to facilitate
with the agreement to reimburse his expenses.
Corrupt practices of public officers
(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or
receiving any gift, present or other
pecuniary or material benefit, for
himself or for another, from any person
for whom the public officer, in any
manner or capacity, has secured or
obtained, or will secure or obtain,
any government permit or license, in
consideration for the help given or to
be given.
CORRUPT PRACTICES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

(d) Accepting or having any member

of his family accept employment in a
private enterprise which has
pending official business with him
during the pendency thereof or
within one year after its
termination.
 CORRUPT PRACTICES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

(e) Causing any undue injury to any

party, including the Government, or
giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference in the discharge of his
official administrative or judicial
function through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence.
Bad faith – does not simply connote bad
judgment or negligence; it imputes a
dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity
and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach
of sworn duty through some motive or
intent or ill-will; it partakes of the nature of
fraud.
Office of the Ombudsman–Visayas vs.
Alvin Garcia, Eustaquio Cesa, Edna Jaca,
Mrs. Bacasmas and Atty. Allan Gaviola

- gross inexcusable negligence by allowing

the paymaster to obtain huge amounts of
cash advances which were not yet
liquidated.
“Unwarranted – Lacking adequate or official
support , unjustified, unauthorized.
Gross Negligence – negligence
characterized by the want of even the slight
care, acting or omitting to act in a situation
where there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently but willfully and intentionally
with a conscious indifference to
consequences in so far as other persons
may be affected. It is the omission of that
care which even the inattentive and
thoughtless men never fail to take on their
property.
 CORRUPT PRACTICES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand

or request, without sufficient justification, to
act within reasonable time on any matter
pending before him for the purpose of
obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person
interested in the matter some pecuniary or
material benefit or advantage, or for the
purpose of favoring his own interest or giving
undue advantage in favor of or discriminating
against any other interested party.
CORRUPT PRACTICES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

(g) Entering on behalf of the

Government, into any contract or
transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same,
whether or not the public officer
profited or will profit thereby.
CORRUPT PRACTICES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

(h) Directly or indirectly having

financial or pecuniary interest in any
business, contract or transaction in
connection with which he
intervenes or takes part in his
official capacity, or in which he is
prohibited by the Constitution or by
any law from having any interest.
Cs. of then Mayor Eufrocino Codilla –
approving the application for sand and
gravel permit filed by his son, of which he
was also an owner of said business
establishment.
 CORRUPT PRACTICES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming
interested, for personal gain, or having
a material interest in any transaction or
act requiring the approval of the board,
panel or group of which he is a
member, and which exercises
discretion in such approval even if he
votes against the same or does not
participate in the action of the board,
committee, panel or group.
 CORRUPT PRACTICES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

(j) Knowingly approving or granting

any license, permit, privilege, or
benefit in favor of any person not
qualified for or not legally entitled
to such license, permit, privilege or
advantage, or of a mere
representative or dummy of one
who is not so qualified or entitled.
 CORRUPT PRACTICES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

(k) Divulging valuable information

of a confidential character,
acquired by his office or by him
on account of his official position
to unauthorized persons, or
releasing such information in
advance of its authorized release
date.
Malversation of Public Funds or Property

Any public officer who, by reason of the

duties of his office, is accountable for public
funds or property, shall appropriate the
same, or shall take or misappropriate or
shall consent, or through abandonment or
negligence, shall permit any other person to
take such public funds or property, wholly or
partially, shall be guilty of the
misappropriation of such funds or property.
 THANK Y O U!
PHILIP C. CAMIGUING
OIC-Field Investigation Office
Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas