Accountability of Public Officials

Francisco v. House of Representatives

Chief Justice Davide had two impeachments in one year. This was because o the Section 15 and 16 of the Rules of Procedure of the House of Representatives which states that “to initiate” is to “take action” on the complaint, not necessary when it was filed. However, the constitution emphasized the constitutional supremacy, plain meaning rule, and judicial review by the judicial department. Ruling the rules to be unconstitutional.

Gutierrez v. House of Representatives

Ombudsman Gutierrez was filed with multiple complaints. Hence, there were two complaints in one year. She raised several points like the deprivation of due process to her when the house proceeding publication was only done after the complaint was verified, and the one-year bar. However, the constitution upheld that it cannot micromanage the congress. The second complaint was included as one with the first upholding that impeachment trials are different from criminal offenses which only allow one complaint at an offense at a time.

Republic v. Sereno

“Proven integrity”

CJ Sereno had not declared her SALN. The ombudsman found out that there were actually missing SALNs of the CJ. Financial disclosures that were not filed. The defendants claimed that “Proven integrity” is a high stake on the requirement of being a Chief Justice to prove character and integrity. She stated she had SALN but she did not show it to the SC. They questioned the evidence and find the inconsistencies.

Sereno: Pushes hard. She cannot be removed by a legal challenge. Only by impeachment.

Issue: Can the SC judge its own chief?

Held: Only the Congress has to jurisdiction against her. The SC cannot judge her. Separation of Power. Balance of power. The quo warranto was too late (Statutes of limitation). In favor of the republic, they found the missing SALN to be sufficient. Public trust is a public office. Passed actions can be scrutinized or disqualify them even if the action was done before the assumption of office.

Khan v. Office of the Ombudsman

Khan was an employee of PAL. He transacted in favor of a private business that he is involved with as a PAL officer. That was seen as a conflict of interest by the Ombudsman and filed him with Anti-Graft Law. However, Khan fought back claiming that PAL was created without an original charter and not considered as a “public officer”

Held: The SC held in favor of Khan and prevented the prosecution.

Orap v. Sandigangbayan

Orap was a presiding judge of RTC and his clerk violating “Anti-Graft” rooted from accusations of bribery. By defense: They argued that the Tanodbayan, the special prosecutors did not have the authority to investigate from judges. They said they were exempt based on the tanodbayan decree. They also said the charges did not meet legal requirements.

Held: The Tanodbayan has two hats. 1) Ombudsman (administrative complaint) 2) prosecutor (the power to investigate anyone that falls under the jurisdiction of Sandigangbayan “for corruption cases” even if they involve judges. When it becomes to judgement, the SC shall handle cases. So, judges can still be accountable by the prosecuting hat of the Tanodbayan. They found that the information was solid (certified by the investigating prosecutor, and approved by the Chief Prosecuting Officer). The case fell squarely to the Sandigangbayan and subject to the Anti-Graft. Wherefore, the SC denied the petitions of Orap. Judges were not immuned from accountability.

Villavert v. Desierto

Sale Superviser PCSO in Cebu selling tickets directly or send them to different outlets. Any ticket he takes out is considered sold. A system of accountability. He ended up a lot of unpaid ticket, almost 1M worth. In October fixed things and proposed to the Chairman. He suggested a downpayment and monthly installments.

In January, COA auditor commanded immediate settlement plus 14 percent interest. He is already working on it. The PCSO board issued a resolution to reinstate of two other sale supervisors who also had unpaid tickets. Question of fairness. In feb, the COA investigated to look for possible criminal cases like malversation of funds. Art. 217. Malversation and RA 3019. The Code of Conduct. The petitioner submitted another settlement with PCSO. In June 1996, Villavert informed the Ombudsman that the PCSO approved already of the new settlement. The deputy requested further confirmation to the Board of PCSO.

The Ombudsman deputy still recommended his dismissal for grave misconduct and dishonesty, claiming the potential to damage the public trust, which was approved by the Ombudsman. The importance of upholding public trust. Motion for recommendation hoping for leniency. He claimed that there was no malicious intent because he did not aim to be benefited. The other two sales persons. Public office is a public trust regardless of intent.

Office of the Ombudsman v. Madriaga

School principal and a canteen manager. San Juan School Club asking for financial statement from the Canteen. Found the two guilty, Code of Conduct for Public Officials and employees, which require public officials to answer to any complaint within 15 days. They were given a reprimand only.

The second investigation: Ombudsman, “Conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of service” to 6 month of suspension. Real punishment.

CA: Sided with the principal and the canteen manager. The ombudsman only has the power to recommend punishment but not punish.

SC: The Ombudsman appealed. Art 10 Sec. 13. Recommend and ensure compliance therewith. Ledesma v. CA: built on a precedent.