Political Law Bar Q and A

Political Law Bar Questions and Answers

Bar Q and A #32

1.) The President appoints the Vice President as his Administration's Housing Czar, a position that requires the appointee to sit in the Cabinet. Although the appointment of the members of the Cabinet requires confirmation by the Commission on Appointment (CA), the Office of the President does not submit the appointment to the CA. May the Vice President validly sit in the Cabinet?

The Vice President may validly sit in the Cabinet even if he was not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. Under Article VII, Sec. 3 of the Constitution, the appointment of the Vice President as cabinet member requires no confirmation (Araullo v. Aquino III, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014, 728 SCRA 1)

Textbox

2.) X was elected provincial governor for a term of three years. He was subsequently appointed by the President of the Philippines serving at her pleasure, as concurrent Presidential Assistant for Political Affairs in the Office of the President, without additional compensation. Is X’s appointment valid?

The appointment of X is not valid, because the position of Presidential Assistant for Political Affairs is a public office. Article IX-B Section 7 of the Constitution provides that no elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure. As held in Flores v. Drilon, 223 SCRA 563 (1993), since an elective official is ineligible for an appointive position, his appointment is not valid.

Textbox

3.) M is the Secretary of the Department of Finance. He is also an ex-officio member of the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas from which he receives an additional compensation for every Board meeting attended. N, a taxpayer, filed a suit in court to declare Secretary M’s membership in the Monetary Board and his receipt of additional compensation illegal and in violation of the Constitution. N invoked Article VII, Section 13 of the Constitution which provides that the President, Vice- President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in the Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. N also cited Article IX-B, Section 8 of the Constitution, which provides that no elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive additional, double, or indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by law. If you were the judge, how would you decide the following: a. the issue regarding the holding of multiple positions? b. the issue on the payment of additional or double compensation? Explain your answers fully.

a. If I were the judge, I would uphold the validity of the designation of Secretary M as ex officio member of the Monetary Board. As stated in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary,194 SCRA 317 (1991), the prohibition against the holding of multiple positions by Cabinet Members in Article VII, Section 13 of the Constitution does not apply to positions occupied in an ex officio capacity as provided by law and as required by the primary functions of their office.

b. If I were the judge, I would rule that Secretary M cannot receive any additional compensation. As stated in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317 (1991), a Cabinet Member holding an ex- officio position has no right to receive additional compensation, for his services in that position are already paid for by the compensation attached to his principal office.

Textbox

4.) Suppose A, a Municipal Mayor, went on a sick leave to undergo medical treatment for a period of four (4) months. During that time: a. Will B, the Municipal Vice-Mayor, be performing executive functions? Why? b. Will B at the same time be also performing legislative functions as presiding officer of the Sangguniang Bayan? Why?

a. Since the Municipal Mayor is temporarily incapacitated to perform his duties, in accordance with Section 46(a) of the Local Government Code, the Municipal Vice- Mayor shall exercise his powers and perform his duties and functions. The Municipal Vice- Mayor will be performing executive functions, because the functions of the Municipal Mayor are executive.

b. The Municipal Vice-Mayor cannot continue as presiding officer of the Sangguniang Bayan while he is acting Municipal Mayor.

In accordance with Gamboa v. Aguirre, 310 SCRA 867 (1999), under the Local Government Code, the Vice-Municipal Mayor was deprived of the power to preside over the Sangguniang Bayan and is no longer a member of it. The temporary vacancy in the office of the Municipal Mayor creates a corresponding temporary vacancy in the Office of the Municipal Vice-Mayor when he acts as Municipal Mayor. This constitutes inability on his part to preside over the sessions of the Sangguniang Bayan.

Textbox

5.) Alfonso Beit, a supply officer in the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), was charged administratively. Pending investigation, he was preventively suspended for 90 days. The DOST Secretary found him guilty and meted him the penalty of removal from office. He appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). In the meantime, the decision was executed pending appeal. The CSC rendered a decision which modified the appealed decision by imposing only a penalty of reprimand, and which decision became final. a. Can Alfonso Belt claim salary for the period that his case was pending investigation? Why? b. Can he claim salary for the period that his case was pending appeal? Why?

a. Alfonso Beit cannot claim any salary for the period of his preventive suspension during the pendency of the investigation. As held in Gloria v. Court of Appeals, 306 SCRA 287, under Section 52 of the Civil Service Law, the provision for payment of salaries during the period of preventive suspension during the pendency of the investigation has been deleted. The preventive suspension was not a penalty. Its imposition was lawful, since it was authorized by law.

b. If the penalty was modified because Alfonso Beit was exonerated of the charge that was the basis for the decision ordering his dismissal, he is entitled to back wages, otherwise, this would be tantamount to punishing him after exoneration from the charge which caused his dismissal (Gloria v. Court of Appeals, 3O6 SCRA). If he was reprimanded for the same charge which was the basis of the decision ordering his dismissal, Alfonso Belt is not entitled to back wages, because he was found guilty, and the penalty was merely commuted (Dela Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 305 SCRA 303).

Textbox

6.) Simeon Valera was formerly a Provincial Governor who ran and won as a Member of the House of Representatives for the Second Congressional District of lloilo. For violation of Section 3 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No.3019), as amended, allegedly committed when he was still a Provincial Governor, a criminal complaint was filed against him before the Office of the Ombudsman for which, upon a finding of probable cause, a criminal case was filed with the Sandiganbayan. During the course of trial, the Sandiganbayan issued an order of preventive suspension for 90 days against him. Representative Valera questioned the validity of the Sandiganbayan order on the ground that, under Article VI , Section 16(3) of the Constitution, he can be suspended only by the House of Representatives and that the criminal case against him did not arise from his actuations as a member of the House of Representatives. Is Representative Valera's contention correct? Why?

The contention of Representative Valera is not correct. As held in Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, 356 SCRA 636, the suspension contemplated in Article VI, Section 16(3) of the Constitution is a punishment that is imposed by the Senate or House of Representatives upon an erring member, it is distinct from the suspension under Section 13 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which is not a penalty but a preventive measure. Since Section 13 of the Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act does not state that the public officer must be suspended only in the office where he is alleged to have committed the acts which he has been charged, it applies to any office which he may be holding.

Textbox

7.) Maximino, an employee of the Department of Education, is administratively charged with dishonesty and gross misconduct. During the formal investigation of the charges, the Secretary of Education preventively suspended him for a period of 60 days. On the 60th day of the preventive suspension, the Secretary rendered a verdict, finding Maximino guilty, and ordered his immediate dismissal from the service. Maximino appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which affirmed the Secretary’s decision. Maximino then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the CSC decision, exonerating Maximino. The Secretary Of Education then petitions the Supreme Court (SC) for the review of the CA decision. Is the Secretary of Education a proper party to seek the review of the CA decision exonerating Maximino? Reasons.

The Secretary of Education is not the proper party to seek a review of the decision of the Court of Appeals, because he is the one who heard the case and imposed the penalty. Being the disciplinary authority, the Secretary of Education should be impartial and should not actively participate in prosecuting Maximino (National Appellate Board of the National Police Commission v. Mamauag, 466SCRA 624 [2005]).

Textbox

8.) What are the grounds for impeachment. Explain.

Under Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution, the grounds for impeachment are:

a. Culpable violation of the Constitution – means intentional violation of the Constitution and not violations committed in good faith.

b. Treason – the same meaning as in the Revised Penal Code

c. Bribery – the same meaning as in the Revised Penal Code

d. Graft and Corruption – refers to prohibited acts enumerated in the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

e. Other High Crimes – refers to offenses that strike at the very life or orderly working of the government.

f. Betrayal of Public Trust – refers to any violation of the oath of office. (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1998 ed., pp. 336- 337; Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines: A Commentary, 1996 ed., pp. 991-992)

Textbox

9.) Who are the impeachable officers under the 1987 Constitution? Briefly explain the process of impeaching them thereunder.

Article XI Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides that the following are impeachable officers: The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman.

The process of impeachment is provided for in Article XI Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution. It states the following:

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 or 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 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, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law.

(Sections 5 to 14, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, in relation to R.A. No. 6770, or otherwise known as "The Ombudsman Act of 1989.")

Textbox

10.) A group of losing litigants in a case decided by the Supreme Court filed a complaint before the Ombudsman charging the Justices with knowingly and deliberately rendering an unjust decision in utter violation of the penal laws of the land. Can the Ombudsman validly take cognizance of the case? Explain.

NO, the Ombudsman cannot entertain the complaint. As stated in the case of In re: Laureta v. Court of Appeals 148 SCRA 382, pursuant to the principle of separation of powers, the correctness of the decisions of the Supreme Court as final arbiter of all justiciable disputes is conclusive upon all other departments of the government; the Ombudsman has no power to review the decisions of the Supreme Court by entertaining a complaint against the Justices of the Supreme Court for knowingly rendering an unjust decision.

Textbox