Article XIACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Section 1, Article XIPublic office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times beaccountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity,loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

Public office is a public trust, and as such, the same is governed by law, andcannot be made the subject of personal promises or negotiations by private persons.Security of tenure of employees in the career executive service (except first and secondlevel employees in the civil service), pertains only to rank and not to the office or to theposition to which they may be appointed. (Collantes vs. CA, G.R. No. 169604, March6, 2007)

Who are impeachable officers?(The list is exclusive)1. President2. Vice-President3. Members of the Constitutional Commission4. Justices of the Supreme Court5. OmbudsmanJustices of the Sandiganbayan cannot be removed by impeachment. Impeachment of President—the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will preside; theSenate/HOR will prosecute

Grounds for impeachment:1. Culpable violation of the constitution2. Treason3. Bribery4. Betrayal of public trust5. Graft and corruption6. Other high crimes

Procedure in Impeachment—Initiation:

The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all casesof impeachment.Process:1. Verified complaint filed by any member of the House or any citizen uponresolution of endorsement by any member thereof;2. Included in the order of business within ten (10) session days;3. Referred to the proper committee within three (3) session days of its inclusion.If the verified complaint is filed by at least 1/3 of all its members, the same shallconstitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwithproceed.4. The Committee, after hearing, and by majority vote of all its members, shallsubmit its report to the House together with the corresponding resolution;5. Placing on calendar the Committee resolution within ten (10) days fromsubmission;6. Discussion on the floor of the report;7. A vote of at least 1/3 of all the members of the House shall be necessary eitherto affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of theCommittee or override its contrary resolution.

Trial and Decision—1. The Senators take an oath or affirmation;2. When the president is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shallpreside but shall not vote;3. A decision of conviction must be concurred in by at least 2/3 of all the membersof the Senate.

Effect of Conviction—1. Removal from office;2. Disqualification to hold any other office under the Republic of the Philippines;3. Party convicted shall be liable and subject to prosecution, trial and punishmentaccording to law.

Limitation:1. Not more than one impeachment case shall be initiated against the same officialwithin a period of one (1) year.

2. The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all casesof impeachment.

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 142476, March 20, 2001, the Republic of thePhilippines cannot be held liable under an “Agreement” entered into by the PCGG withanother party where the republic did not authorize the PCGG to enter into such contract.Where the sale of an aircraft to a third party by the PCGG is void, it follows that the“Agreement” between the PCGG and the third party is likewise a nullity, and there canbe no cause of action against the Republic.

Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans vs. Desierto, et al.G.R. No. 130140, October 25, 1999, Article XI, Section 15 of the Constitution providesthat the “right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees, from them or from their nominees as transferees, shall not be barred byprescription, laches, or estoppel. This provision does not seem to indicate that what isimprescriptible is the corresponding civil action to recover “ill-gotten wealth” but not thecriminal action that may relate thereto. The criminal action, i.e., violation of Section 3(c) and (g), RA 3019, can prescribe conformably with the pertinent statute applicable which, in this instance, BP 195, providing for a 15-year prescriptive period and therebymodifying to the above extent the 10-year prescriptive period under RA 3019.

In Francisco vs. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10,2003, an impeachment case is the legal controversy that must be decided by theSenate while an impeachment proceeding is one that is initiated in the House ofRepresentatives. For purposes of applying the one-year bar rule, the proceeding is“initiated” or begins when a verified complaint is filed and referred to the Committee onJustice for action.

Legislative bodies cannot impose the administrative punishment of removal fromoffice because the power to remove local elective officials has been exclusively granted to the proper courts. (Sanggguniang Barangay of Don Mariano Marcos vs.Martinez, G.R. No. 170626, March 3, 2008)

SANDIGANBAYAN

The anti-graft court shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as nowand hereafter may be provided by law.Composition:One (1) Presiding JusticeFourteen (14) Associate Justices with the rank of Justice of the Court of Appeals Sits in five (5) Divisions of three (3) members eachDecision and Review—Unanimous vote of all three (3) members shall be required for thepronouncement of judgment by a division. Decision shall be reviewable by the SC onpetition for certiorari.Jurisdiction: O riginal JurisdictionB. Violation of RA 3019; RA 1379; and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of theRPC where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the followingpositions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interimcapacity at the time of the commission of the offense:5. Officials of the Executive branch with the position of Regional Director orhigher, or with SG Level 27 according to RA 6758, specifically including:i. Provincial governors, vice-governors, board members, provincialtreasures, assessors, engineers and other provincial departmentshead;ii. City mayors, vice-mayors, city councilors, city treasurers,assessors, engineers and other city department heads;iii. Officials of the diplomatic service from consuls or higher;iv. PA/PAF colonels, PN captains and all officers of higher rank;v. Officers of the PNP while occupying the position of provincialdirector and those holding the rank of senior superintendent orhigher;vi. City/provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials andprosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and specialprosecutor;vii. Presidents, directors, trustees, or managers of GOCC’s stateuniversities or educational institutions or foundations.6. Members of Congress and officials thereof with SG27 and up;

7. Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the Constitution;8. Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions withoutprejudice to the Constitution; and9. All other national and local officials with SG27 or higher.C. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complex with other crimescommitted by the public officials and employees mentioned in Subsection (a)in relation to their office;D. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with ExecutiveOrder Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A issued in 1986. E xclusive Original Jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs ofmandamus, prohibitions, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunction and other ancillarywrits and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Provided, thatjurisdiction over these petitions shall be not exclusive of the Supreme Court. E xclusive Appellate Jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders ofRTC whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or their appellatejurisdiction. (RA 8249)

THE OMBUDSMAN

The champion of the citizens and protector of the people.Tasked to entertain complaints addressed to him against erring public officersand take all necessary actions thereon.Composition:An Ombudsman known as the TanodbayanOne (1) Overall Deputy;At least one (1) Deputy e3ach for Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao;One (1) separate Deputy for the military establishment may likewise beappointedQualifications:1. Natural-born citizen;2. At least 40 years of age;3. Of recognized probity and independence;4. Member of the Philippine Bar; and5. Must not have been candidates for any elective office in the immediatelypreceding election.Term: Seven (7) years without reappointment

Disqualifications and Inhibitions—A. During their tenure:1. Shall not hold any other office or employment;2. Engage in the practice of any profession or in the active management andcontrol of any business which in any way may be affected by the functions ofhis office;3. Shall not be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in other contract with,or in any franchise or privilege granted by the government, any of itssubdivision, agencies or instrumentalities, including GOCCs or theirsubsidiaries.4. Shall not be qualified to run for any office in the election immediatelysucceeding their cessation from office. The Office of the Ombudsman shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Its approved annualappropriations shall be automatically and regularly released. (Section 14, Article XI)Buenesada vs. Flavier, G.R. No. 106719, September 21, 1993, the power toinvestigate also includes the power to impose preventive suspension. This is differentfrom the power to recommend suspension. The latter is suspension as a penalty;preventive suspension is not a penalty.Powers, Functions and Duties:1. The Constitution and RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) has endowed theOffice of the Ombudsman with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutorpowers virtually free from legislative, executive or judicial intervention. TheSupreme Court consistently refrains from interfering with the exercise of itspowers, and respects the initiative and independence inherent in theOmbudsman who, beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people andthe preserver of the integrity of public service. (Loquias vs. Office of theOmbudsman, G.R. No. 139396, August 15, 2000)2. The Ombudsman is clothed with authority to conduct preliminary investigationand prosecute all criminal cases involving public officers and employees, not onlythose within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but those within the jurisdictionof the regular courts as well. (Uy vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105965-70,

March 20, 2001)Office of the Ombudsman vs. CSC, G.R. No. 162215, July 30, 2007, since theresponsibility for the establishment, administration and maintenance of qualificationstandards lies with the concerned department or agency, the role of the CSC is limitedto assisting the department or agency with respect to these qualification standards andapproving them. The CSC cannot substitute its own standards for those of thedepartment or agency, specially in a case like this in which an independentconstitutional body is involved.Perez vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 166062, September 26, 2006, the incumbentTanodbayan (called Special Prosecutor under the 1987 Constitution and who issupposed to retain powers and duties NOT GIVEN to the Ombudsman) is clearlywithout authority to conduct preliminary investigations and to direct the filing of criminalcases with the Sandiganbayan, except upon orders of the Ombudsman.Suspension under the Ombudsman Act vis-à-vis the Local Government Code:o In order to justify the preventive suspension of a public official under Section 24of RA 6770, the evidence of guilt should be strong, and: The charge against the officer or employee should involve dishonesty,oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; The charges should warrant removal from the service; or The respondent’s continued stay in the office would prejudice the casefiled against him.o The Ombudsman can impose the 6-month preventive suspension to all publicofficials, whether elective or appointive, who are under investigation.o On the other hand, in imposing the shorter period of sixty (60) days of preventivesuspension prescribed under the LGC of 1991 on an elective local official (at anytime after the issues are joined), it would be enough that:d. There is a reasonable ground to believe that the respondent hascommitted the act or acts complained of;e. The evidence of culpability is strong;f. The gravity of the offense so warrants; org. The continuance in the office of the respondent could influence thewitnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and

other evidence. (Miranda vs. Sandioganbayan, G.R. No. 154098, July27, 2005)Office of the Ombudsman vs. CA, G.R. No. 168079, July 17, 2007, the SC upheldthe constitutionality of Sections 15, 21 and 25 of RA 6770, thus affirming that thepowers of the Office of the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory. The Courtruled in Estarija case that under RA 6770 and the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsmanhas the constitutional power to directly remove from the government service an erringpublic official, other than a member of Congress and the Judiciary.