JOSON VS.

TORRES
GR. No. 131255, May 20, 1998
DOCTRINE: The respondent has the right to a formal investigation under
Administrative Order. No. 23 which includes the:
a. Right to appear and defend himself in person or by counsel
b. Right to confront the witnesses against him and
c. Right to compulsory process for the attendance of witnesses and the
production of documents.
Thus, in this case, where the Secretary denied the petitioners motion for a formal
investigation and decided the case on the basis of position papers, the right of
the petitioner was violated.
FACTS:
Oscar Tinio, Vice-Governor of Nueva Ecija, filed with the Office of the President a
letter-complaint charging Eduardo Joson, Governor, with grave misconduct and
abuse of authority. Tinio alleged that when they were at the session hall of the
provincial capitol for a session with the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP), Joson
belligerently barged in and kicked the doors and chairs of the in the hall and
uttered threatening words at them due to the refusal of the SP to approve a loan
proposed by Joson. Tinio prayed for the suspension and removal of Joson.
The President instructed the DIL to take investigative actions. The DILG required
the parties to submit their position papers. Joson prayed that a formal
investigation of this case be conducted pursuant to the LGC and Admin Order
No. 23. The DILG denied his request declaring that the submission of position
papers substantially complies with the requirements of procedural due process in
administrative proceedings. Joson was thereafter suspended from office.
ISSUE:
WON Joson as Governor of Nueva Ecija was validly suspended from office?
RULING:
No. Josons suspension was made without formal investigation. The rejection of
his right to a formal investigation denied him procedural due process.
An erring elective local official has rights akin to the constitutional rights of an
accused. These rights are essentially part of procedural due process. The local
elective official has the (1) right to appear and defend himself in person or by
counsel; (2) the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him;
and (3) the right to compulsory attendance of witness and the production of
documentary evidence. These rights are reiterated in the Rules Implementing the
LGC and in A.O. No. 23. Well to note, petitioner formally claimed his right to a
formal investigation

Petitioner's right to a formal investigation was not satisfied when the complaint
against him was decided on the basis of position papers. There is nothing in the
LGC and in A.O. No. 23 that provide that administrative cases against elective
local officials can be decided on position papers. A.O. No. 23 does not authorize
the Investigating Authority to dispense with a hearing in cases involving
allegations of fact which are not only in contrast but contradictory to each other.
These contradictions are best settled by allowing the examination and crossexamination of witnesses.
The provisions for administrative disciplinary actions against elective local
officials-are markedly different from appointive officials. The rules on the removal
and suspension of elective local officials are more stringent. The procedure of
requiring position papers in lieu of a hearing in administrative cases is expressly
allowed with respect to appointive officials but not to those elected. An elective
official, elected by popular vote, is directly responsible to the community that
elected him. The official has a definite term of office fixed by law which is
relatively of short duration. Suspension and removal from office definitely affects
and shortens this term of office. When an elective official is suspended or
removed, the people are deprived of the services of the man they had elected.
Implicit in the right of suffrage is that the people are entitled to the services of the
elective official of their choice. Suspension and removal are thus imposed only
after the elective official is accorded his rights and the evidence against him
strongly dictates their imposition.