Article XI

ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Section 1, Article XI
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.

Public office is a public trust, and as such, the same is governed by law, and
cannot 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 second
level employees in the civil service), pertains only to rank and not to the
office or to the
position to which they may be appointed. (Collantes vs. CA, G.R. No.
169604, March
6, 2007)

Who are impeachable officers?

(The list is exclusive)
1. President
2. Vice-President
3. Members of the Constitutional Commission
4. Justices of the Supreme Court
5. Ombudsman
Justices of the Sandiganbayan cannot be removed by impeachment.
 Impeachment of President—the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will
preside; the
Senate/HOR will prosecute

Grounds for impeachment:

1. Culpable violation of the constitution
2. Treason
3. Bribery
4. Betrayal of public trust
5. Graft and corruption
6. Other high crimes

Procedure in Impeachment—
Initiation:
The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all
cases
of impeachment.
Process:
1. Verified complaint filed by any member of the House or any citizen upon
resolution 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 shall
constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall
forthwith
proceed.
4. The Committee, after hearing, and by majority vote of all its members,
shall
submit its report to the House together with the corresponding resolution;
5. Placing on calendar the Committee resolution within ten (10) days from
submission;
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
either
to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the
Committee 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
shall
preside but shall not vote;
3. A decision of conviction must be concurred in by at least 2/3 of all the
members
of 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
punishment
according to law.

Limitation:
1. Not more than one impeachment case shall be initiated against the
same official
within a period of one (1) year.
2. The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate
all cases
of impeachment.

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 142476, March 20, 2001, the
Republic of the
Philippines cannot be held liable under an “Agreement” entered into by the
PCGG with
another 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 can
be 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 provides
that 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 by
prescription, laches, or estoppel. This provision does not seem to indicate
that what is
imprescriptible is the corresponding civil action to recover “ill-gotten
wealth” but not the
criminal 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 thereby
modifying 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 the
Senate while an impeachment proceeding is one that is initiated in the
House of
Representatives. 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 on
Justice for action.
Legislative bodies cannot impose the administrative punishment of removal
from
office 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 now
and hereafter may be provided by law.
Composition:
• One (1) Presiding Justice
• Fourteen (14) Associate Justices with the rank of Justice of the Court of
Appeals
 Sits in five (5) Divisions of three (3) members each
Decision and Review—
Unanimous vote of all three (3) members shall be required for the
pronouncement of judgment by a division. Decision shall be reviewable by
the SC on
petition for certiorari.
Jurisdiction:
 O riginal Jurisdiction
B. Violation of RA 3019; RA 1379; and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the
RPC where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following
positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim
capacity at the time of the commission of the offense:
5. Officials of the Executive branch with the position of Regional Director or
higher, or with SG Level 27 according to RA 6758, specifically including:
i. Provincial governors, vice-governors, board members, provincial
treasures, assessors, engineers and other provincial departments
head;
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 provincial
director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent or
higher;
vi. City/provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and
prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special
prosecutor;
vii. Presidents, directors, trustees, or managers of GOCC’s state
universities 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 without
prejudice to the Constitution; and
9. All other national and local officials with SG27 or higher.
C. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complex with other crimes
committed 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
Executive
Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A issued in 1986.
 E xclusive Original Jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs
of
mandamus, prohibitions, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunction and other
ancillary
writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Provided, that
jurisdiction over these petitions shall be not exclusive of the Supreme
Court.
 E xclusive Appellate Jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or
orders of
RTC whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or their
appellate
jurisdiction. (RA 8249)

THE OMBUDSMAN

• The champion of the citizens and protector of the people.

• Tasked to entertain complaints addressed to him against erring public
officers
and take all necessary actions thereon.
Composition:
• An Ombudsman known as the Tanodbayan
• One (1) Overall Deputy;
• At least one (1) Deputy e3ach for Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao;
• One (1) separate Deputy for the military establishment may likewise be
appointed
Qualifications:
1. Natural-born citizen;
2. At least 40 years of age;
3. Of recognized probity and independence;
4. Member of the Philippine Bar; and
5. Must not have been candidates for any elective office in the immediately
preceding 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
and
control of any business which in any way may be affected by the functions
of
his 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 its
subdivision, agencies or instrumentalities, including GOCCs or their
subsidiaries.
4. Shall not be qualified to run for any office in the election immediately
succeeding their cessation from office.
 The Office of the Ombudsman shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Its approved
annual
appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released. (Section 14,
Article XI)
Buenesada vs. Flavier, G.R. No. 106719, September 21, 1993, the
power to
investigate also includes the power to impose preventive suspension. This
is different
from 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
the
Office of the Ombudsman with a wide latitude of investigatory and
prosecutor
powers virtually free from legislative, executive or judicial intervention. The
Supreme Court consistently refrains from interfering with the exercise of its
powers, and respects the initiative and independence inherent in the
Ombudsman who, beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people
and
the preserver of the integrity of public service. (Loquias vs. Office of the
Ombudsman, G.R. No. 139396, August 15, 2000)
2. The Ombudsman is clothed with authority to conduct preliminary
investigation
and prosecute all criminal cases involving public officers and employees,
not only
those within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but those within the
jurisdiction
of 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 the
responsibility for the establishment, administration and maintenance of
qualification
standards lies with the concerned department or agency, the role of the
CSC is limited
to assisting the department or agency with respect to these qualification
standards and
approving them. The CSC cannot substitute its own standards for those of
the
department or agency, specially in a case like this in which an independent
constitutional body is involved.
Perez vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 166062, September 26, 2006,
the incumbent
Tanodbayan (called Special Prosecutor under the 1987 Constitution and
who is
supposed to retain powers and duties NOT GIVEN to the Ombudsman) is
clearly
without authority to conduct preliminary investigations and to direct the
filing of criminal
cases 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 24
of 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 case
filed against him.
o The Ombudsman can impose the 6-month preventive suspension to all
public
officials, whether elective or appointive, who are under investigation.
o On the other hand, in imposing the shorter period of sixty (60) days of
preventive
suspension prescribed under the LGC of 1991 on an elective local official
(at any
time after the issues are joined), it would be enough that:
d. There is a reasonable ground to believe that the respondent has
committed the act or acts complained of;
e. The evidence of culpability is strong;
f. The gravity of the offense so warrants; or
g. The continuance in the office of the respondent could influence the
witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and
other evidence. (Miranda vs. Sandioganbayan, G.R. No. 154098, July
27, 2005)
Office of the Ombudsman vs. CA, G.R. No. 168079, July 17, 2007,
the SC upheld
the constitutionality of Sections 15, 21 and 25 of RA 6770, thus affirming
that the
powers of the Office of the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory.
The Court
ruled in Estarija case that under RA 6770 and the 1987 Constitution, the
Ombudsman
has the constitutional power to directly remove from the government
service an erring
public official, other than a member of Congress and the Judiciary.