TABLE OF CONTENTS

Javier vs. Sandiganbayan

Laurel vs. Desierto
People vs. Morales

1
4
10

Javier v. Sandiganbayan | Nice

September 11, 2009
CAROLINA R. JAVIER, Petitioner, vs. THE FIRST
DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN and the PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
DEL CASTILLO, J.
NATURE: Rule 65 Petition of Sandiganbayan Resolution
SUMMARY: Carolina Javier was appointed to the National
Book Development Board (NBDB) as a representative of
the private sector. In 1997, she was scheduled to go on a
trip to Madrid, Spain to represent the Philippines in the
Madrid International Book Fair, for which she received a
cash advance of PHP 139k for her travel expenses.
However, she was not able to attend the book fair, hence,
the resident auditor demanded for her to return the cash
advance. Since she had not returned the money, the
Executive Director of NBDB filed a complaint with the
Ombudsman for malversation. Subsequently, two
informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan: one
charging her with violation of the Anti-Graft law, and the
other charging her with Malversation of Public Funds
under the RPC. Javier filed Motions to Quash both
informations, averring that she was not a public officer,
hence, the SB did not have jurisdiction. The SB denied
both MTQs, ruling that she was a public officer. SC
affirmed. Under the definition of a public officer both in the
Anti-Graft Law and the RPC, Javier was a public officer
who exercised public functions under the law which
created the NBDB. Hence, the Sandiganbayan had
jurisdiction.
DOCTRINE (related to topic):
A public office is the right, authority and duty,
created and conferred by law, by which, for a given
period, either fixed by law or enduring at the
pleasure of the creating power, an individual is
invested with some portion of the sovereign
functions of the government, to be exercised by
him for the benefit of the public. The individual so
invested is a public officer.
Moreover, the definition of a public officer pursuant
to the Anti-Graft Law, which provides that a public
officer includes elective and appointive officials
and employees, permanent or temporary, whether
in the classified or unclassified or exempt service
receiving compensation, even nominal, from the
government.
As for the Revised Penal Code, it defines a public
officer as any person who, by direct provision of
the law, popular election, popular election or
appointment by competent authority, shall take
part in the performance of public functions in the
Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall
perform in said Government or in any of its
branches public duties as an employee, agent, or

subordinate official, of any rank or classes, shall

be deemed to be a public officer.
FACTS:
June 7, 1995: RA 8047 or the "Book Publishing
Industry Development Act was enacted into law to
promote the book publishing industry. It provided
for the creation of the National Book Development
Board (NBDB), which was composed of 11
members appointed by the President: 5 of whom
came from the government and 6 from the private
sector (nominees of organizations of private book
publishers, printers, writers, book industry related
activities, students and the private education
sector).
February 26, 1996: Javier was appointed to the
NBDB as a private sector representative for a term
of 1 year. During that time, she was also the
President of the Book Suppliers Association of the
Philippines (BSAP). She was on a hold-over
capacity in 1997, and was again appointed in
1998. As a Board member, one of her functions
was to attend book fairs to establish linkages with
international book publishing bodies.
September 29, 1997: Javier was issued by the
Office of the President a travel authority to attend
the Madrid International Book Fair in Spain on
October 8-12, 1997. Based on the itinerary, she
was paid in advance P139,199 as travelling
expenses. However, she was not able to attend
the book fair.
The resident auditor then advised Javier to return
the cash advance, but she failed to do so. She
was subsequently issued a Summary of
Disallowances, but despite the notice, she failed to
return the money.
Sept 1999: The Executive Director of the NBDB
filed a complaint with the Ombudsman against
Javier for malversation of public funds and
properties, since she did not return the cash
advance within 60 days from cancellation of her
trip.
The Ombudsman found probably cause to indict
Javier for violation of Section 3 of the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act (anti-graft case). Javier
was then charged in an information with violation
of said law.
Meanwhile, the COA also charged Javier with
Malversation of Public Funds under the Revised
Penal
Code
(malversation
case).
The
Ombudsman, finding probable cause, charged
Javier with Malversation, in an information which
reads:
o That on or about and during the period
from October 8, 1997 to February 16,
1999, [xxx] and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, a high ranking officer, being a
member of the Governing Board of the
National Book Development Board and as
such, is accountable for the public funds
she received as cash advance in
#STRONG // PubOff Week 2 // 1

connection with her trip to Spain from

October 8-12, 1997, per LBP Check No.
10188 in the amount of P139,199.00,
which trip did not materialize, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
take, malverse, misappropriate, embezzle
and convert to her own personal use and
benefit the aforementioned amount
of P139,199.00, Philippine currency, to the
damage and prejudice of the government
in the aforesaid amount.
These two cases were raffled to different divisions.
In her arraignment in the anti-graft case, Javier
pleaded not guilty and delivered the money
subject of the cases to the SB.
In the malversation case, a clarificatory hearing
was scheduled to determine jurisdictional issues.
Before the hearing, however, Javier filed a Motion
for Consolidation, which was granted. The People,
in turn, filed a Motion to Admit Amended
Information, which was also granted. The new
information reads:
o That on or about and during the period
from October 8, 1997 to February 16,
1999, [same as above], the above-named
accused, a high ranking officer, being a
member of the Governing Board of the
National
Book
Development
Board equated to Board Member II with
a salary grade 28 and as such, is
accountable for the public funds she
received as case advance in connection
with her trip to Spain from October 8-12,
1997 [same as above ulit].
October 10, 2000: Javier filed a Motion to Quash
Information, averring that:
o the SB had no jurisdiction over the antigraft case as the information did not allege
that she is a public official who is classified
as Grade "27" or higher, or that she was a
co-principal, accomplice or accessory to a
public officer committing an offense under
the SBs jurisdiction.
o she is not a public officer or employee;
in the NBDB, she is only as a private
sector representative under RA 8047,
hence, she may not be charged under RA
3019 before the Sandiganbayan or under
any statute which covers public officials.
o she does not perform public functions
and is without any administrative or
political power to speak of that she is
serving the private book publishing
industry by advancing their interest as
participant in the government's book
development policy.
The SB denied the Motion to Quash, ruling that:
o the fact that Javier did not receive
compensation in terms of salaries is not
the sole qualification for being a public
official

the NBDB is a statutory government

agency, and the appointees from the
private sector are public officers to the
extent that they are performing their duty
therein.
o the money was advanced to Javier in her
capacity as Director of NBDB for purposes
of official travel. When an individual is
performing her functions as a member of
the board or when that person receives
benefits or when the person is supposed
to travel abroad and is given government
money to effect that travel, to that extent
the private sector representative is a
public official performing public functions.
Javier again filed a Motion to Quash, this time of
the information for the malversation case, invoking
her right against double jeopardy. Said motion was
denied, hence, she filed MR.
The SB issued a Resolution denying the MR,
ruling that the SB had jurisdiction since the offense
is office-related, as the money for her travel
abroad was given to her because of her
Directorship in the NBDB. Moreover, she was
being prosecuted for offenses under two different
statutes.
Hence, this Rule 65 Petition.
Javier argues that she is not a public officer and
only a private sector representative, stressing that
her only function among the 11 basic purposes
and objectives1 provided for in Section 4 of RA
o

1 a) assume responsibility for carrying out and implementing the policies, purposes
and objectives provided for in this Act;b) formulate plans and programs as well as
operational policies and guidelines for undertaking activities relative to promoting
book development, production and distribution as well as an incentive scheme for
individual authors and writers;
c) formulate policies, guidelines and mechanisms to ensure that editors, compilers
and especially authors are paid justly and promptly royalties due them for
reproduction of their works in any form and number and for whatever purpose;
d) conduct or contract research on the book publishing industry including
monitoring, compiling and providing data and information of book production;
e) provide a forum for interaction among private publishers, and, for the purpose,
establish and maintain liaison will all the segments of the book publishing industry;
f) ask the appropriate government authority to ensure effective implementation of
the National Book Development Plan;
g) promulgate rules and regulations for the implementation of this Act in consultation
with other agencies concerned, except for Section 9 hereof on incentives for book
development, which shall be the concern of appropriate agencies involved;
h) approve, with the concurrence of the Department of Budget and Management
(DBM), the annual and supplemental budgets submitted to it by the Executive
director;
i) own, lease, mortgage, encumber or otherwise real and personal property for the
attainment of its purposes and objectives;
j) enter into any obligation or contract essential to the proper administration of its
affairs, the conduct of its operations or the accomplishment of its purposes and
objectives;
k) receive donations, grants, legacies, devices and similar acquisitions which shall
form a trust fund of the Board to accomplish its development plans on book
publishing;
l) import books or raw materials used in book publishing which are exempt from all
taxes, customs duties and other charges in behalf of persons and enterprises
engaged in book publishing and its related activities duly registered with the board;
m) promulgate rules and regulations governing the matter in which the general
affairs of the Board are to be exercised and amend, repeal, and modify such rules
and regulations whenever necessary;
n) recommend to the President of the Philippines nominees for the positions of the
Executive Officer and Deputy Executive Officer of the Board;
o) adopt rules and procedures and fix the time and place for holding meetings:
Provided, That at least one (1) regular meeting shall be held monthly;
p) conduct studies, seminars, workshops, lectures, conferences, exhibits, and other
related activities on book development such as indigenous authorship, intellectual
property rights, use of alternative materials for printing, distribution and others; and

#STRONG // PubOff Week 2 // 2

8047 is to obtain priority status for the book

publishing industry. At the time of her
appointment to the NDBD Board, she was the
President of the BSAP, a book publishers
association. As such, she could not be held liable
for the crimes imputed against her, and in turn,
she is outside the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE #1 (MAIN):
W/N Javier is a public officer (YES)
RATIO #1:
A perusal of the powers and functions of the
NBDB shows that they partake of the nature of
public functions.
A public office is the right, authority and duty,
created and conferred by law, by which, for a given
period, either fixed by law or enduring at the
pleasure of the creating power, an individual is
invested with some portion of the sovereign
functions of the government, to be exercised
by him for the benefit of the public . The
individual so invested is a public officer.
Despite coming from the private sector, the law
invested Javier with some portion of the sovereign
functions of the government, so that the purpose
of the government is achieved.
Hence, the fact that she was appointed from
the public sector and not from the other
branches or agencies of the government does
not take her position outside the meaning of a
public office.
The purpose of the law for appointing members
from the private sector is to ensure that they are
also properly represented in the implementation of
government objectives to cultivate the book
publishing industry.
Moreover, the definition of a public officer pursuant
to the Anti-Graft Law, which provides that a public
officer includes elective and appointive
officials and employees, permanent or
temporary, whether in the classified or
unclassified or exempt service receiving
compensation, even nominal, from the
government.
One is a public officer if one has been elected
or appointed to a public office. Even though
Javiers term is only for a year, that does not make
her private person exercising a public function.
The fact that she is not receiving a monthly salary
is also of no moment, since Section 7 of RA 8047
provides that members of the Board shall receive
per diem and such allowances as may be
authorized for every meeting actually attended and
subject to pertinent laws, rules and regulations.
Also, under the Anti-Graft Law, the nature of one's
appointment, and whether the compensation one
receives from the government is only nominal, is
q) exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be required by
the law.

immaterial because the person so elected or

appointed is still considered a public officer.
As for the Revised Penal Code, it defines a public
officer as any person who, by direct provision
of the law, popular election, popular election or
appointment by competent authority, shall take
part in the performance of public functions in
the Government of the Philippine Islands, or
shall perform in said Government or in any of
its branches public duties as an employee,
agent, or subordinate official, of any rank or
classes, shall be deemed to be a public officer.
Javier performs public functions pursuant to RA
8047, hence, she is a public officer under the
definition of the RPC. In fact, during her tenure,
she took part in the drafting and promulgation of
several rules and regulations implementing RA
8047, and she was supposed to represent the
country in the cancelled book fair in Spain.
ISSUE #2:
W/N Javier, as a public officer, is under the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (YES)
RATIO #2:
Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. - The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive o
A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, other known a
Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Rev
are officials occupying the following positions in the government, w
the time of the commission of the offense:
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of re
Grade "27" and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classifica
including:
xxxx
(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade "Gra
Position Classification Act of 1989.
xxxx
The DBM has provided that as per FY 1999
Personal Services Itemization, the Governing
Board of NDBD is composed of one Chairman (exofficio), one Vice-Chairman (ex-officio), and nine
Members, four of whom are ex-officio and the
remaining five members represent the private
sector. The said five members of the Board do not
receive any salary and as such their position are
not classified and are not assigned any salary
grade. For purposes however of determining the
rank
equivalence
of
said
positions,
notwithstanding that they do not have any salary
grade assignment, the same may be equated to
Board Member II, SG-28.
Thus, based on the Amended Information in the
malversation case, Javier belongs to the
employees classified as SG-28, included in the
phrase "all other national and local officials
classified as Grade 27' and higher under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of
1989."
ISSUE #3:
#STRONG // PubOff Week 2 // 3

 W/N there is double jeopardy (NO)

RATIO #3:
It is well settled that for a claim of double jeopardy
to prosper, the following requisites must concur:
o there is a complaint or information or other
formal charge sufficient in form and
substance to sustain a conviction;
o the same is filed before a court of
competent jurisdiction;
o there is a valid arraignment or plea to the
charges; and
o the accused is convicted or acquitted or
the case is otherwise dismissed or
terminated without his express consent.
The third and fourth requisites are not present in
the case at bar.
The informations in both criminal refer to offenses
penalized by different statues, RA 3019 and RPC,
respectively.
Also, Javier pleaded not guilty to the Information
for violation of the Anti-Graft Law. She was not yet
arraigned in the criminal case for malversation of
public funds because she had filed a motion to
quash the latter information. Double jeopardy
could not, therefore, attach considering that the
two cases remain
pending before
the
Sandiganbayan and that herein petitioner had
pleaded to only one in the criminal cases against
her.
DISPOSITION
Affirmed SB Orders and Resolution.

DOCTRINE:
The delegation to the individual of some of the sovereign
functions of government as [t]he most important
characteristic in determining whether a position is a public
office or not.
FACTS:

Laurel v. Desierto | Kat

April 12, 2002
SALVADOR H. LAUREL, petitioner, vs. HON. ANIANO A.
DESIERTO, in his capacity as Ombudsman, respondent.

KAPUNAN, J.

SUMMARY: Laurel was the chair of the National

Centennial Commission and the CEO of EXOCorp. As a
result of various investigations prompted by the privilege
speech of Sen. Coseteng, he is about to charged for
violations of the anti-graft law. Laurel is questioning the
jurisdiction of the Ombudsman over him claiming that he is
not a public officer. The SC held that he is a public officer.
The NCC performs sovereign (executive) functions. It is,
therefore, a public office, and Laurel, as its Chair, is a
public officer. That Laurel allegedly did not receive any
compensation
during
his
tenure
is
of
little
consequence. Neither is the fact that the NCC was
characterized by E.O. No. 128 as an ad-hoc body make
said commission less of a public office.

June 13, 1991: President C. Aquino issued A.O.

223 constituting a Committee to take charge of
the nationwide preparations for the National
Celebration of the Philippine Centennial of the
Declaration of Philippine Independence and the
Inauguration of the Malolos Congress in 1988
President Ramos issued E.O. 128, reconstituting
the Committee for the preparation of the National
Centennial Celebrations in 1998.
o renamed
as
National
Centennial
Commission NCC).
o Appointed to chair was VP Laurel.
o Presidents D. Macapagal and C. Aquino
were Honorary Chairpersons.
o an ad-hoc body whose existence shall
terminate upon the completion of all
activities related to the Centennial
Celebrations.
o Per Section 6, the Commission was also
charged with the responsibility to prepare,
for approval of the President, a
Comprehensive Plan for the Centennial
Celebrations within 6 months from the
effectivity of the Executive Order.
E.O. No. 128 also contained provisions for staff
support and funding
The Philippine Centennial Expo 98 Corporation
(Expocorp) was created. It undertook the freedom
ring project
o Laurel was among the 9 incorporators,
who were also its first 9 directors.
o Laurel was elected Expocorp Chief
Executive Officer.
August 5, 1998: Senator Coseteng delivered a
privilege speech in the Senate denouncing
alleged anomalies in the construction and
operation of the Centennial Exposition Project
at the Clark Special Economic Zone.
o Upon motion of Senator Drilon, the
privilege speech was referred to the
Committee on Accountability of Public
Officers and Investigation (The Blue
Ribbon Committee) and several other
Senate Committees for investigation.

#STRONG // PubOff Week 2 // 4

February 24, 1999: President Estrada issued

Administrative Order No. 35, creating an ad hoc
and independent citizens committee to investigate
all the facts and circumstances surrounding the
Philippine centennial projects, including its
component activities.
o Former Senator Rene A.V. Saguisag was
appointed to chair the Committee.
March 23, 1999: the Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee filed with the Secretary of the Senate
its Committee Final Report No. 30 dated February
26, 1999.
o Recommendation: Prosecution by the
Ombudsman/DOJ of Dr. Salvador Laurel,
chair of NCC and of EXPOCORP for
violating the rules on public bidding,
relative to the award of centennial
contracts to AK (Asia Construction &
Development
Corp.);
for
exhibiting
manifest bias in the issuance of the NTP
(Notice to Proceed) to AK to construct the
FR (Freedom Ring) even in the absence
of a valid contract that has caused
material injury to government and for
participating in the scheme to preclude
audit by COA of the funds infused by the
government for the implementation of the
said contracts all in violation of the antigraft law.
November 5, 1999: the Saguisag Committee
issued its own report. It recommended the further
investigation by the Ombudsman, and indictment,
in proper cases of, among others, NCC Chair
Salvador H. Laurel for violations of Section 3(e) of
R.A. No. 3019, Section 4(a) in relation to Section
11 of R.A. No. 6713, and Article 217 of the RPC.
January 27, 2000: the Fact-finding and
Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the
Ombudsman issued its Evaluation Report,
recommending:
o 1. that a formal complaint be filed and
preliminary investigation be conducted
before the Evaluation and Preliminary
Investigation Bureau (EPIB), Office of the
Ombudsman against former NCC and
EXPOCORP chair Salvador H. Laurel,
former EXPOCORP President Teodoro Q.
Pea and AK President Edgardo H.
Angeles for violation of Sec. 3(e) and (g)
of R.A. No. 3019, as amended in relation
to PD 1594 and COA Rules and
Regulations;

2. That the Fact Finding and Intelligence

Bureau of this Office, act as the nominal
complainant.
April 24, 2000: Laurel filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman a MTD questioning the jurisdiction of
said office. Denied in June 13, 2000 order
July 3, 2000: Laurel moved for a reconsideration
of the June 13, 2000 Order denied in October
5, 2000 order
October 25, 2000: Laurel filed the petition for
certiorari.
EPIB (November 14, 2000 resolution: finding
probable cause to indict LAUREL and PEA before
the Sandiganbayan for conspiring to violate
Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, in relation to R.A. 1594;
directed that an information for violation of the said
law be filed against Laurel and Pea.
o Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto approved
the resolution with respect to Laurel but
dismissed the charge against Pea.
SC (September 24, 2001 Resolution): issued a
TRO, commanding the Ombudsman to desist from
filing any information before the Sandiganbayan or
any court against Laurel for alleged violation of
Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.
November 14, 2001: the Court, upon motion of
Laurel, heard the parties in oral argument.
Preliminary Issue (Yung important lang to, since di
naman siya topic natin)
Laurel: the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman was
limited to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan,
i.e., over public officers of Grade 27 and higher.
NO!
Uy v. Sandiganbayan: The power to investigate
and to prosecute granted by law to the
Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. It pertains
to any act or omission of any public officer or
employee when such act or omission appears
to
be
illegal,
unjust,
improper
or
inefficient. The law does not make a distinction
between cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan
and those cognizable by regular courts.
Section 15 of RA 6770 gives the Ombudsman
primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan. The law defines such primary
jurisdiction as authorizing the Ombudsman to take
over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency
of the government, the investigation of such
cases. The grant of this authority does not
necessarily imply the exclusion from its jurisdiction
of cases involving public officers and employees
by other courts. The exercise by the Ombudsman
of his primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable
o

#STRONG // PubOff Week 2 // 5

by the Sandiganbayan is not incompatible with the

discharge of his duty to investigate and prosecute
other offenses committed by public officers and
employees. Indeed, it must be stressed that the
powers granted by the legislature to the
Ombudsman are very broad and encompass all
kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance committed by public officers and
employees during their tenure of office.
MAIN ISSUE: W/N the Ombudsman has jurisdiction on the
ground that Laurel was public officer? YES
SUB-ISSUE #1: W/N NCC is a public office? YES
RATIO #1:
The Constitution describes the Ombudsman and
his Deputies as protectors of the people, who shall
act promptly on complaints filed in any form or
manner against public officials or employees of
the government, or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including governmentowned or controlled corporations.
The Office of the Ombudsman is to [i]nvestigate
any act or omission of any public official,
employee, office or agency, when such act or
omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or
inefficient.
The foregoing constitutional provisions are
substantially reproduced in R.A. No. 6770,
otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989.2
o The coverage of the law appears to be
limited only by Section 16, in relation to
Section 13, supra3

2 SEC. 13. Mandate. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors

of the people shall act promptly on complaints file in any form or manner
against officers or employees of the Government, or of any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations, and enforce their administrative, civil and criminal
liability in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote
efficient service by the Government to the people.SEC. 15. Powers,
Functions and Duties. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the
following powers, functions and duties:
(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person,
any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency,
when such act or omission appears to be illegal unjust, improper or
inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may
take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government,
the investigation of such cases;

3 SEC 16. Applicability. The provisions of this Act shall apply to all kinds
of malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance that have been
committed by any officer or employee as mentioned in Section 13 hereof,
during his tenure of office.

In sum, the Ombudsman has the power to

investigate any malfeasance, misfeasance and
non-feasance by a public officer or employee of
the government, or of any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including governmentowned or controlled corporations.
Neither the Constitution nor the Ombudsman Act
of 1989, however, defines who public officers are.
A definition of public officers cited in
jurisprudence is that provided by Mechem, a
recognized authority on the subject:
o A public office is the right, authority
and duty, created and conferred by law,
by which, for a given period, either
fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure
of the creating power, an individual is
invested with some portion of the
sovereign functions of the government,
to be exercised by him for the benefit
of the public. The individual so
invested is a public officer.
The characteristics of a public office, according
to Mechem, include the delegation of sovereign
functions, its creation by law and not by
contract, an oath, salary, continuance of the
position, scope of duties, and the designation
of the position as an office.
Laurel: Some of these characteristics are not
present in the position of NCC Chair, namely:
o (1) the delegation of sovereign functions;
o (2) salary, since he purportedly did not
receive any compensation; and
o (3) continuance, the tenure of the NCC
being temporary.
(1) SOVEREIGN FUNCTIONS
Mechem describes the delegation to the
individual of some of the sovereign functions
of government as [t]he most important
characteristic in determining whether a
position is a public office or not.
o The most important characteristic which
distinguishes
an
office
from
an
employment or contract is that the creation
and conferring of an office involves a
delegation to the individual of some of the
sovereign functions of government, to be
exercised by him for the benefit of the
public; that some portion of the
sovereignty of the country, either
legislative, executive or judicial, attaches,
for the time being, to be exercised for the
public
benefit. Unless
the
powers
conferred are of this nature, the individual
is not a public officer.
#STRONG // PubOff Week 2 // 6

While EO 128 did not delegate upon the NCC

functions that can be described as legislative or
judicial, NCC performs executive functions.
The executive power is generally defined as the
power to enforce and administer the laws. It is the
power of carrying the laws into practical operation
and enforcing their due observance. The executive
function, therefore, concerns the implementation
of the policies as set forth by law.
The Constitution provides in Article XIV
(Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture,
and Sports):
o Sec. 15. Arts and letters shall enjoy the
patronage of the State. The State shall
conserve, promote, and popularize the
nations historical and cultural heritage and
resources, as well as artistic creations.
In its preamble, A.O. No. 223 states the purposes
for the creation of the Committee for the National
Centennial Celebrations in 1998:
o Whereas, the birth of the Republic of the
Philippines is to be celebrated in 1998,
and the centennial presents an important
vehicle for fostering nationhood and a
strong sense of Filipino identity;
o Whereas, the centennial can effectively
showcase Filipino heritage and thereby
strengthen Filipino values;
o Whereas, the success of the Centennial
Celebrations may be insured only through
long-range planning and continuous
developmental programming;
o Whereas, the active participation of the
private sector in all areas of special
expertise and capability, particularly in
communication
and
information
dissemination, is necessary for long-range
planning and continuous developmental
programming;
o Whereas, there is a need to create a body
which shall initiate and undertake the
primary
task
of
harnessing
the
multisectoral components from the
business, cultural, and business sectors to
serve as effective instruments from the
launching and overseeing of this longterm project;
E.O. No. 128, reconstituting the Committee for the
National Centennial Celebrations in 1998, cited
the need to strengthen the said Committee to
ensure a more coordinated and synchronized
celebrations of the Philippine Centennial and wider
participation from the government and nongovernment or private organizations. It also

referred to the need to rationalize the relevance of

historical links with other countries.
The NCC was precisely created to execute the
foregoing policies and objectives, to carry
them into effect.
Thus, the Commission was vested with the
following functions:
o (a) To undertake the overall study,
conceptualization,
formulation
and implementation of programs and
projects on the utilization of culture, arts,
literature and media as vehicles for
history,
economic
endeavors,
and
reinvigorating the spirit of national unity
and sense of accomplishment in every
Filipino in the context of the Centennial
Celebrations. In this regard, it shall include
a Philippine National Exposition 98 within
Metro Manila, the original eight provinces,
and Clark Air Base as its major venues;
XXX
The President, upon whom the executive power is
vested, created
the
NCC
by executive
order. Book III (Office of the President), Chapter 2
(Ordinance Power), Section 2 describes the nature
of executive orders:
o SEC. 2. Executive Orders. Acts of the
President providing for rules of a general
or permanent character in implementation
or execution of constitutional or statutory
powers shall be promulgated in executive
orders.
Furthermore, the NCC was not without a role in
the countrys economic development, especially in
Central Luzon. Laurel admitted as much in the oral
argument4
The promotion of industrialization and full
employment is a fundamental state policy.
Laurel: invokes Torio vs. Fontanilla that the holding
by a municipality of a town fiesta is a proprietary
rather than a governmental function.

4 MR. JUSTICE REYNATO S. PUNO: XXX dont you agree that the task
of the centennial commission was also to focus on the long term over all
socio economic development of the zone and Central Luzon by attracting
investors in the area because of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.FORMER
VICE PRESIDENT SALVADOR H. LAUREL: XXX President Ramos said
Mr. Vice President the Central Luzon is suffering, suffering because of the
eruption of Mt. Pinatubo let us try to catalize [sic] economic recovery in
that area by putting this Expo in Clark Field and so it was done I agreed
and Your Honor if I may also mention we wanted to generate employment
aside from attracting business investments and employment.

#STRONG // PubOff Week 2 // 7

The holding of a nationwide celebration

which marked the nations 100th birthday
may be likened to a national fiesta which
involved only the exercise of the national
governments proprietary function.
o In Torio, we held: [Section 2282 of the
Chapter on Municipal Law of the Revised
Administrative
Code]
simply
gives
authority to the municipality to [celebrate]
a yearly fiesta but it does not impose upon
it a duty to observe one. Holding a fiesta
even if the purpose is to commemorate a
religious or historical event of the town is
in essence an act for the special benefit of
the community and not for the general
welfare of the public performed in
pursuance of a policy of the state. The
mere fact that the celebration, as claimed,
was not to secure profit or gain but merely
to provide entertainment to the town
inhabitants is not a conclusive test. For
instance, the maintenance of parks is not
a source of income for the town,
nonetheless it is [a] private undertaking as
distinguished from the maintenance of
public schools, jails, and the like which are
for public service.
There can be no hard and fast rule for purposes of
determining the true nature of an undertaking or
function of a municipality; the surrounding
circumstances of a particular case are to be
considered and will be decisive.
The basic element, however beneficial to the
public the undertaking may be, is that it
is government in essence, otherwise, the
function becomes private or propriety in
character.
Easily, no governmental or public policy of the
state is involved in the celebration of a town fiesta.
Torio, however, did not intend to lay down an allencompassing doctrine. The Court cautioned that
there can be no hard and fast rule for purposes of
determining the true nature of an undertaking or
function of a municipality; the surrounding
circumstances of a particular case are to be
considered and will be decisive. Thus, in footnote
15 of Torio, the Court, citing an American case,
illustrated how the surrounding circumstances plus
the political, social, and cultural backgrounds
could produce a conclusion different from that
in Torio:
o We came across an interesting case
which
shows
that
surrounding
circumstances plus the political, social,
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

and cultural backgrounds may have a

decisive bearing on this question.
The case of Pope v. City of New Haven, et
al. was an action to recover damages for
personal injuries caused during a Fourth
of July fireworks display resulting in the
death of a bystander alleged to have been
caused by defendants negligence.
The defendants demurred to the complaint
invoking the defense that the city was
engaged in the performance of a public
governmental duty from which it received
no pecuniary benefit and for negligence in
the performance of which no statutory
liability is imposed.
This demurrer was sustained by the
Superior Court of New Haven Country.
Plaintiff sought to amend his complaint to
allege that the celebration was for the
corporate advantage of the city.
This was denied.
In affirming the order, the Supreme Court
of Errors of Connecticut held inter alia:
Municipal corporations are exempt from
liability for the negligent performance of
purely public governmental duties, unless
made liable by statute.
A municipality corporation, which under
permissive authority of its charter or of
statute, conducted a public Fourth of July
celebration, including a display of
fireworks, and sent up a bomb intended to
explode in the air, but which failed to
explode until it reached the ground, and
then killed a spectator, was engaged in the
performance of a governmental duty.
This decision was concurred in by three
Judges while two dissented.
Majority Opinion: July 4th, when that date
falls upon Sunday, July 5th, is made a
public holiday, called Independence Day,
by our statutes. All or nearly all of the
other states have similar statutes. While
there is no United States statute making a
similar provision, the different departments
of the government recognize, and have
recognized since the government was
established, July 4th as a national
holiday. Throughout the country it has
been recognized and celebrated as
such. These celebrations, calculated to
entertain and instruct the people generally
and to arouse and stimulate patriotic
sentiments and love of country, frequently
take the form of literary exercises
#STRONG // PubOff Week 2 // 8

consisting of patriotic speeches and the

reading of the Constitution, accompanied
by a musical program including patriotic
air sometimes preceded by the firing of
cannon and followed by fireworks. That
such celebrations are of advantage to the
general public and their promotion a
proper subject of legislation can hardly be
questioned. x x x
Surely, a town fiesta cannot compare to the
National Centennial Celebrations.
The Centennial Celebrations was meant to
commemorate the birth of our nation after
centuries of struggle against our former colonial
master, to memorialize the liberation of our people
from oppression by a foreign power. 1998 marked
100 years of independence and sovereignty as
one united nation. The Celebrations was an
occasion to reflect upon our history and
reinvigorate our patriotism. As A.O. 223 put it, it
was a vehicle for fostering nationhood and a
strong sense of Filipino identity, an opportunity to
showcase Filipino heritage and thereby strengthen
Filipino values. The significance of the
Celebrations could not have been lost on
petitioner, who remarked during the hearing:
Oh, yes, certainly the State is interested in the
unity of the people, we wanted to rekindle the love
for freedom, love for country, that is the over-all
goal that has to make everybody feel proud that
he is a Filipino, proud of our history, proud of what
our forefather did in their time. x x x.
Clearly,
the
NCC
performs
sovereign
functions. It is, therefore, a public office, and
Laurel, as its Chair, is a public officer.
(2) COMPENSATION
That Laurel allegedly did not receive any
compensation during his tenure is of little
consequence.
A salary is a usual but not a necessary
criterion for determining the nature of the
position. It is not conclusive. The salary is a mere
incident and forms no part of the office. Where a
salary or fees is annexed, the office is provided for
it is a naked or honorary office, and is supposed to
be accepted merely for the public good.
Hence, the office of petitioner as NCC Chair may
be characterized as an honorary office, as
opposed to a lucrative office or an office of profit,
i.e., one to which salary, compensation or fees are
attached. But it is a public office, nonetheless.
(3) CONTINUANCE/ AD-HOC BODY
Neither is the fact that the NCC was characterized
by E.O. No. 128 as an ad-hoc body make said
commission less of a public office.

The term office, it is said, embraces the idea of

tenure and duration, and certainly a position which
is merely temporary and local cannot ordinarily be
considered an office.
But, says Chief Justice Marshall, if a duty be a
continuing one, which is defined by rules
prescribed by the government and not by contract,
which an individual is appointed by government to
perform, who enters on the duties pertaining to his
station without any contract defining them, if those
duties continue though the person be changed, -it seems very difficult to distinguish such a charge
or employment from an office of the person who
performs the duties from an officer.
At the same time, however, this element of
continuance can not be considered as
indispensable, for, if the other elements are
present it can make no difference, says
Pearson, C.J., whether there be but one act or a
series of acts to be done, -- whether the office
expires as soon as the one act is done, or is to
be held for years or during good behavior.
Our conclusion that Laurel is a public officer finds
support in In Re Corliss.
o There the Supreme Court of Rhode Island
ruled that the office of Commissioner of
the US Centennial Commission is an
office of trust as to disqualify its holder as
elector of the United States President and
Vice-President. (Under Article II of the
United States Constitution, a person
holding an office of trust or profit under the
United States is disqualified from being
appointed an elector.)
o The duties and functions of the
commission (i.e. prepare and superintend
the execution of the plan for holding the
exhibition, etc.) were various, delicate, and
important; that they could be successfully
performed only by men of large
experience and knowledge of affairs; and
that they were not merely subordinate and
provisional, but in the highest degree
authoritative, discretionary, and final in
their character. We think that persons
performing such duties and exercising
such functions, in pursuance of statutory
direction and authority, are not to be
regarded as mere employees, agents, or
committee men, but that they are, properly
speaking, officers, and that the places
which they hold are offices. It appears,
moreover, that they were originally
regarded as officers by Congress; for the
#STRONG // PubOff Week 2 // 9

act under which they were appointed

declares, section 7, that no compensation
for services shall be paid to the
commissioners or other officers, provided
for in this act, from the treasury of the
United States. The only other officers
provided for were the alternates appointed
to serve as commissioners when the
commissioners were unable to attend.
SUB-ISSUE #2: W/N EXOCORP is a private corporation?
NO
RATIO #2:
Having arrived at the conclusion that the NCC
performs executive functions and is, therefore, a
public office, we need no longer delve at length on
the issue of whether Expocorp is a private or a
public corporation.
Even assuming that Expocorp is a private
corporation, Laurels position as Chief Executive
Officer (CEO) of Expocorp arose from his
Chairmanship of the NCC. Consequently, his acts
or omissions as CEO of Expocorp must be viewed
in the light of his powers and functions as NCC
Chair.
SUB-ISSUE #3: W/N Laurel, both as chairman of the NCC
and of Exocorp was not a public officer as defined under
the anti-graft & corrupt practices act?
Laurel: since he supposedly did not receive any
compensation for his services as NCC or
Expocorp Chair, he is not a public officer as
defined in Republic Act No. 3019 (The Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act) and is, therefore,
beyond the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
Ombudsman seeks to charge Laurel with violation
of Section 3 (e) of said law, which reads:
o SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public
officers. In addition to acts or omissions of
public officers already penalized by
existing law, the following shall constitute
corrupt practices of any public officer and
are hereby declared to be unlawful:
o (e) Causing any undue injury to any party,
including the Government, or giving any
private party any unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge
of his official, administrative or judicial
functions through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence. This provision shall apply to
officers and employees of offices or
government corporations charged with the
grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions.
A public officer, under R.A. No. 3019, is defined
as:

SEC. 2. Definition of terms. As used in this

Act, the term (b) Public officer includes
elective and appointive officials and
employees, permanent or temporary,
whether in the classified or unclassified or
exemption
service receiving
compensation, even nominal, from the
government as defined in the preceding
paragraph.
The definition of a public officer is expressly limited
to the application of R.A. No. 3019. Said definition
does not apply for purposes of determining the
Ombudsmans jurisdiction, as defined by the
Constitution and the Ombudsman Act of 1989.
Moreover, the question of whether petitioner is a
public officer under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act involves the appreciation of evidence
and interpretation of law, matters that are best
resolved at trial.
The use of the term includes in Section 2 (b)
indicates that the definition is not restrictive.
The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act is just
one of several laws that define public officers.
Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code, for
example, provides that a public officer is:
o x x x any person who, by direct provision
of law, popular election or appointment by
competent authority, takes part in the
performance of public functions in the
Government of Philippines, or performs in
said Government or in any of its branches
public duties as an employee, agent or
subordinate official, of any rank or class.
Section 2 (14) of the Introductory Provisions of the
Administrative Code of 1987, on the other hand,
states:
o Officer as distinguished from clerk or
employee, refers to a person whose
duties not being of a clerical or manual
nature, involves the exercise of discretion
in the performance of the functions of the
government. When used with reference to
a person having authority to do a
particular act or perform a particular
person in the exercise of governmental
power, officer includes any government
employee, agent or body having authority
to do the act or exercise that function.
Under Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 6713 (The
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees), one may be considered
a public official whether or not one receives
compensation, thus:
o

#STRONG // PubOff Week 2 // 10

Public Officials include elective and

appointive officials and employees,
permanent or temporary, whether in the
career or non-career service including
military and police personnel, whether or
not they receive compensation, regardless
of amount.
Assuming that the definition of public officer in
R.A. No. 3019 is exclusive, the term
compensation, which is not defined by said law,
has many meanings.
o Under
particular
circumstances,
compensation has been held to include
allowance
for
personal
expenses,
commissions,
expenses,
fees,
an
honorarium,
mileage
or
traveling
expenses,
payments
for
services,
restitution or a balancing of accounts,
salary, and wages.
How then is compensation, as the term is used in
Section 2 (b) of R.A. No. 3019, to be interpreted?
Did Laurel receive any compensation at all as
NCC Chair? Granting that Laurel did not receive
any salary, the records do not reveal if he received
any allowance, fee, honorarium, or some other
form of compensation. Notably, under the by-laws
of Expocorp, the CEO is entitled to per diems and
compensationWould
such
fact
bear
any
significance?
o Obviously, this proceeding is not the
proper forum to settle these issues lest we
preempt the trial court from resolving
them.
DISPOSITIVE: Petition DISMISSED. The preliminary
injunction issued
in
September 24, 2001 is
hereby LIFTED.
o

People v. Morales | Joan

May 30, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS.
LUIS
J.
MORALES,
RESPONDENT.
BRION, J.
Nature: Petition for Review on Certiorari
SUMMARY: Morales was President of Expocorp whose
primary purpose was to operate, administer, manage and
develop the Philippine Centennial International Exposition
1998. AnInformation was filed against him for violation of
RA3019 Sec 3 (e). Morales argues that he is not a public
officer and Expocorp is a private corporation because it
was not created by a special law, it did not have an original
charter, and a majority of Expocorp's capital stock is
owned by private individuals. The People bases its
arguments mainly on Expocorps AOI: 1) One of
Expocorps incorporators is BCDA which owned more than
90% of the shares; 2) The primary purpose of Expocorp

was to was to establish and operate Expo '98 a project of

National Centennial Commision which was held as a
public office. SC ruled in favor of Morales and held that SB
was without jurisdiction - Expocorp is a private corporation
and not a GOCC.
DOCTRINE: Factors considered by SC in determining that
Expocorp was not a GOCC:
o It was not created by a special law nor did it have
an original charter.
o It was organized under the Corporation Code and
was registered with SEC.
o Expocorp could not derive its public character from
the fact that it was organized by the NCC.
o Applying the provisions of the Revised
Administrative Code of 1987, Expocorp is a private
corporation because Global owns 55.16% of its
stocks.
FACTS:
June 13, 1991: Pres.Cory Aquino issued AO 223
to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the
declaration of Philippine Independence and
thereby created the Committee for the National
Centennial Celebrations in 1998 (Committee).
1993: Then President Ramos issued EO 128,
entitled "Reconstituting the Committee for the
Preparation
of
the
National
Centennial
Celebrations in 1998." EO 128 renamed the
Committee as the "National Centennial
Commission" (NCC). The mandate was to "take
charge of the nationwide preparations for the
National Celebration of PH Centennial of the
Declaration of PH Independence and the
Inauguration of the Malolos Congress." The late
VP Salvador Laurel was appointed as NCC
Chairman.
March 10, 1996: NCC and the BCDA organized
the Philippine Centennial Expo '98 Corporation
or Expocorp whose primary purpose was to
operate, administer, manage and develop the
Philippine Centennial International Exposition
1998 (Expo `98).
The Philippine Centennial project was marred by
numerous allegations of anomalies, among
them, the lack of public biddings.
1998: Sen. Ana Dominique Coseteng delivered a
privilege speech in the Senate denouncing these
anomalies. Because of this speech, the Senate
Blue
Ribbon
Committee
conducted
an
investigation on the Philippine Centennial project.
1999: President Estrada created the Ad Hoc and
Independent Citizen's Committee (AHICC), also
for the purpose of investigating these alleged
anomalies. Both the Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee and the AHICC recommended to the
Office of the Ombudsman that a more exhaustive
investigation of the Philippine Centennial project
be conducted.
The investigation that followed resulted in the filing
in 2001 of an Information (for violation of Section

#STRONG // PubOff Week 2 // 11

3(e) of RA 3019)5 by the Ombudsman's FactFinding and Investigation Bureau against

respondent Luis J. Morales (Morales), the
acting president of Expocorp at the time
relevant to the case:
o INFORMATION: That on or about
September 6, 1997 or sometime prior or
subsequent thereto in Pasig City xxx the
above-named accused, a public officer,
being then the Pres. of Expo
Corporation, Pasig City, a government
corporation, and as such was issued one
(1) Mercede[s] Benz, Model 1997-C230,
bearing Serial No. WDB202023-1F602122, and Engine No. 111974-12027093 for his official use, and while in
the performance of his official functions,
acting thru evident bad faith and manifest
partiality, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully,
and
criminally
give
unwarranted benefits to one Rodolfo
Lejano by selling to him said
Mercede[s] Benz through Newton
Motors, Inc. represented by its President
Exequiel Mariano
(P2,250,000.00),
without the requisite public bidding nor
approval of the Board of Directors of
Expo Corporation and thereafter failed to
deposit the proceeds of the sale to the
account of Expo Corporation, to the
damage and prejudice of the Corporation
and the public interest as well.
Before the Sandiganbayan (SB), Morales moved
for the dismissal of the case for lack of
jurisdiction over his person and over the offense
charged. He alleged that:
o Expocorp is a private corporation and
that he is not a public employee or
official.
o Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over
his person or the offense charged as he is
a private individual who has not been
charged jointly with other public officials or
employees.
o Expocorp is not a government-owned
or controlled corporation because it was
not created by a special law, it did not
have an original charter, and a majority of
Expocorp's capital stock is owned by
private individuals.
o He did not receive any compensation from
the government as defined in Section 2(a)
of R.A. No. 3019, and the compensation
he received as Expocorp's acting
president was paid from Expocorp's funds.

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving
any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall
apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with
the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

In its comment, Office of the Special Prosecutor,

representing the People, insisted that:
o Expocorp is a government-owned
corporation since its AOI showed that of
its ten listed subscribers, BCDA held
stocks valued at P99,999,100.00, while
the stocks held by the rest of the
subscribers had a total value of P900.00.
o In Laurel v. Desierto, it was held that NCC
Chairman Laurel was a public officer; thus,
Morales was likewise a public officer since
his appointment flowed from the former's
exercise of his authority as chairman of
both NCC and Expocorp.
Morales replied:
o Upon Expocorp's incorporation, BCDA
owned essentially all of Expocorp's stocks.
Two months after its incorporation,
however, the Board of Directors of
Expocorp issued a resolution declaring all
its unissued and unsubscribed shares
open for subscription. Global Clark Assets
Corporation (Global) subscribed to
essentially all of these unissued and
unsubscribed shares; thus, Global
became the majority owner with 55.16%
of Expocorp's stocks, while BCDA was
left as minority stockholder with 44.84% of
Expocorp's stocks.
o The
ruling
in Laurel
applied exclusively to Chairman Laurel.
Since Expocorp is a private corporation
and an entity distinct from NCC, he, as its
president, is not a public officer.
SB dismissed the Peoples motion. It ruled that the
position of a president of a GOCC clearly falls
within its jurisdiction, HOWEVER, before Morales
could be held accountable as Expocorp's
president, it must first be established that
Expocorp is a GOCC. It held:
o In Laurel, the Court only held that Laurel is
a public officer without ruling on whether
Expocorp is a private or a governmentowned corporation. The Court also held
that NCC performed executive functions,
hence, it was a public office; consequently,
its chairman, Laurel, was a public officer.
Morales, in the case at bar, is being
charged as president of Expocorp only
and not as an NCC official.
o Expocorp is a private corporation - it
was not created by a special law nor did it
have an original charter. It was organized
under the Corporation Code and was
registered with SEC. Expocorp could not
derive its public character from the fact
that it was organized by the NCC.
Applying the provisions of the Revised
Administrative Code of 1987, Expocorp is
a private corporation because Global
owns 55.16% of its stocks; hence, its
#STRONG // PubOff Week 2 // 12

officers and employees are private

individuals who are outside the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
The People submits the ff grounds:
o Expocorp was organized and created for
the sole purpose of performing the
executive functions of the NCC and the
sovereign functions of the government,
and should be considered as a public
office.
o Morales, as president of Expocorp, should
rightfully be considered as a "public
officer", falling under the jurisdiction of the
Sandigangayan.

ISSUE: Whether or not Expocorp is a GOCC which falls

under the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan (NO) / Otherwise
stated, whether or not Morales is a public officer (NO)
RATIO:
The People submits:
o Expocorp was an extension of the NCC as
provided in Expocorp's AOI, specifically
Section 2 which states Expocorp's primary
purpose. It provides that Expocorp's
primary purpose was to establish and
operate Expo '98 - an NCC project.6
o The position occupied by Morales as
President of Expocorp stemmed from his
appointment as such by NCC Chair and
Expocorp CEO Laurel. On the basis of
such appointment,Morales served as the
government's representative and Laurel's
alter ego in running the affairs of
Expocorp.
6

2.

3.
4.
5.
6.

7.

8.
9.

PRIMARY PURPOSE xxxTo operate, administer, manage, implement,

and develop EXPO '98 conformably to and in accordance with the
Detailed Feasibility study and Master Plan for said Exposition prepared
by Douglas/Gallagher, Inc. and approved by the President of the
Philippines;
To exercise oversight functions and overall jurisdiction over the
operations of EXPO '98 as well as manage and oversee all plans,
programs, and activities related to the implementation and operation of
said Exposition;
To regulate the establishment, operation, and maintenance of utilities,
services, and infrastructure works in all the site components of EXPO
'98 and its support facilities;
To oversee the preparations for the implementation of the participation
of countries, groups, organizations, and entities at EXPO '98;
To establish linkages with participating countries and coordinate their
programs and activities relevant to the theme of EXPO '98;
To provide and prescribe the guidelines for the design and fabrication of
the pavilions of participating countries that played a significant role in
Philippine historical development and of other participating groups,
organizations, and entities which would be reflective of the following
objectives of EXPO '98
To conceive and devise varied promotional strategies towards creating
awareness and appreciation of EXPO '98 as the centerpiece of the
national celebrations in 1998 of the centennial of the declaration of
Philippine Independence and beyond that as a permanent site for the
Filipino people to honor their rich heritage;
To encourage and invite the active and meaningful participation of the
private sector in managing and overseeing EXPO '98; and
To forge strategic partnerships and joint ventures with local and
international investors and developers in the development,
maintenance, operation, and management of EXPO '98 on a turn-key
basis.

Laurel vs. Desierto: "even assuming that

Expocorp is a private corporation,
petitioner's position as CEO of Expocorp
arose from his Chairmanship of the NCC.
Consequently, his acts or omissions as
CEO of Expocorp must be viewed in the
light of his powers and functions as NCC
Chair."
o Having established that Expocorp, by
extension, performed part of the
sovereign functions delegated to the
NCC, it follows that Morales, as President
of Expocorp, performed tasks that likewise
fall within the contemplation of the
government's sovereign functions.
SC HELD: NO.
o Expocorp is a private corporation as
found by SB. It was not created by a
special law but was incorporated under
the Corporation Code and was registered
with SEC.
o It is also not a GOCC. Although BCDA,
which owned 999,991 shares, was one of
Expocorp's original incorporators, the
BOD of Expocorp allowed Global to buy
1,229,998 of its unused and unsubscribed
shares two months after its incorporation.
With the BCDA as a minority stockholder,
Expocorp cannot be characterized as a
government-owned
or
controlled
corporation. In Liban, et al. v. Gordon: A
government-owned
or
controlled
corporation must be owned by the
government, and in the case of a stock
corporation, at least a majority of its
capital stock must be owned by the
government.
The Sandiganbayan's Jurisdiction
o Section 5, Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution
defines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan:
o Sec. 5. xxx jurisdiction over criminal and
civil cases involving graft and corrupt
practices and such other offenses
committed by public officers and
employees,
including
those
in
government-owned
or
controlled
corporations, in relation to their office as
may be determined by law.
o R.A. No. 82497, which amended Presidential
Decree No. 16068, delineated the jurisdiction of
the SB:
o Sec.
4.
Jurisdiction.
-The
Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as
o

7 An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan xxx

8

Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486 Creating a Special Court to be known as

"Sandiganbayan" and for Other Purposes

#STRONG // PubOff Week 2 // 13

amended, otherwise known as the Antigraft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic
Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2,
Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal
Code, 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:
(1)
Officials of the executive branch
occupying the positions of regional
director and higher, otherwise classified
as Grade '27' and higher, of the
Compensation and Position Classification
Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758),
specifically including: xxx
(g) Presidents, directors or
trustees, or managers of

government-owned
or
-controlled corporations, state
universities
or
educational
institutions or foundations; xxx
o Since Expocorp is a private corporation, not a
GOCC, Morales, as Expocorp's president who
now stands charged for violating Section 3(e)
of R.A. No. 3019 in this capacity, is beyond the
Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction.
DISPOSITION: Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SB
Resolution
entitled
"People
vs
Morales," is AFFIRMED.

#STRONG // PubOff Week 2 // 14