Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Doj V Liwag
Doj V Liwag
Doj V Liwag
DOJ v LIWAG
Facts: Mary Ong alleges that she was a former undercover
agent
of the Presidential Anti- Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF)
and the Philippine National Police (PNP) Narcotics Group Jan.
8, 2001 - She filed before the OMB a complaint against PNP
General Panfilo M. Lacson, PNP Colonel Michael Ray B.
Aquino, other high-ranking ocials of the PNP, and several
private individuals Her complaint-adavit gave rise to
separate cases involving dierent oenses imputed to
respondents Lacson and Aquino including:
1. Kidnapping for ransom of Zeng Jia Xuan, Hong Zhen Quiao,
Zeng Kang Pang, James Wong and Wong Kam Chong;
2. Murder of Wong Kam Chong; and
3. Kidnapping for ransom and murder of Chong Hiu Ming May
7, 2001 - a panel of prosecutors from the DOJ sent a
subpoena to Lacson et al May 18, 2001 - Lacson and Aquino
sent a letter saying the DOJ should dismiss the complaint
because the OMB has a similar complaint with the same facts
May 28, 2001 - DOJ denied dismissal Lacson and Aquino filed
in the RTC a motion for prohibition, insisting the DOJ does not
have jurisdiction Judge Liwag issued a writ of preliminary
injunction enjoining the DOJ from conducting a preliminary
investigation DOJ et al appealed to the SC
Issue: W.O.N. the DOJ can concurrently investigate a case
wherein the OMB has an existing complaint before it
No - the pendency of the case before the OMB is one of
primary jurisdiction to investigate 1987 Admin Code
governing the DOJ states: Section 1. Declaration of policy. It
such cases; Art. 11, Sec. 13 of the Constitution vests the OMB
with plenary investigative powers and fiscal autonomy They
are granted great leeway in investigating and prosecuting
oenses Prosecution under the OMB has preference over
other bodies RA 6770 gives them primary jurisdiction in
cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and authorizes them
to take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency,
the investigation of such cases.
The DOJ has general jurisdiction, it cannot diminish the
primary jurisdiction of the OMB This is the first case wherein
the first complaint was filed with the OMB before the DOJ The
subsequent assumption of the DOJ would not promote an
orderly administration of Justice Defendants would not know
where their recourse would be (DOJ or OMB) There is a risk of
conflicting resolutions regarding guilt Two investigations
would lead to unnecessary expenditure of government funds
Petition dismissed, OMB to have jurisdiction for the
preliminary investigation
ISSUE:
Whether or not a dual citizen is disqualified to hold public elective office in
the philippines.
RULING:
The court ruled that the phrase "dual citizenship" in R.A. 7160 Sec. 40 (d)
and R.A. 7854 Sec. 20 must be understood as referring to dual allegiance.
Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The former arises when, as
a result of the application of the different laws of two or more states, a person
is simultaneously considered a national by the said states. Dual allegiance
on the other hand, refers to a situation in which a person simultaneously
owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual
citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is a result of an individual's volition.
Article IV Sec. 5 of the Constitution provides "Dual allegiance of citizens is
inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law."
Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this
disqualification. Unlike those with dual allegiance, who must, therefore, be
subject to strict process with respect to the termination of their status, for
candidates with dual citizenship, it should suffice if, upon the filing of their
His declarations will be taken upon the faith that he will fulfill his undertaking
made under oath. Should he betray that trust, there are enough sanctions for
declaring the loss of his Philippine citizenship through expatriation in
appropriate proceedings. In Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, the court sustained the
denial of entry into the country of petitioner on the ground that, after taking
his oath as a naturalized citizen, he applied for the renewal of his Portuguese
passport and declared in commercial documents executed abroad that he
was a Portuguese national. A similar sanction can be taken against any one
who, in electing Philippine citizenship, renounces his foreign nationality, but
subsequently does some act constituting renunciation of his Philippine
citizenship.
The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
However, it is a not a secret that under the padrinosystem (kamaganak, kaklase, kaibigan) prevailing in the bureaucracy, heads of
agencies appoint to juicy and key positions only those persons who
fall in the 3K category. These are subordinates who usually control
the budget and finance; they will not act or do anything, especially
those involving the use of public funds, without the bidding and/or
imprimatur of their bosses. And so the boss always knows.