3.
There can be no vested right in public office or its
G ENERAL P RINCIPLES
Law on Public Officers
This branch of law deals with public office, its creation,
modification and dissolution, as well as the eligibility of
public officers, the manner of their election or appointment
and assumption of office, their rights, duties, powers,
inhibitions and liabilities and the modes of terminating
their official relations (Cruz, The Law of Public Officers,
2007 ed., p.2).
Public office
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 State to be exercised by him for
the benefit of the public (Fernandez v. Sto. Tomas, G.R.
No. 116418, March 7, 1995).
Elements of public office:
1. Created by law or by authority of law.
2. Must possess a delegation of a portion of the sovereign
powers of the government, to be exercised for the
benefit of the public.
3. The powers conferred and the duties to be discharged
must be defined directly or impliedly by the legislature
or through legislative authority.
4. The duties must be performed independently and
without the control of the superior power other than the
law unless they are those of an inferior or subordinate
office created or authorized by the legislature, and by it
placed under the general control of a superior office or
body.
5. With permanency or continuity, not temporary or
occasional (Cruz, The Law of Public Officers, 2007 ed.,
p.4-5).
How created:
1. By the Constitution (e.g. Office of the President)
2. By valid statutory enactments (e.g. Office of the
Insurance Commissioner)
3. By authority of the law (e.g. the Davide Commission)
(Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political Law, 2009 ed.,
p. 445).
Characteristics
1. Public office is a public trust.
2. Public office is not private property, and is personal to
the incumbent. It cannot be a subject of a contract.
Not being a property, a public office is not protected by
due process clause, which if statutory, may be changed
at will and even abolished by the legislature
(Montesclaros v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 152295, July 9,
2002).
salary, except certain Constitutional offices.
Where a controversy relates to the question as to which
of two persons are entitled thereto, a public office may
be considered property within the protection of due
process of law (Cruz, The Law of Public Officers, 2007
ed., p.6-7).
Public officer
Public officer is an individual vested with some portion of
the sovereign functions of the State to be exercised by
him for the benefit of the public (Alba v. Evangelista, G.R.
Nos. L-10360 and L-10433, January 17, 1957)
Public officer v. clerk or employee
"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 (Sec.
2(14), Introductory Provisions, Administrative Code of
1987). 
Distinguish public officer from employee (Suarez. Political
Law Reviewer, 2002 ed., p.928):
Public Officer Employee
Delegation to the Does not involve
individual of some the exercise of
of the sovereign some portion of the
As to functions of sovereign functions
scope government. of the state.
Duties are clerical
Involves exercise
or manual in
of discretion
nature.
As to Required to take
Oath and bond are
requis an oath and
not required
ites official bond
The delegation to the individual of some of the
sovereign functions of government is "[t]he most
important characteristic" in determining whether a
position is a public office or not. Such portion of the
sovereignty of the country; either legislative,
executive or judicial, must attach to the office for the
time being, to be exercised for the public benefit
(VFP v. Reyes, G.R. No. 155027, February 28,
2006).
With respect to offenses in the Revised Penal Code
that can only be committed by public officers, the Art.
203 of the Revised Penal Code obliterates the
standard distinction in the law of public officers
between “officers” and “employee” (Maniego v.
People, G.R. L-2971, April 20, 1951). "A person who,
by direct provision of the law, popular election or
appointment by competent authority, shall take part in
 Political Law

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 class, shall be deemed to be a public
officer” (Art. 203, Revised Penal Code).
Vacancy
It occurs when an office is empty and without a legally
qualified incumbent appointed or elected to it with a lawful
right to exercise its powers and performs its duties (Cruz,
Law of Public Officer, 2007 ed., p. 28).

Classifications of Public Officer: Revocability of appointment

1. Constitutional or statutory; General rule: Appointment to an office, once made and
2. National or local; completed, is not subject to reconsideration or revocation
3. Legislative, executive or judicial; because revocation after a complete appointment is
4. Lucrative or honorary; tantamount to removal (Mitra v. Subido, G.R. No. L-
5. Discretionary or ministerial; 21691, September 15, 1967).
6. Appointive or elective; Exception: Where the appointment is temporary (Ong v.
7. Civil or military; Office of the President G.R. No. 184219 January 30,
8. De jure or de facto (Cruz, Law of Public Officers, 2007 2012).
ed., p. 8).
Designation
It is the imposition of additional duties, usually by law, on
M ODES OF A CQUIRING T ITLE TO a person already in public office (Binamira v. Garrucho,
P UBLIC O FFICE G.R. No. 92008, July 30, 1990).

1. By election – An officer occupies the office by virtue of The designation must be made by the proper authority
the mandate of the electorate. They are elected for a pursuant to law. A designation that only points to one
definite term and may be removed therefrom only upon person strikes at the very heart of the power to appoint,
stringer conditions (Farinas v. Executive Secretary, which is essentially discretionary (Flores v. Drilon, G.R.
G.R. No. 147387,  December 10, 2003). No. 104732, June 22, 1993).
2. By appointment – selection, by the authority vested with
the power, of an individual who is to exercise the
Appointment Designation
functions of a given office (Binamira v. Garrucho, G.R.
No. 92008, July 30, 1990). Executive in
Legislative.
As to nature.
Nature of appointments nature Irrevocable in
Revocable.
It is essentially discretionary power and cannot be character.
delegated; it must be performed by the officer upon whom Selection of an
Mere imposition by
it is vested according to his best lights, the only condition individual who is
law of additional
being that the appointee should possess the qualifications to exercise the
duties on an
required by law. If he does, then the appointment cannot functions of a
incumbent official.
be faulted on the ground that there are others better given office.
As to
qualified who should have been preferred (Luego v. Civil Results to security
effect Does not result to
Service Commission, G.R. No. L-69137, August 5, 1986). of tenure when
security of tenure.
completed.
Requisites for a valid appointment Can be subject of Cannot be subject
1. The appointing authority must be vested with the power a protest before of a protest before
to appoint at the time appointment is made; the CSC. the CSC.
2. The appointee should possess all the qualifications As to
Connotes Implies
including appropriate civil service eligibility and none of effecti-
permanency. temporariness.
the disqualifications; vity
3. The position is vacant;
4. The appointment has been approved by the CSC (or Commission
confirmed by Commission on Appointments); It is the written evidence of appointment (Cruz, Philippine
5. The appointee accepts the appointment by taking the Political Law, 2002 ed., p. 202).
oath and entering into discharge of duty (Garces v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114795, July 17, 1996). Steps in the appointing process
1. Regular appointments

Page | 2

a. Nomination by the President
b. Confirmation by Commission on Appointments
c. Issuance of commission
d. Acceptance by the appointee
2. Ad interim appointments
a. Nomination by the Presisdent
b. Issuance of commission
c. Acceptance by the appointee
d. Confirmation by Commission on Appointments
3. Appointments w/o confirmation
a. Appointment by appointing authority
b. Issuance of commission
c. Acceptance by the appointee
4. Appointments in career service
Appointment is not deemed complete until attestation
or approval by the CSC (Javier v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-
39451 February 20, 1989).
Does the grant to the President of the power to appoint
OICs in ARMM violate the Constitution?  
No.  The appointing power is embodied in Section 16,
Article VII of the Constitution, which pertinently states that
the President shall appoint all other officers of the
government whom the President may be authorized by
law to appoint.  Since the President’s authority to appoint
OICs emanates from RA 10153, it falls under this group of
officials that the President can appoint. Thus, the assailed
law rests on clear constitutional basis (Datu Michael Abas
Kida, et al v. Senate of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No.
196271, October 18, 2011).
M ODES AND K INDS OF
A PPOINTMENT
1. Permanent – extended to a person possessing the
requisite qualifications, including the eligibility required
for the position and thus enjoys security of tenure
(Achacoso v. Macaraig, G.R. No. 93023, March 13,
1991).
2. Temporary – extended to one who may not possess the
requisite qualifications or eligibility and is revocable at
will, without the necessity of just cause or valid
investigation provided that such appointment shall not
exceed 12 months (Sec.25 (b), PD 807, Civil Service
Decree).
Note: The Administrative Code of 1987, which provides
for only 2 kinds of appointment – permanent and
temporary, has abolished the provisional appointment
under the old Civil Service Act. A provisional appointee
Political Law
enjoys security of tenure (Pangilinan v. Maglaya, G.R.
No. 104216, August 20, 1993).
The President may temporarily designate an officer
already in the government service or any other
competent person to perform the functions of an office
in the executive branch, appointment to which is vested
in him by law, when:
1. The officer regularly appointed to the office is unable
to perform his duties by reason of illness, absence or
any other cause; or
2. There exists a vacancy (Sec. 17, Chapter 5, Book III,
EO 292).
Note: Although the code speaks of temporary
designation, it is actually referring to an appointment. It
did not apply the distinction between an appointment
and a designation (Binamira v. Garrucho G.R. No.
92008, July 30, 1990). The reason is because the code
allows any other competent person to be “designated”
(Pimentel v. Ermita, G.R. No. 164978, October 13,
2005).
Instances of temporary appointment:
1. Appointee does not possess civil service eligibility
(Sec. 27(2), Title I-A, Book V, E.O. 292);
2. Appointment by the President in an executive office
during the absence or incapacity of the incumbent; (Sec.
17, Chapter 5, Book III, EO 292).
3. Designated as officer in charge (Concurring Opinion
of Teehankee, CJ., Lecaroz v. Ferrer, G.R. No.
77918, July 27, 1987);
4. Appointment held at the pleasure of the appointing
power (Alfredo  Cuadra vs. Teofisto  Cordova, G.R.
No. L-11602, April 21, 1958).
An appointment in an "acting" capacity is merely
temporary, one which is good only until another
appointment is made to take its place (Austria v. Amante,
G.R No. L-959, January 9, 1948,).
Acquisition of the appropriate civil service eligibility by a
temporary appointee will not ipso facto convert the
temporary appointment into a permanent one; a new
appointment is necessary (Maturan v. Maglana, G.R. No.
L-52091, March 29, 1982).
Where the temporary appointment is for a fixed period, the
appointment may be revoked only at the expiration of the
period, and if revocation is made before such expiration,
the same has to be for a valid and just cause (Ambas v.
Buenaseda, G.R. No. 95244, September 4, 1991).
Acceptance of a temporary appointment results in the
termination of official relationship with the former
3|Page
 Political Law

permanent position (Romualdez III v. Civil Service Appointment Appointment

Commission, 197 SCRA 168, May 15,1991). As to Made during
Made during
when the legislative
Subsequent acquisition of the appropriate civil service recess.
made session.
eligibility is no reason to compel appointing authority to Made only
reappoint the officer (Gloria v. Judge de Guzman, G.R. after the Made before
No.116183, October 6, 1995). nomination is such
confirmed by confirmation.
An appointee with temporary status need not possess the the CA
civil service eligibility required by the position provided he As to Shall cease to be
meets the following qualifications: duration Continues until valid if
a. It is necessary in the public interest to fill up the the end of the disapproved by
vacancy; term of the the CA or
b. There is no appropriate eligible; appointee once bypassed by CA
c. The temporary appointment shall not exceed 12 confirmed by upon the next
months; the CA. adjournment of
d. He may be replaced sooner if a qualified civil service Congress.
eligible becomes available (PD 807, Civil Service
Decree, Sec. 25; Torio v. Civil Service Commission, 5. Midnight appointment – made by the President within 2
G.R. No. 99336, June 9, 1992). months immediately before the next presidential
elections and up to the end of his term (Sec. 15, Art.
Government employees holding career civil service VII, 1987 Constitution), whether or not it is confirmed by
positions appointed under a provisional or temporary the Commission on Appointments.
basis who have rendered at least a total of 7 years of
efficient service may be granted the civil service eligibility The constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments
(Sec. 1, R.A. 6850). does not apply to appointments made in the Judiciary
(De Castro v. JBC, G. R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010).
3. Regular – made by the President while Congress is in
session and becomes effective after the nomination is Where a prospective vacancy will occur after the
confirmed by the Commission on Appointments and appointing authority’s term, he cannot fill it in advance
continues until the end of the term (Cruz, Philippine during his term, as this would be an illegal pre-emption
Political Law, 2002 ed., pp 207-208). of the powers of his successor (Cruz, The Law of Public
Officers, 2007 ed., p.25).
4. Ad interim – made while Congress is not in session,
before confirmation by the CA; it is immediately
effective, and ceases to be valid if disapproved or
bypassed by the CA upon the next adjournment of D E F ACTO O FFICERS
Congress (Sec. 16, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution).
One whose acts, though not those of a lawful officer, the
An ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment law, upon principles of policy and justice, will hold valid so
because it takes effect immediately and can no longer far as they involve the interests of the public and third
be withdrawn by the President once the appointee has persons, where the duties of the office were exercised:
qualified into office. The fact that it is subject to
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments does a. Without a known appointment or election, but under
not alter its permanent character (Matibag v. Benipayo, circumstances of reputation or acquiescence;
G.R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002). b. With a known and valid appointment or election but the
officer failed to conform to a legal requirement;
An ad interim appointee, whose term had expired by c. With a known appointment or election but void because
virtue of inaction by the Commission on Appointments, of ineligibility of the officer or want of authority of the
may be reappointed to the same position without appointing or electing authority or irregularity in
violating the Constitutional provision prohibiting an appointment or election not known to the public; or
officer whose term has expired from being re-appointed d. With known appointment or election pursuant to an
(Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. 130657, April 1, 2002). unconstitutional law before adjudged to be such (Cruz,
The Law of Public Officers, 2007 ed., p.52).
Regular Ad Interim

Page | 4
 Political Law

Requisites (VAC): Usurper is one who takes possession of the office and
1. Valid and legitimate office; undertakes to act officially without any color of right or
2. Actual physical possession of the office in good faith; authority, either actual or apparent (Tayko v. Capistrano,
3. Color of right or general acquiescence by the public G.R. No. L-30188, October 2, 1928).
(Tuanda v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 110544, October
17, 1995). It is the color of authority, not the color of title that
distinguishes an officer de facto from a usurper. It means
A de facto officer is subject to the same liabilities imposed that the authority to hold office is by some election or
on the de jure officer in the discharge of official duties, in appointment, however irregular or informal (Civil Service
addition to whatever special damages that may be due Commission v. Joson, G.R. No. 154674, May 27, 2004).
from him because of his unlawful assumption of office
(Cruz, The Law of Public Officers, 2007 ed., p.65). De jure and de facto officer, distinguished
A de jure officer has a legal right to the office but he may
Legal effects of acts of de facto officers not be in possession of the office, while a de facto officer
The lawful acts of a de facto officer, so far as the rights of possesses the offices because of color of authority (Cruz,
third person are concerned are, if done within the scope The Law of Public Officers, 2007 ed., p. 52).
and by the apparent authority of the office, considered
valid and binding as if he were the officer legally elected De facto officer and intruder, distinguished
and qualified for the office and in full possession thereof
(Cruz, The Law of Public Officers, 2007 ed., p.61). De Facto
Intruder
Officer
Entitlement to salaries One who takes
General rule: Rightful incumbent may recover from a de Officer under
As to mode possession of an
facto officer the salary received by the latter during the any of the four
of acquiring office and undertakes
time of wrongful tenure even though the latter is in good (4)
possession to act officially without
faith and under color of title (Monroy v. CA, G.R. No. L- circumstances
of office any authority, either
23258, July 1, 1967). mentioned.
actual or apparent.
As to color Has color of Has neither lawful title
Exception: When there is no de jure officer, the de facto of authority authority nor color of right or
officer is entitled to salaries for the period when he title to office.
actually discharged functions (Civil Liberties Union v. As to validity Acts are absolutely
Exec. Sec., G.R. No. 83896, February 22, 1991). of acts Acts are valid void and can be
as to the public impeached in any
A person who had been officially proclaimed elected and until such time proceeding at any
had assumed office on the strength of such proclamation as his title to the time unless and until
but was later ousted as a result of an election protest is office is he continues to act for
entitled to the compensation, emoluments and allowances adjudged so long a time as to
which our Constitution provides for the position insufficient. afford a presumption
(Rodriguez v. Tan, G.R. No. L-3913, August 7, 1952) of his right to act.
As to May be entitled
Challenge against a de facto officer entitlement to
A de facto officer may be ousted in a direct proceeding Not entitled to
to salaries compensation
where the title will be the principal issue, not in a collateral compensation
for services
action or in an action to which he is not a party. The rendered
authorized proceeding is quo warranto (Cruz, The Law of
Public Officers, 2007 ed., p.65).
T HE C IVIL S ERVICE
De jure officer
A de jure officer is one who has the lawful right to the Scope
office in all respects, but who has either been ousted from The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions,
it, or who has never actually taken possession of it. When instrumentalities, agencies of the Government, including
the officer de jure is also the officer de facto, the lawful government-owned and controlled corporations with
title and possession are united (Cruz, The Law of Public original charters (Sec. 1, Art. XI-B, 1987 Constitution).
Officers, 2007 ed., p. 52).

5|Page

Corporations with original charters refer to those organized
by a special charter from Congress (Trade Unions of the
Philippines v. National Housing Authority G.R. No. L-49677
May 4, 1989).
a. GOCC’s with original charters – civil service laws
b. GOCC’s organized under the Corporation Code – Labor
Code
APPOINTMENTS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE
All that the Civil Service Commission (CSC) may do is
determine whether or not the appointee possesses the
qualifications and requisite eligibility. If he does, his
appointment is approved; if not, it is disapproved (Lopez
vs. CSC, G.R. No. 92140, February 19, 1991). CSC has
no authority to direct the appointing authority to appoint a
certain person (Orbos v. CSC, G.R. No. 92561,
September 12, 1990).
Where the CSC disapproves an appointment, the
appointee need not be previously heard since the action
does not involve the imposition of an administrative
disciplinary measure (Debulgado v. CSC, G.R. No.
111471, Sept. 26, 1994).
The CSC cannot revoke an appointment on the ground
that another employee is better qualified; Its authority
being limited to approving or renewing an appointment in
the light of the requisites of the law governing the Civil
Service (Aquino v. CSC, G.R. No. 92403, April 22, 1992).
The CSC is not empowered to determine the kind or
nature of the appointment extended by the appointing
power (Luego v. CSC, G.R. No. L-69137, August 5,
1986).
The CSC cannot convert a temporary appointment into a
permanent one. It may however approve as temporary an
appointment intended to be permanent where the
appointee does not possess the requisite eligibility
(Province of Camarines Sur, v. CA, G.R. No. 104639, July
14, 1995).
The CSC has the power to order the reinstatement of
government employees who have been unlawfully
dismissed (Gayatao v. CSC, G.R. No. 93064, June 22,
1992).
Jurisdiction of CSC
Disciplinary cases and cases involving “personnel action”
affecting employees in the Civil Service are within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the CSC (Mantala v. Salvador,
G.R. No. 101646, February 13, 1992).
Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court is given
exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and
Political Law
judicial personnel. No other branch of government may
intrude into this power. Complaints must be brought
before the Office of the Court Administrator (Ampong v.
CSC, G.R. No. 167916, August 26, 2008).
Administrative jurisdiction over a court employee belongs
to the Supreme Court, regardless of whether the offense
was committed before or after employment in the
judiciary. However, if the court personnel subject to the
disciplinary action of another court or tribunal exercising
quasi-judicial functions to secure an affirmative relief, he
may not afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to escape
a penalty (Ampong v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No.
167916, August 26, 2008).
CLASSES OF SERVICE
1. Career service is characterized by:
a. Entrance based on merit and fitness to be
determined as far as practicable by competitive
examinations, or based on highly technical
qualifications;
b. Opportunity for advancement to higher career
positions; and
c. Security of tenure (Sec. 5, PD 807, Civil Service
Decree).
Career service officers enjoy security of tenure as
guaranteed under the 1987 Constitution and the Civil
Service Decree of the Philippines, which provides that
no officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be
suspended or dismissed except for cause as provided
by law and after due process…  Nevertheless, the right
to security of tenure is not tantamount to immunity from
dismissal (Lacson v. Executive Secretary, et al. G.R.
No. 165399, May 30, 2011).
Merit System Protection Board (MSPB)
CSC Resolution No. 93-2387 dated June 29, 1993
provides that decisions in administrative cases involving
officials and employees of the civil service which are
appealable to the Commission, including personnel
actions such as contested appointments shall now be
appealed directly to the Commission and not to the
MSPB. The functions of the MSPB relating to the
determination of administrative disciplinary cases were,
in other words, re-allocated to the Commission itself.
These changes were prescribed by the Commission in
its effort to "streamline the operation of the CSC" which
in turn required the "simplification of systems, cutting of
red tape and elimination of [an] unnecessary
bureaucratic layer." The previous procedure made it
difficult for cases to be finally resolved within a
reasonable period of time (Rubenecia v. Civil Service
Commission, G.R. No. 115942, May 31, 1995).
Page | 6

Career service includes:
a. Open career– prior qualification in an appropriate
examination is required;
b. Closed career – scientific or highly technical in nature
with separate merit system;
c. Career executive service – Under Secretary, Asst.
Secretary, Bureau Director, Asst. Bureau Director,
Regional Director, Asst. Regional Director, and other
officers of equivalent rank all of whom are appointed
by the President;
d. Career officers – other than those in the Career
Executive Service who are appointed by the
President;
e. Commissioned officers – enlisted men of the Armed
Forces with separate merit system;
f. Personnel of GOCC’s, whether performing
governmental or proprietary functions, who do not fall
under the non-career service; and
g. Permanent laborers, whether skilled, semi-skilled, or
unskilled. (Sec. 5, PD 807, Civil Service Decree).
2. Non-career service is characterized by:
a. Entrance on bases other than those of usual tests of
merit and fitness utilized for the career service; and
b. Tenure which is limited to a period specified by law,
or which is co-terminous with that of the appointing
authority or subject to his pleasure, or which is limited
to the duration of a particular project for which
purpose employment was made (Sec. 6, PD 807,
Civil Service Decree).
Non-career service includes:
1. Elective officials and their personal or confidential
staff;
2. Department heads and other officials of Cabinet
rank who holds position at the pleasure of the
President and their personal or confidential staff;
3. Chairman and members of commissions and
boards with fixed terms of office and their personal
or confidential staff;
4. Contractual personnel; and
5. Emergency and seasonal personnel (Sec. 6, PD
807, Civil Service Decree).
Exempted to competitive examinations:
1. Policy determining position — one charged with the
laying down of principal rules, i.e. head of department
(Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political Law, 2009, p.
335);
2. Primarily confidential position — (the “proximity rule”)
one which denotes close intimacy which ensures
freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or
freedom from misgivings or betrayals or personal trust
Political Law
or confidential matters of state (De los Santos v.
Mallare, G.R. No. L-3881, August 31, 1950);
3. Highly technical position — requires technical skill or
training in the superior degree (De los Santos v.
Mallare, G.R. No. L-3881, August 31, 1950).
The initial determination of whether a position is policy
determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical is
made by the legislative or the executive but the final
determination is made by the courts because courts have
the power and the duty to interpret the law (PAGCOR v.
Rilloraza, G.R. No. 141141, June 25, 2001).
It is the nature of the position, as may be ascertained by
the court in case of conflict, which finally determines
whether a position is primarily confidential, policy
determining or highly technical (CSC v. Salas, G.R. No.
123708, June 19, 1997).
PERSONNEL ACTIONS (PAT-Re3D3S)
These are actions denoting the movement or progress of
personnel in the civil service.
1. Promotion — movement from one position to another
with increase in duties and responsibilities as
authorized by law and usually accompanied by an
increase in pay (Section 26(2), Chapter 5, Book V, Title
I-A of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987).
Next-in-rank rule — the person next in rank shall be given
preference in promotion when the position immediately
above his is vacated (Sec. 19 (3), P.D. 807).
A “qualified next-in-rank” refers to an employee appointed
on a permanent basis to a position previously determined
to be next-in-rank to the vacancy proposed to be filled and
who meets the requisites for appointment thereto as
previously determined by the appointing authority and
approved by the CSC [Section 19(6), P.D. 807, Civil
Service Decree].
The appointing authority still exercises discretion and is
not bound by this rule although he is required to specify
the “special reason or reasons” for not appointing the
officer next-in-rank [Sec. 19(6), P.D. 807, Civil Service
Decree]
Even if the vacancy had to be filled by promotion, the
concept of “next in rank” does not import any mandatory
or peremptory requirement that the person next in rank
must be appointed to the vacancy (Espaňol vs CSC, G.R.
No. 85479, March 3, 1992).
7|Page

The requirement to set forth “special reason or reasons”
for not appointing the officer next-in-rank applies only to
cases of promotion (Pineda v. Claudio, G.R. No. L-
29661, May 13, 1969).
Automatic reversion rule — the disapproval of the appointment
of a person proposed to a higher position invalidates the
promotion of those in the lower positions and automatically
restores them to their former positions (Divinagracia v. Sto.
Tomas, G.R. No. 110954, May 31, 1995).
Requisites:
i. There must be a series of promotions;
ii. All promotional appointments are simultaneously
submitted to the Commission for approval; and
iii.The Commission disapproves the appointment of a
person to a higher position (Divinagracia v. Sto. Tomas,
G.R. No. 110954, May 31, 1995).
2. Appointment through certification — issued to a person
who has been selected from a list of qualified persons
certified by the Civil Service Commission, and who
meets all the qualifications prescribed for the position
(Section 26(2), Chapter 5, Book V, Title I-A of the
Revised Administrative Code of 1987).
3. Transfer — movement from one position to another
which is of equivalent rank, level or salary without break
in service. It constitutes a new appointment. May be
imposed as an administrative penalty (Section 26(3),
Chapter 5, Book V, Title I-A of the Revised
Administrative Code of 1987).
While a temporary transfer or assignment of personnel
is permissible even without the employee’s prior
consent, it cannot be done when the transfer is a
preliminary step toward his removal, or a scheme to lure
him away from his permanent position, or when it is
designed to indirectly terminate his service, or force his
resignation. Such a transfer would in effect circumvent
the provision which safeguards the tenure of office of
those who are in the Civil Service (Republic vs.
Pacheco, G.R. No. 178021, January 31, 2012).
Unless an employee is appointed to a particular office
or station, the security of tenure of employees in the
career executive service pertains only to rank and not to
the office or to the position to which they may be
appointed because their status and salaries are based
on their ranks and not on their jobs  (Cuevas v. Bacal,
G.R. No. 139382,  December 6, 2000).
A transfer that results in promotion or demotion,
advancement or reduction, or a transfer that aims to
lure the employee away from his permanent position,
Political Law
cannot be done without the employee’s consent, for that
would constitute removal from office (Divinagracia v.
Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 110954, May 31, 1995).
4. Reinstatement — a permanently appointed person and
who has, through no delinquency or misconduct, been
separated therefrom, may be reinstated to a position in
the same level for which he is qualified (Section 26(4),
Chapter 5, Book V, Title I-A of the Revised
Administrative Code of 1987).
Pardon merely frees the individual from all the penalties
and legal disabilities imposed upon him because of his
conviction but it does not ipso facto restore him to the
public office necessarily relinquished or forfeited by
reason of his conviction. He must be given a new
appointment to the position (Monsanto v. Factoran,
G.R. No. 78239, February 9, 1989).
However, when a person is given a pardon because he
did not truly commit the offense, the pardon relieves him
from all punitive consequences of his criminal act. He
need no longer apply for reinstatement; he is restored to
his office ipso facto upon the issuance of the clemency,
and he is entitled to back wages (Garcia v. Chairman,
COA, G.R. No. L-75025, September 14, 1993).
5. Reemployment — names of persons who have been
appointed permanently to positions in the career service
and who have been separated as a result of reduction
in force and/or reorganization shall be entered in a list
from which selection for reemployment shall be made
(Section 26(5), Chapter 5, Book V, Title I-A of the
Revised Administrative Code of 1987).
6. Reassignment — movement from one organizational
unit to another in the same agency provided that such
shall not involve a reduction in rank, status or salary.
But like detail, the reassignment should have a definite
date or duration (Section 26(7), Chapter 5, Book V, Title
I-A of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987).
Reassignments involving a reduction in rank, status or
salary violate an employee’s security of tenure, which is
assured by the Constitution, the Administrative Code of
1987, and the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and
Regulations (Republic v. Pacheco, G.R. No. 178021,
January 31, 2012).
7. Detail — movement from one agency to another
without the issuance of an appointment; allowed only for
a limited period in the case of employees occupying
professional, technical and scientific positions (Section
26(6), Chapter 5, Book V, Title I-A of the Revised
Administrative Code of 1987.
Page | 8

8. Demotion — movement from one position to another
which involves diminution in duties, responsibilities,
status or rank which may or may not involve reduction
in salary (Sec. 11, Rule VII, Omnibus Civil Service
Rules and Regulations).
9. Discipline — officers and employees in the civil service
including those appointed to policy-determining
primarily confidential and highly technical positions
enjoy security of tenure and may not be suspended or
dismissed except for cause as may be provided by law.
But they may be disciplined if they violate their public
trust and fail to serve with utmost responsibility,
integrity, loyalty and efficiency and act with patriotism
and justice and lead modest lives (Samson v.
Restrivera, G.R. No. 178454, March 28, 2011).
Grounds for disciplinary action:
a. dishonesty
b. oppression
c. neglect of duty
d. misconduct
e. disgraceful and immoral conduct
f. being notoriously undesirable
g. discourtesy in the course of official duties
h. inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of
official duties
i. conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude
j. falsification of official documents
k. habitual drunkenness
l. gambling
m. refusal to perform official duty or render overtime
service
n. physical or mental incapacity due to immoral or
vicious habits
o. willful refusal to pay just debts or willful failure to pay
taxes due to the government (Sec. 36(b), Art IX, P.D.
807).
Dishonesty is defined as the concealment or
distortion of truth in a matter of fact relevant to one’s
office or connected with the performance of his duty.
On the other hand, misconduct is a transgression of
some established or definite rule of action, is a
forbidden act, is a dereliction of duty, is willful in
character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere
error in judgment. More particularly, it is an unlawful
behavior by the public officer (Japson v. CSC, G.R.
No. 189479, April 12, 2011).
10. Secondment — movement of an employee from one
department or agency to another which is temporary
in nature and which may or may not require the
issuance of an appointment but may either involve
reduction or increase in compensation (Section 6(c),
Political Law
Rule III of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 15, series
of 1999).
E LIGIBILITY AND
Q UALIFICATIONS
Eligibility
Eligibility is the state or quality of being legally fitted or
qualified to be chosen.
Eligible
Under the Administrative Code, it is used to refer to a
person who obtains a passing grade in a civil service
examination and whose name is entered in the register of
eligibles from which appointments must be made (Sec.
5(8), Chapter 1, Title 1, Book V).
Qualification, as understood in two senses:
1. As an endowment – refers to the qualities or attributes
which make an individual eligible for public office. It
must be possessed at the time of appointment or
election and continuously for as long as the official
relationship continues, i.e. age, citizenship, residence,
etc.; and
2. As an act – refers to the act of entering into the
performance of the functions of the office; failure of an
officer to perform an act required by law could affect the
officer’s title, i.e. taking of an oath of office or the filing
of a bond, or both. Accountable officers are required to
be properly bonded in accordance with law (Suarez,
Political Law Reviewer, 2002 ed., p. 942).
Where qualifications may be provided
1. Constitution — they are generally exclusive, and the
legislature may not increase or reduce qualifications
except where the Constitution itself provides otherwise
as when only minimum or no qualifications are
prescribed; and
2. Statute — Congress has virtually plenary powers to
prescribe qualification, but such must be:
a. Germane to the purpose of the office; and
b. Not too specific so as to refer to only one individual.
Qualifications for public office, whether prescribed by
the Constitution or by statute, may not be changed by
private agreement (Cruz, The Law of Public Officers,
2007 ed., p.42).
Duration of qualification
Qualifications are continuing requirements which means
that they must be possessed not only on the date of
selection or assumption but for the full duration of the
9|Page

officer’s incumbency (Aguila v. Genato, G.R. No. L-55151,
March 17, 1981).
The prescribed qualifications must be possessed at the
earliest on the date indicated by the Constitution or the
law. If there is no similar indication, it suffices if the
qualifications are possessed at the time of assumption of
office (Aguila v. Genato, G.R. No. L-55151, March 17,
1981).
The reckoning point in determining the qualifications of an
appointee is the date of issuance of the appointment and
not the date of its approval by the CSC (CSC v. de la
Cruz, G.R. No. 158737, August 31, 2004).
Oath of office — a qualifying requirement for a public
office. Only when the public officer has satisfied this
prerequisite can his right to enter into the position be
considered plenary and complete. Until then, he has none
at all, and for as long as he has not qualified, the holdover
officer is the rightful occupant (Lecaroz v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 130872, March 25, 1999).
Art. IX-B, Sec. 4 of the Constitution requires all public
officers and employees to take an oath or affirmation to
uphold and defend the Constitution.
D ISQUALIFICATIONS AND
I NHIBITIONS
Disqualification
It is the presence of circumstances and qualities which
makes an individual ineligible from holding a public office.
Lack of disqualifications is itself a qualification.
Disqualifications under the Constitution
a. No candidate who lost in an election shall, within 1 yr.
after such election, be appointed to any office in the
Government (Sec. 6, Art. IX-B).
b. No person may be appointed to the CSC if he was a
candidate in the election immediately preceding his
appointment (Sec. 1, Art. IX-B).
c. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall not be
qualified to run for any office in the election immediately
succeeding their cessation from office (Sec. 11, Art.
XI).
d. No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or
designation in any capacity to any public office or
position during his tenure (Sec. 7(1), Art. IX-B).
e. Unless otherwise allowed by law or primary function of
position, no appointive official shall hold any other office
or employment in the Government [Sec. 7(2), Art. IX-B].
f. Forbidden office: No Senator or Member of the House
of Rep. shall be appointed to any office which may have
Political Law
been created or the emoluments thereof increased
during the term for which he was elected (Sec. 13, Art.
VI).
g. An impeached official may be disqualified from holding
any office of the RP [Sec. 3(7), Art. XI].
h. The Pres., VP, Cabinet Members, and their deputies
and assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in
the Constitution, hold any other office or employment
during their tenure (Sec. 13, Art. VII).
i. Members of the Supreme Court, and of other courts
shall not be designated to any agency performing
quasi-judicial or administrative functions (Sec. 12, Art.
VIII) except when they are assigned to sit as part of an
electoral tribunal (Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral
Tribunal G.R. No. 191618 November 23, 2010);
j. Spouses and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within
the 4th degree of the President shall not during his
tenure be appointed as Members of the Constitutional
Commissions, Office of the Ombudsman, Secretaries,
Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or
offices (Sec. 13, Art. VII).
NEPOTISM
Under the Administrative Code [Sec. 59, Chap. 7, Sub. A,
Title I, Administrative Code of 1997 (E.O. No. 292 )] –
prohibits appointments in the national government made
in favor of relatives within the third (3rd) degree of
consanguinity or affinity of the:
1. Appointing authority;
2. Recommending authority;
3. Chief of the bureau or office; or
4. Persons exercising immediate supervision over him are
prohibited.
In the last two cases, it is immaterial who the appointing
or recommending authority is. To constitute a violation
of the law, it suffices that an appointment is extended or
issued in favor of a relative of the chief of the bureau or
office, or the person exercising immediate supervision
over the appointee (Civil Service Commission v.
Dacoycoy, G.R. No. 135805, April 29, 1999).
Under the Local Government Code, nepotism exists when
an appointment is made within the fourth (4th) degree of
consanguinity or affinity of the appointing or
recommending authority (Section 79, RA 7160).
Under the Constitution, there is a prohibition on the
appointment by the President of his spouse and relatives
by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth (4th) civil
degree, Members of the Constitutional Commissions, or
the Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries,
Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or
offices, including government-owned or controlled
corporations (Sec. 13, Art. VII).
Page | 10

The prohibition on nepotism covers promotions as well
because promotions are, in essence, appointments
(Debulgado v. CSC, G.R. No. 111471 September 26,
1994).
Exempted to nepotism rule:
1. Persons employed in a confidential capacity
2. Teachers
3. Physicians
4. Members of AFP (Sec. 49, Art. X, P.D. 807).
INHIBITION
Inhibition is a restraint upon the public officer against the
doing of certain acts which may be legally done by others
(Cruz, Law of Public Officers, 2007 ed., p. 169).
Inhibitions under the Constitution
1. The President, Vice-President, Cabinet Members, and
their deputies and assistants shall not, during tenure,
directly or indirectly practice any other profession,
participate in any business, or be financially interested
in any contract with the Government. They shall strictly
avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office
(Sec. 13, Art. VII).
2. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives
may hold any other office or employment in the
Government during his term without forfeiting his seat
(Sec. 13, Art. VI).
3. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives
may personally appear as counsel before any court of
justice or before the Electoral Tribunal, or quasi-judicial
and other administrative bodies (Sec. 14, Art. VI).
4. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives
shall directly or indirectly, be interested financially in
any contract with, or in any franchise or special
privilege granted by the Government, during his term of
office (Sec. 14, Art. VI).
5. No Member of the Constitutional Commission shall,
during his tenure, hold any other office or employment.
Neither shall he engage in the practice of any
profession or in the active management or control of
business which in any way may be affected by the
functions of his office, nor shall he be financially
interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or
in any franchise or special privilege granted by the
Government, during his term of office. (Sec. 2, Art. IX-
A). This inhibition applies as well to the Ombudsman
and his Deputies (Sec. 8, Art. XI).
6. No officer or employee in the civil service shall engage,
directly or indirectly, in any electioneering or partisan
political campaign [Sec. 2(4), Art. IX-B].
P OWERS AND D UTIES OF P UBLIC
O FFICERS
Political Law
Authority of public officers includes those:
1. Expressly conferred upon him by the act appointing
him;
2. Expressly annexed to the office by law;
3. Attached to the office by common law as incidents to
it.
Doctrine of necessary implication
It states that all powers necessary for the effective
exercise of the express powers are deemed impliedly
granted (Republic v. Montano, G.R. No. L-28055, October
30, 1967).
The power of the Secretary Department to promulgate
internal rules of administrative procedure is lodged in him
by necessary implication as part of his express power to
promulgate rules and regulations necessary to carry out
department objectives, policies, functions, plans,
programs and projects (Valencia v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 86186, May 8, 1992).
Doctrine of qualified political agency (alter ego principle)
The acts of the Secretaries of the departments, performed
and promulgated in the regular course of business, are,
unless disapproved or reprobated by the President,
presumptively the acts of the President (Carpio v.
Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 96409, February 14, 1992).
Limits of the qualified political agency
There are certain powers that are reserved to the
President which cannot be exercised by the Secretaries of
the departments, such as:
a. Declaration of Martial Law;
b. Suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus;
c. Pardoning Power; and
d. Purely Discretionary Powers (Angeles v. Gaite, G.R.
No. 165276, November 25, 2009).
When may authority be exercised
The authority can be exercised only during the term when
the public officer is, by law, invested with the rights and
duties of the office (Nachura, Reviewer in Political Law,
2009 ed., p. 471).
Principle of hold-over
In the absence of any express or implied constitutional or
statutory provision to the contrary, the public officer is
entitled to hold office until his successor shall have been
duly chosen and shall have qualified (Lecaroz v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 130872, March 25, 1999).
Purpose: To prevent hiatus in public office (Nueno v.
Angeles, G.R. No. L-89, February 1, 1946).
11 | P a g e

When the law fixes a specific date for the end of the term,
there is an implied prohibition against hold-over (Nueno v.
Angeles, G.R. No. L-89, February 1, 1946).
During the period of hold-over, the public officer is a de
jure officer (Bautista v. Fajardo, G.R. No. 13799,
September 23, 1918).
Since elective ARMM officials are local officials, they are
covered and bound by the three-year term limit prescribed
by the Constitution; Congress cannot extend their term
through a law allowing officials to serve in a holdover
capacity (Datu Michael Abas Kida, etc., et al. vs. Senate
of the Philippines, etc., et al., G.R. No. 196271, October
18, 2011).
Kinds of duties of public officers:
1. Ministerial — the law exacting its discharge prescribes
and defines the time, mode and occasion of its
performance and requires neither judgment nor
discretion(Suarez, Political Law Reviewer, 2002 Ed, p.
747).
This kind of duty is susceptible of delegation (Binamira
v. Garrucho, G.R. No. 92008, July 30, 1990).
Mandamus will lie but only upon a clear showing of a
legal right (Sec.3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court).
2. Discretionary — public officer has the right to decide
how and when the duty shall be performed (Suarez,
Political Law Reviewer, 2002 ed, p. 747).
A public officer cannot delegate this kind of duty
(Binamira v. Garrucho, G.R. No. 92008, July 30, 1990).
General Rule: mandamus will not lie for the
performance of a discretionary duty.
Exceptions:
a. When the discretion granted is only as to the manner
of its exercise and not the discretion to act or not to
act, the court may require a general action (BF
Homes v. NWRC, G.R. No. 78529 September 17,
1987)
b. Grave abuse of discretion (Sec. 1, Art. VIII, 1987
Constitution).
Ministerial and discretionary duties distinguished
Ministerial Discretionary
Manner of The law sets the Officer has the
performance exact time, mode discretion to
and occasion of decide how and
the exercise when it shall be
exercised
As to It can be It cannot be
whether it delegated delegated
can be
delegated
Political Law
As to A public officer Generally,
whether it may be mandamus will
can be compelled to not lie against
compelled perform a the officer
ministerial duty
by Mandamus
Constitutional duties of public officers:
1. To be accountable to the people, to serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency; to
act with patriotism and justice; and to lead modest lives
(Sec. 1, Art. XI).
2. To submit a declaration under oath of his assets,
liabilities and net worth upon assumption of office and
as often thereafter as may be required by law (Sec. 17,
Art. XI).
3. To owe the State and the Constitution allegiance at all
times (Sec. 18, Art. XI).
The duty of the Solicitor General is to represent the
government, its offices and instrumentalities and its
officials and agents - except in criminal cases or civil
cases for damages arising from felony – is mandatory
(Gonzales v. Chavez, G.R. No. 97351, February 4, 1992).
The government is not estopped from questioning the acts
of its officials (Sharp International Marketing v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. L-78529, September 17, 1987).
R IGHTS OF P UBLIC O FFICERS
1. Right to office — just and legal claim to exercise
powers and responsibilities of the public office
(Paredes v. Abad, G.R. Nos. L-36927-28 April 15,
1974).
2. Right to salary
Basis: legal title to the office and the fact that the law
attaches compensation to the office (Cruz, Law of
Public Officers, 2007 ed., pp 190-191).
Elements of salary as a right:
a. Right to office
Exception: De facto officers if there is no de jure
officer (Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary
G.R. No. 83896, February 22, 1991).
b. Actual performance of duties
Exceptions:
i. Vacation, leaves under CSC MC no. 41-98
ii. An officer who was preventively suspended and
whose suspension was unjustified (Gloria v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131012 April 21,
1999).
Page | 12
 Political Law

iii. Back salaries, in case of reinstated officer Public policy also prohibits the assignment of
Constantino-David v. Pangandaman-Gania, unearned salaries or fees (Director of the Bureau of
G.R. No. 156039, 14 August 2003) . Printing v. Francisco, G.R. No. L-31337, December
c. Right to salary is conferred by law. However, 20, 1973).
compensation is not indispensable to a public
office. It is not part of the office but merely incident 3. Right to vacation leave and sick leave with pay
thereto (Laurel v. Desierto, G.R. No. 145368.  April Under Office of the President Memorandum Circular
12, 2002). No. 54, dated March 24, 1988, government officers and
employees are now entitled to commutation of all leave
An ex officio position being actually and in legal credits without limitation and regardless of the period
contemplation part of the principal office, it follows when the credits were earned, provided the claimant
that the official concerned has no right to receive was in the service as of January 9, 1986.
additional compensation for his services in said
position (Philippine Economic Zone Authority v. Under Section 81 of the Local Government Code,
Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 189767, July 3, elective local officials shall be entitled to the same leave
2012). privileges as those enjoyed by appointive local officials,
including the accumulation and commutation thereof.
Right to back salaries
Back salaries are payable to an officer illegally
Right to retirement pay — given to government
dismissed or otherwise unjustly deprived of his office,
employees to reward them for giving the best years of
the right to recover accruing from the date of
their lives in the service of their country (GSIS v. CSC
deprivation. The claim for back salaries must be
G.R. Nos. 98395-102449 June 19, 1995). Retirement
coupled with a claim for reinstatement and subject to
laws are liberally construed in favor of the retiree
the prescriptive period of 1 year (Cruz, The Law of
(Profeta v. Drilon, G.R. No. 104139, December 22,
Public Officers, 2007 ed., pp. 206-207).
1992).
In order, however, to fall under this exception, two
Retirement benefits, gratuity and separation pay in the
conditions must be complied with: (a) the employee
government service are invariably computed on the
must be found innocent of the charges; and (b) his
basis of the highest salary, emolument and allowances
suspension must be unjustified. For the period of his
received (Request of Clerk of Court for Payment of
preventive suspension pending investigation, the
Retirement Benefits of Court of Appeals Justice Jorge
respondent is not entitled to any back salaries (CSC
Imperial, A.M. No. 9777, August 26, 1999).
vs. Richard G. Cruz, G.R. No. 187858, August 9,
2011).
Retirement pay accruing to a public officer may not be
withheld and applied to his indebtedness to the
The mere reduction of the penalty on appeal does not
government (Tantuico v. Domingo, G.R. No. 96422,
entitle a government employee to back salaries if he
February 28, 1994).
was not exonerated of the charge against him (CSC
vs. Richard G. Cruz, G.R. No. 187858, August 9,
4. Right to self-organization — right to form unions,
2011).
associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to
law (Sec. 8, Art. III, 1987 Constitution).
The reinstated employee cannot be faulted for
inability to work or to render any service from the time
Although civil servants are now given the right to
he was illegally dismissed up to the time of
organize, they may not, however, stage strikes because
reinstatement. The policy of “no work, no pay” cannot
the purpose of strikes is to bargain. The terms and
be applied for such distressing state of affairs was not
conditions of employment are effected through statutes
of his own making or liking. Verily, to withhold back
and administrative rules and regulations, not through
salaries and other benefits during his illegal dismissal
collective bargaining agreements. (Manila Public
would put to naught the constitutional guarantee of
School Teachers Association v. Laguio, G.R. No 95445
security of tenure for those in the civil service
August 6, 1991).
(Constantino-David v. Pangandaman-Gania, G.R.
No. 156039, 14 August 2003).
The right to self organization accorded to government
employees shall not carry with it the right to engage in
The salary of a public officer cannot be seized by
any form of prohibited concerted activity or mass action
garnishment, attachment, or order of execution.
causing or intending to cause work stoppage or service

13 | P a g e

disruption, albeit of temporary nature (Sec. 4, CSC
Resolution No. 021316, 2002).
L IABILITIES OF P UBLIC
O FFICERS
Public officers generally have in their favor the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duties (Sec. 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court).
Public officers are not civilly liable for injuries sustained by
another as a consequence of official acts done within the
scope of his authority, except as otherwise provided by
law or when there is a clear showing of bad faith, malice
or negligence (Section 38, Chapter 9, Book I,
Administrative Code of 1987).
Statutory liabilities
Art. 27, Civil Code: Action for damages against public
officer for refusal or neglect, without just cause, to perform
his official duty.
Art. 32, Civil Code: Liability of public officer for violation of
constitutional rights of individuals. For judges, the act
complained of must itself constitute a crime.
An individual can hold a public officer personally liable for
damages on account of an act or omission that violates a
constitutional right only if it results in a particular wrong or
injury to the former. The presence of bad faith is not
necessary (Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune Tobacco Corp.,
G.R. No. 141309, December 23, 2008).
Art. 34, Civil Code: Liability of peace officers who fail to
respond or give assistance to persons in danger of injury
to life or property.
Liability for contracts — public officer shall be personally
liable on contracts he entered into without or in excess of
his authority (Melchor v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No.
95398 August 16, 1991).
Liability for tort — Public officer shall be personally liable if
he goes beyond the scope of his authority, or exceeds the
powers conferred upon him by law (Mendoza v. De Leon,
G.R. No. L-9596, February 11, 1916).
Two kinds of duties in determining liability:
1. Duty owing to the public in general
It is non-actionable. There is damnum absque injuria or
damage without injury. The remedy is not judicial but
political exercised by the people through suffrages, i.e.
duty of a Senator to enact laws (Cruz, Law of Public
Officers, 2007 ed., p. 223).
Political Law
Exception: When an individual suffers a particular or
special injury on account of the non-performance by the
public officer of the public duty (Vinzons-Chato v.
Fortune Tobacco Corp., G.R. No. 141309, Dec. 23,
2008).
2. Duty owing to particular individual
Its improper performance or non-performance will give
rise to a cause of action in his favor for any injury
sustained by him, i.e. duty of a sheriff to enforce a writ
of execution (Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune Tobacco Corp.,
G.R. No. 141309, Dec. 23, 2008).
Three-fold liability rule
The wrongful acts or omissions of public officers may give
rise to civil, criminal and administrative liability. The
dismissal of an administrative case does not necessarily
bar the filing of a criminal prosecution for the same acts
(Tecson v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 123045, November
16, 1999).
Administrative liability is separate and distinct from penal
and civil liability.  First, there is a difference in the
quantum of evidence required and, correlatively, the
procedure observed and sanctions imposed.  Second,
there is the principle that a single act may offend against
two or more distinct and related provisions of law, or that
the same act may give rise to criminal as well as
administrative liability.  Accordingly, the dismissal of the
criminal case for violation of R.A. No. 3019 by the
Ombudsman does not foreclose administrative action
(Office of the President v. Cataquiz, G.R. No. 183445,
September 14, 2011).
Re-election to office operates as a condonation of the
officer’s previous misconduct (Lizares v. Hechanova,
G.R. No. L-22059, May 17, 1966). However, re-election of
a public official extinguishes only the administrative
liability, but not the criminal liability incurred by him during
his previous term of office (Conducto v. Monzon, A.M. No.
MTJ-98-1147, July 2, 1998).
Liability of inisterial officers
1. Nonfeasance – Omission of some act which ought to be
performed;
2. Misfeasance –Improper Performance of some act which
might be done lawfully; and
3. Malfeasance – Performance of some act which ought
not to be done (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code-
Criminal Law: Book 2, 2008 ed., pp. 374-375).
Liability of superior officers
A superior officer shall not be civilly liable for the wrongful
acts, omissions of duty, negligence, or misfeasance of his
Page | 14
 Political Law

subordinates, unless he has actually authorized by written
order the specific act or misconduct complained of [Sec.
38(3), Chapter 9, Book I, Administrative Code of 1987].
A superior officer is liable for acts of a subordinate when:
(LACER)
1. Law expressly makes him liable.
2. He directed or authorized or cooperated in the wrong; or
3. He negligently or carelessly oversees the business of
the office as to furnish subordinate an opportunity for
default;
4. He negligently or willfully employs or retains unfit or
incompetent subordinates; and
5. He negligently or willfully fails to require subordinate to
conform to prescribed regulations (Suarez, Political Law
Reviewer, 2002 ed., p. 974).
Non-applicability of the doctrine of command responsibility
and the principle of respondeat superior to public officers
Neither the principle of command responsibility (in military
or police structural dynamics), nor the doctrine of
respondeat superior (in quasi-delicts) applies in the law of
public officers. The negligence of the subordinate cannot
be ascribed to his superior in the absence of evidence of
the latter’s own negligence (Reyes v. Rural Bank of San
Miguel Inc., G.R. No. 154499, February 27, 2004).
Preventive suspension may be imposed without any
notice and hearing since it is not a penalty. It is merely a
preliminary step in an administrative investigation and is
not the final determination of the guilt of the officer
concerned (Garcia v. Mojica, G.R. No. 139043,
September 10, 1999).
Validity of indefinite suspension
As a general rule, indefinite suspensions are invalid. In
effect, the preventive suspension will be the penalty itself
without a finding of guilt after due hearing, contrary to the
express mandate of the Constitution and the Civil Service
law. Further: "In the guise of a preventive suspension, his
term of office could be shortened and he could in effect,
be removed without a finding of a cause duly established
after due hearing, in violation of the Constitution." Clearly
then, the policy of the law mandated by the Constitution
frowns at a suspension of indefinite duration (Layno v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-65848, May 24, 1985).
Exception: For police officers, preventive suspension may
be indefinite and may last until the termination of the case
is because  policemen carry weapons and the badge of
the law which can be used to harass or intimidate
witnesses against them (Himagan v. People, G.R.
No.113811, October 7, 1994).

Exception: The President, being the commander-in-chief Two kinds of preventive suspension of civil service
of all armed forces, necessarily possesses control over employees:
the military that qualifies him as a superior within the 1. Preventive suspension pending investigation; and
purview of the command responsibility doctrine (In the 2. Preventive suspension pending appeal (CSC v.
Matter of the Petition for the Writ of Amparo and Habeas Cruz, G.R. No. 187858, August 9, 2011).
Data in favor of Noriel H. Rodriguez; Rodriguez vs. Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo, et al., G.R. No. 191805 & G.R. No. Pending Pending
193160, November 15, 2011) Investigation Appeal
(Sec.51, E.O. [Sec.27(4), E.O.
Note: The exception is only applicable in cases involving 292, Admin 292, Admin
the writ of amparo or habeas data. Code) Code]
As to nature Not a penalty but
Liability of subordinate officers: of the only a means of
Subordinate officers are also liable for willful or negligent suspension enabling the
acts even if he acted under orders if such acts are disciplining Punitive in
contrary to law, morals, public policy and good customs authority to character
(Section 39, Chapter 9, Book I, Administrative Code of conduct an
1987). unhampered
investigation.
PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION As to No back wages If exonerated, he
It is a disciplinary measure which is intended to enable the backwages due for the should be
disciplinary authority to investigate charges against the period of reinstated with
respondent by preventing the latter from using his position suspension even full pay for the
or office to influence witnesses, to intimidate them, or to if found innocent period of
tamper with the records which may be vital in the of the charges, suspension.
prosecution of the case against him (Suarez, Political Law unless
Reviewer, 2002 ed., p. 984). suspension is If he was

15 | P a g e

reprimanded for
the same charge
which was the
basis of the
decision ordering
unjustified. his dismissal, he
cannot claim
back wages, the
penalty here is
merely
commuted.
The provision of suspension pendente lite applies to
all whether they be appointive or elective officials; or
permanent or temporary employees, or pertaining to
the career or non-career service (Berona v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 142456, July 27, 2004).
Rules on preventive suspension:
A. Appointive officials
1. Not a presidential appointee
(Secs. 41-42, P.D. 807, Civil Service Decree):
a. By whom — the proper disciplining authority may
preventively suspend
b. Against whom — any subordinate officer or
employee under such authority
c. When — pending an investigation;
d. Grounds — if the charge against such officer or
employee involves:
i. Dishonesty;
ii. Oppression or grave misconduct;
iii. Neglect in the performance of duty; or
iv. If there are reasons to believe that
respondent is guilty of the charges which
would warrant his removal from the service.
e. Duration — the administrative investigation must
be terminated within 90 days; otherwise, the
respondent shall be automatically reinstated
unless the delay in the disposition of the case is
due to the fault, negligence or petition of the
respondent, in which case the period of delay
shall not be counted in computing the period of
suspension.
2. Presidential appointees:
Can only be investigated and removed from office
after due notice and hearing by the President under
the principle that “the power to remove is inherent
in the power to appoint” as can be implied from
Sec. 5, R.A. 2260 (Villaluz v. Zaldivar, No. L-
22754, December 31, 1965).
B. Elective officials (Sec 63, R.A. 7160):
1. By whom – against whom
Political Law
a. President — elective official of a province, a
highly urbanized or an independent component
city;
b. Governor — elective official of a component city
or municipality;
c. Mayor — elective official of a barangay.
2. When — at any time after the issues are joined;
3. Grounds:
a. Reasonable ground to believe that the
respondent has committed the act or acts
complained of;
b. Evidence of culpability is strong;
c. Gravity of the offense so warrants;
d. Continuance in office of the respondent could
influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the
safety and integrity of the records and other
evidence
4. Duration:
a. Single administrative case — not to extend
beyond 60 days;
b. Several administrative cases — not more than 90
days within a single year on the same ground or
grounds existing and known at the time of the
first suspension
The preventive suspension of an elective local
official is not an interruption of the 3-term limit rule
(Adolvino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 184836,
December 23, 2009).
Preventive suspension by the Ombudsman under Sec. 24
of R.A. 6770
By whom – against whom
The Ombudsman or his Deputy may preventively suspend
any officer or employee under his authority pending an
investigation if in his judgment the evidence of guilt is
strong, and
1. The charge against such officer or employee involves
dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect
in the performance of duty;
2. The charges would warrant removal from the service; or
3. The respondent's continued stay in office may prejudice
the case filed against him (Garcia v. Mojica, G.R. No.
139043. September 10, 1999).
Duration
The preventive suspension shall last for not more than 6
months.
Preventive Suspension by Sandiganbayan (pursuant to
R.A. 3019)
The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019)
makes it mandatory for the Sandiganbayan to suspend,
Page | 16

for a maximum period of 90 days unless the case is
decided within a shorter period, any public officer against
whom a valid information is filed charging violation of:
a. R.A. 3019;
b. Book II, Title 7, RPC; or
c. any offense involving fraud upon government or public
funds or property (Cruz, The Law of Public Officers,
2007 ed., p. 138)
The order of suspension prescribed by the R.A. No. 3019
is distinct from the suspension imposed by the Congress
to discipline its own ranks under Article VI, Section 16(3)
of the Constitution. The former is not a penalty but a
preventive measure whereas the latter is a punitive
measure imposed by the Senate or the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, upon an erring
member (Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 128055,
April 18, 2001).
Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 does not state that the public
officer concerned must be suspended only in the office
where he is alleged to have committed the acts with which
he has been charged, it applies to any office which he
may be holding (Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
128055, April 18, 2001).
Illegal dismissal, reinstatement and back salaries
An illegally dismissed government employee who is later
ordered reinstated is entitled to back wages and other
monetary benefits from the time of his illegal dismissal up
to his reinstatement, because he is considered as not
having left his office and should be given a comparable
compensation at the time of his reinstatement (Gabriel v.
Domingo, G.R. No. 87420, September 17, 1990).
The reinstated employee cannot be faulted for inability to
work or to render any service from the time he was
illegally dismissed up to the time of reinstatement. The
policy of “no work, no pay” cannot be applied for such
distressing state of affairs was not of his own making or
liking. Verily, to withhold back salaries and other benefits
during his illegal dismissal would put to naught the
constitutional guarantee of security of tenure for those in
the civil service (Constantino-David v. Pangandaman-
Gania, G.R. No. 156039, August 14, 2003).
I MMUNITY OF P UBLIC O FFICERS
General rule:
The doctrine of state immunity from suit applies to
complaints filed against public officials for acts done in the
performance of their duties. The rule is that the suit must
be regarded as one against the state where satisfaction of
the judgment against the public official concerned will
Political Law
require the state itself to perform a positive act, such as
appropriation of the amount necessary to pay the
damages awarded to the plaintiff (Moreau v. Veridiano,
G.R. No. L-46930 June 10, 1988).
Exceptions:
a. Where the public official is charged in his official
capacity for acts that are unlawful and injurious to the
rights of others. Public officials are not exempt, in their
personal capacity, from liability arising from acts
committed in bad faith;
b. Where the public official is clearly being sued not in his
official capacity but in his personal capacity, although
the acts complained of may have been committed while
he occupied a public position (Lansang v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 102667, February 23, 2000);
c. Suit to compel performance of official duty or restrain
performance of an act (Rule 65, Rules of Court).
Rationale for granting immunity
The purpose of the immunity is to insulate officers from
liability so that they may administer the law without fear or
favor (PCGG v. Pena, G.R. No. 77663, April 12, 1988).
Immunity from suit of the President
General rule: The President shall be immune from suit
during his tenure (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2002 ed.,
p. 199).
Exception:
a. Impeachment complaint (Sec. 2, Art. XI, Constitution)
b. While the President is immune from suit, she may not
be prevented from instituting a suit. (Soliven v.
Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585, November 14, 1988)
A non-sitting President does not enjoy immunity from suit,
even for acts committed during the latter’s tenure. The
rule is that unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of
the State and the officer who acts illegally is not acting as
such but stands in the same footing as any other
trespasser.  The intent of the framers of the Constitution is
clear that the immunity of the president from suit is
concurrent only with his tenure and not his term (In the
Matter of the Petition for the Writ of Amparo and Habeas
Data in favor of Noriel H. Rodriguez; Noriel H. Rodriguez
vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al., G.R. No. 191805 &
G.R. No. 193160. November 15, 2011).
M ODES OF T ERMINATING
O FFICIAL R ELATIONSHIP
A. Expiration of term or tenure
1. Term — period during which officer may claim to
hold office as a right (Cruz, Law of Public Officer,
2007 ed., p. 282).
17 | P a g e
 Political Law

2. Tenure — period during which officer actually holds of his resignation, abandons his office to the
office (Cruz, Law of Public Officers, 2007 ed., p. detriment of the public service.
284).
Accepting authority for resignation
By its very definition, an officer has a right to the term a. Competent authority provided by law;
but he may be deprived of it before it expires. Thus, b. If law is silent and public officer is appointed, tender
his tenure is not necessarily the same as his term to appointing authority;
(Separate Opinion of Concepcion, J., Alba v. c. If law is silent and public officer is elected, tender to
Evangelista, G.R. Nos. L-10360 and L-10433, officer authorized by law to call an election to fill the
January 17, 1957). vacancy (Cruz, Political Law Reviewer, 2007 ed.,
pp. 294-295).
Term of a primarily confidential appointee
When a public officer holds office at the pleasure of Resigning Public Officer Accepting authority
the appointing authority, his being replaced shall be
regarded as termination through expiration of term President & Vice-
Congress
and not removal (Astraquillo v. Manglapus, G.R. No. President
88183, October 3, 1990). Member of Congress respective Chambers
Appointive public officers Appointing authority
B. Accomplishment of the purpose — where an office is Governor, Vice
created, or an officer is appointed, for the purpose of Governor, Mayors and
performing a single act or the accomplishment of a Vice Mayors of highly
given result, the office terminates and the officer’s President
urbanized cities and
authority ceases with the accomplishment of the independent component
purposes which called it into being (Nachura, Outline cities
Reviewer in Political Law, 2009 ed., p. 488). City Mayors and Vice
Mayors of component
C. Reaching the age limit Governor
cities; Municipal Mayors
Compulsory retirement: and V-Mayors;
1. Members of Judiciary — 70 years old (Sec. 11, Art.
VIII, 1987 Constitution) Sanggunian Members Sanggunian concerned
2. Other government officers and employees — 65 Elective Barangay Municipal or City
years old (Sec. 13(b), GSIS Law) Officials Mayors
3. Optional retirement age — after rendition of the (Suarez, Political Law Reviewer, 2002 ed., pp. 978-979)
minimum number of years of service (Sec. 1, R.A.
1616) Effective date of resignation
The date specified in the tender; and if no such date is
D. Resignation — the act of giving up or the act of a specified, when the public officer receives notice of the
public officer by which he declines his office and acceptance of his resignation (Gamboa v. Court of
renounces the further right to use it. It is usually, but Appeals, G.R. No. L-38068, September 30, 1981).
not necessarily in writing (Cruz, Law of Public Resignation may be withdrawn as long as it has not yet
Officers, 2007 ed., p. 290). been accepted (Cruz, Law of Public Officers, 2007 ed.,
Requisites: 294).
a. Unqualified intention to relinquish a part of the term
(Gonzales v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-15482, May Courtesy resignation
30, 1961); Courtesy resignation cannot properly be interpreted as a
b. It must be voluntary (Cruz, The Law of Public resignation in the legal sense for it is not necessarily a
Officers, 2007 ed., p. 293); reflection of a public official’s intention to surrender his
c. Act of relinquishment; and position. Rather, it manifests his submission to the will of
d. Acceptance by the proper authority, either the political authority and the appointing power. It also
expressly or impliedly (Suarez, Political Law lacks the element of voluntariness (Ortiz v. COMELEC,
Reviewer, 2002 ed., p. 977). No. L-78957, June 28, 1988).

Art. 238 of the Revised Penal Code makes it an E.Abandonment — voluntary relinquishment of an office
offense for any public officer who, before acceptance by the holder, with the intention of terminating his

Page | 18

possession and control thereof (Canonizado v. Aguirre,
G.R. No. 133132 January 25, 2000) .
Requisites:
a. Intention to abandon
b. Overt act by which the intention is carried into effect
(CSC v. Yu, G.R. No. 189041, July 31, 2012).
Abandonment of office is a species of resignation; while
resignation in general is a formal relinquishment,
abandonment is a voluntary relinquishment through non-
user. Non-user refers to a neglect to use a privilege or a
right to use an easement or an office (Municipality of San
Andres, Catanduanes v. CA, G.R. No. 118883, January
16, 1998).
Abandonment may also result from acquiescence by the
officer in his wrongful removal (Canonizado v. Aguirre,
G.R. No. 133132, February 15, 2001).
Under Civil Service Rules, an officer or employee shall be
automatically separated from the service if he fails to
return to the service after the expiration of 1 year leave of
absence without pay(Section 33, Rule XVI of the Revised
Civil Service Rules).
Under Civil Service Rules, officers or employees who are
absent for at least 30 days without approved leave
(AWOL) shall be dropped from the service after due notice
(Section 63, Rule XVI, Omnibus Civil Service Rules and
Regulations).
Abandonment per se is not an offense (Reyes, Revised
Penal Code, Criminal Law, Book II, 2008 ed., p. 474) .
Under Art. 238 of the Revised Penal Code, the
abandonment must be to the detriment of the public
service.
F.Acceptance of an incompatible office — “Test of
Incompatibility”: by the nature and relation of the two
offices to each other, they ought not to be held by one
person from the contrariety and antagonism which
would result in the attempt by one person to faithfully
and impartially discharge the duties of one, toward the
incumbent of the other (Cruz, Law of Public Officers,
2007 ed., p. 303).
Examples:
a. Where one is subordinate to the other.
b. Where one is subject to supervisory power of the other
(Albano, Political Law Reviewer, 2004 ed., p. 975).
General rule: Acceptance of incompatible office ipso facto
vacates the first.
Exception:
Political Law
i. Where the public officer is authorized by law to accept
the other office. (i.e. ex officio capacity)
ii. In the case of the forbidden office, it is the second office
that is absolutely void. (Section 13, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution).
G. Removal — forcible and permanent separation of the
incumbent from office before the expiration of his term
(Ingles v. Mutuc, G.R. No. L-20390, November 29,
1968).
Removal not for a just cause or non-compliance with
the prescribed procedure constitutes a reversible error,
and entitles the officer or employee to reinstatement
with back salaries and without loss of seniority rights
(Cristobal v. Melchor, G.R. No. L-43203, July 29,
1977).
Demotions and transfers without just cause are
tantamount to removal (Fernando v. Sto.Tomas, G.R.
No. 112309, July 28, 1994).
Removal or resignation from office is not a bar to a
finding of administrative liability (Office of the
President vs. Cataquiz, G.R. No. 183445, September
14, 2011).
H. Recall — It is a method of removal where the people
exercise their suffrage and express their loss of
confidence in a public officer (Cruz, The Law of Public
Officers, 2007 ed., p. 321).
I. Impeachment — a method of national inquest into the
conduct of public men. It is an extraordinary means of
removal exercised by the legislature over selected
number of officials (Cruz, Law of Public Officers, 2007
ed., p. 313).
J. Abolition of office — must be made in good faith, with
the clear intent to do away with the office, not for
personal or political reasons, and cannot be
implemented in a manner contrary to law (Nachura,
Outline Reviewer in Political Law, 2009 ed., p. 506).
Valid abolition of office does not constitute removal of
the incumbent (De La Llana v. Alba, G.R. No. L-
57883, March 12, 1982).
Constitutional offices cannot be abolished by Congress
(Suarez, Political Law Reviewer, 2002 ed., 993).
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary
when it undermines the security of tenure of its
members (Constitution, Sec. 2, Art. VIII).
19 | P a g e

Reorganization
It involves the reduction of personnel, consolidation of
offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or
redundancy of functions. It could result in the loss of
one’s position through removal or abolition of an office.
However, for a reorganization for the purpose of
economy or to make the bureaucracy more efficient to
be valid, it must pass the test of good faith; otherwise,
it is void ab initio (United Claimant Association of NEA
(UNICAN), et al v. National Electrification
Administration (NEA), et al, G.R. No. 187107, January
31, 2012.).
Reorganization in this jurisdiction has been regarded
as valid provided they are pursued in good faith. As a
general rule, reorganization is carried out in "good
faith" if it is for the purpose of economy or to make
bureaucracy more efficient. In that event, no dismissal
or separation actually occurs because the position
itself ceases to exist. And in that case, security of
tenure would not be a Chinese wall (Dario v. Mison,
G.R. No. 81954, August 8, 1989).
The President may reorganize administrative agencies
under the executive department by exercising his
power of control through an Executive Order
(Bagaoisan v. National Tobacco Corporation, G.R. No.
152845. August 5, 2003).
Attrition
It is the reduction of personnel as a result of
resignation, retirement, dismissal in accordance with
existing laws, death or transfer to another office (Sec.
3, R.A. 7430 – Attrition Law).
K. Prescription of the right to office — The Rules of
Court provide that a petition for reinstatement (after
illegal ouster or dismissal) or the recovery of the
public office must be instituted within one (1) year
from the date the petitioner is unlawfully ousted from
his office. The period may be extended on grounds of
equity (Cristobal v. Melchor, L-43203, July 29, 1977).
The filing of an administrative case will not suspend
the period because the issue is purely legal and there
is no need to resort to administrative remedies
(Madrigal v. Lecaroz, G.R. No. L-46218, October 23,
1990).
L. Death — terminates the right to the office as it
terminates everything else. However, whether the
office will be immobilized as a result will depend on
the nature of the office and provisions for automatic
succession (Cruz, The Law of Public Officers, 2007
ed., p.337).
Political Law
M. Failure to assume office — The office of any official
elected who fails or refuses to take his oath of office
within 6 months from his proclamation shall be
considered vacant, unless said failure is for a cause
or causes beyond his control (Section 11, B.P. 881 -
Omnibus Election Code).
N. Conviction of a crime — When the penalty imposed
carries with it the accessory penalty of
disqualification, conviction by final judgment
automatically terminates official relationship (Art. 30,
Revised Penal Code).
While a plenary pardon extinguishes the accessory
penalty of disqualification, it will not restore the public
office to the officer convicted. He must be given a
new appointment to the position (Monsanto v.
Factoran, G.R. No. 78239, February 9, 1989).
Appointive officials are deemed resigned upon filing of
certificate of candidacy
In Quinto v. COMELEC (G.R. No. No. 189698, February
22, 2010), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality
of Sec. 13, R.A. 9369, and Sec. 66, Omnibus Election
Code, which stated that any person holding a public
appointive office or position, including active members of
the armed forces, and officers and employees in
government-owned or-controlled corporations, shall be
considered ipso facto resigned from his/her office and
must vacate the same at the start of the day of the filing of
his/her certification of candidacy. It does not violate the
equal protection clause because no person has a right to
run for public office (Eleazar Quinto v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 189698, February 22, 2010).
A CCOUNTABILITY OF P UBLIC
O FFICERS
IMPEACHMENT
Who may be impeached?
a. President
b. Vice-President
c. Members of SC
d. Members of Constitutional Commissions
e. Ombudsman (Sec. 2, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution)
Grounds for impeachment
a. Culpable violation of the Constitution,
b. Treason,
c. Bribery,
d. Graft and corruption,
e. Other high crimes, or
Page | 20

f. Betrayal of public trust (Sec. 2, Art. XI, 1987
Constitution).
Impeachable officers may only be removed by
impeachment for the grounds set out by the Constitution
(In Re Raul Gonzales, A.M. No. 88-4-5433, April 15,
1988).
Members of the Supreme Court must, under Article VIII
(7) (1) of the Constitution, be members of the Philippine
Bar and may be removed from office only by
impeachment. To grant a complaint for disbarment of a
Member of the Court during the Member's incumbency,
would in effect be to circumvent and hence to run afoul of
the constitutional mandate that Members of the Court may
be removed from office only by impeachment for and
conviction of certain offenses listed in Article XI (2) of the
Constitution (In re Gonzales, A.M. No. 88-4-5433, April
15, 1988).
IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE
The exclusive power to initiate impeachment is lodged
with the House of Representatives (Sec. 3(1), Art. XI,
1987 Constitution).
The Senate has the power to try the impeachable officer
after the articles of impeachment have been transmitted
(Sec. 3(5), Art. XI, 1987 Constitution).
Procedure:
1. A verified complaint is filed by:
a. A member of the House of Representatives
b. Any citizen upon the resolution or endorsement by
a member of the House of Representatives.
2. The complaint is included in the Order of Business
within 10 session days
3. Referred to the proper Committee with three session
days thereafter
The proper committee is the Committee on justice
(Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No.
160261, November 10, 2003).
4. The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote
of all its Members, shall submit its report to the House
within sixty session days from such referral,
5. It shall be calendared for consideration by the House
within 10 days from receipt
6. A one third vote is necessary to affirm a favorable
resolution or override a contrary resolution of the
committee
7. But where the complaint itself was filed by one third of
the members of the House, there is no need to
comply with the preceding steps. It shall constitute
the Articles of Impeachment
8. The Articles of Impeachment is transmitted to the
Senate and trial shall proceed forthwith
Political Law
9. Each Senator shall take an oath or affirmation before
assuming their office as Senator-judges.
10. After the transmission and the organization of the
senate as an impeachment court, a writ of summons
shall be issued to the impeached officer directing him
to:
a. Appear before the Senate at a fixed date
b. File an Answer within 10 days
The prosecutors may file a Reply to the answer
within 5 days (Rule VII, 2011 Rules of Procedure
on Impeachment Trials).
11. The Senate sitting as an impeachment court shall be
presided over by the Senate President
Exception: If the President is impeached, it is the
Chief Justice who shall preside.
The presiding officer shall rule on all questions of
evidence, unless a Senator-Judge moves that the
question be voted upon by all the senator-judges
(Rule VI, 2011 Rules of Procedure on Impeachment
Trials).
12. Upon the close of the trial, the Senator-judges shall
vote on each of the articles of impeachment
separately (Rule XXI, 2011 Rules of Procedure on
Impeachment Trials).
13. In order to result in a conviction, at least two-thirds of
all the members of the Senate must concur in one
article of impeachment (Rule XXI, 2011 Rules of
Procedure on Impeachment Trials).
Judicial review of decisions of the impeachment court
Although the Senate has the sole power to try and decide
all cases of impeachment, this does not bar judicial
review. Under the expanded jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court, the Supreme Court may determine if there was
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction (Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R.
No. 160261, November 10, 2003).
Effects of a conviction in an impeachment trial
1. Removal
2. Disqualification from holding any office in the Republic
of the Philippines
The removed officer may still be prosecuted later under an
ordinary criminal action if the impeachable offense is also
an indictable offense (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2002
ed., p.363).
One year bar
No impeachment proceeding shall be initiated against the
same official more than once within a period (Sec. 3(5),
Art. XI, 1987 Constitution).
The initiation starts with the filing of the complaint
which must be accompanied with an action to set the
21 | P a g e

complaint moving.  It refers to the filing of the
impeachment complaint coupled with Congress’ taking
initial action of said complaint.  The initial action taken by
the House on the complaint is the referral of the complaint
to the Committee on Justice (Francisco v. House of
Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003).
OMBUDSMAN
Composition of the Office of the Ombudsman
1. The Ombudsman or Tanodbayan
2. One overall deputy Ombudsman
3. Three deputy Ombudsman: One for Luzon, One for
Visayas, and One for Mindanao.
4. A deputy Ombudsman for military establishments may
also be appointed (Sec. 7, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution).
Qualifications
The following qualifications are for the Ombudsman and
his deputies:
1. Natural born citizens,
2. At least 40 years of age at the time of the appointment
3. Of recognized probity and independence
4. A member of the Philippine Bar
5. Not a candidate for any elective position in the previous
election
The Ombudsman must have for 10 years or more been a
judge or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines
(Sec. 8, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution).
The Ombudsman and his deputies must be appointed by
the President from a list of nominees submitted by the
Judicial Bar Council. They do not require the confirmation
of the Commission on Appointments (Sec. 9, Art. XI, 1987
Constitution).
Term
They shall serve for seven years without reappointment
(Sec. 11, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution).
Functions
The following are the functions of the Ombudsman:
1. Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person,
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 (Sec. 13 (1),
Article XI, 1987 Constitution);
2. Request any government agency for assistance and
information necessary in the discharge of its
responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary, pertinent
records and documents (Sec. 13 (5), Article XI, 1987
Constitution);
Political Law
3. Publicize matters covered by its investigation when
circumstances so warrant and with due prudence (Sec.
13 (6), Article XI, 1987 Constitution);
4. Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape,
mismanagement, fraud, and corruption in the
Government and make recommendations for their
elimination and the observance of high standards of
ethics and efficiency. (Sec. 13 (7), Article XI, 1987
Constitution); and
5. Investigate and initiate the proper action for the
recovery of ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth
amassed after February 25, 1986 and the prosecution
of the parties involved therein (Sec. 15(11), R.A. 6770).
Powers of the Ombudsman
The following are the powers of the Ombudsman:
1. Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public
official or employee of the Government, or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well
as of any government-owned or controlled corporation
with original charter, to perform and expedite any act or
duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct
any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties.
2. Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action
against a public official or employee at fault, and
recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine,
censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance
therewith.
3. Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case,
and subject to such limitations as may be provided by
law, to furnish it with copies of documents relating to
contracts or transactions entered into by his office
involving the disbursement or use of public funds or
properties, and report any irregularity to the
Commission on Audit for appropriate action
4. Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such
other powers or perform such functions or duties as
may be provided by law.
5. Administer oaths, issue subpoena and subpoena duces
tecum, and take testimony in any investigation or
inquiry, including the power to examine and have
access to bank accounts and records (Sec. 15 (8), R.A
6770);
6. Punish for contempt in accordance with the Rules of
Court and under the same procedure and with the
same penalties provided therein (Sec. 15 (9), R.A.
6770); and
7. Delegate to the Deputies, or its investigators or
representatives such authority or duty as shall ensure
the effective exercise or performance of the powers,
functions, and duties herein or hereinafter provided
(Sec. 15 (10), R.A. 6770).
Page | 22

8. Preventively suspend any officer or employee under his
authority pending an investigation, if in his judgment the
evidence of guilt is strong, and (a) the charge against
such officer or employee involves dishonesty,
oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the
performance of duty; (b) the charges would warrant
removal from the service; or (c) the respondent's
continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed
against him (Sec. 24, R.A. 6770).
Jurisdiction
The Office of the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary
authority over all elective and appointive officials of the
Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and
agencies, including Members of the Cabinet, local
government, government-owned or controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries, except over officials
who may be removed only by impeachment or over
Members of Congress, and the Judiciary (Sec.21, R.A.
6770).
It can prosecute cases before the regular courts. The
Ombudsman is empowered by the legislature through
R.A. 6770 and is granted an active role in the
enforcement of anti-graft and corruption laws.
Recognizing the importance of this power, the Supreme
Court does not wish to derogate it by limiting it to cases
within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (Uy v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105965-70, March 20, 2001).
Administrative proceedings before the Ombudsman
Jurisdiction over administrative case
The Ombudsman shall act on all complaints relating, but
not limited to acts or omissions which:
a. Are contrary to law or regulation;
b. Are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or discriminatory;
c. Are inconsistent with the general course of an agency's
functions, though in accordance with law;
d. Proceed from a mistake of law or an arbitrary
ascertainment of facts;
e. Are in the exercise of discretionary powers but for an
improper purpose; or
f. Are otherwise irregular, immoral or devoid of
justification (Sec. 19, R.A. 6770).
Three modes of initiating cases before the Ombudsman
(COW)
1. On the basis of a Complaint originally filed as a criminal
action or a grievance complaint or request for
assistance;
2. An administrative proceeding may also be Ordered by
the Ombudsman or the respective Deputy Ombudsman
on his initiative; or
3. By a Written complaint under oath accompanied by
affidavits of witnesses and other evidence in support of
Political Law
the charge. Such complaint shall be accompanied by a
Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping duly subscribed and
sworn to by the complainant or his counsel (Sec. 3,
Rule III, Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
Ombudsman).
The Officer of the Ombudsman can act on anonymous
complaints because it shall receive complaints from any
source in whatever form concerning an official act or
omission (Sec. 26 (2), R.A. 6770).
Any order, directive or decision imposing the penalty of
public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than
one (1) month's salary shall be final and unappealable
(Sec. 27, R.A. 6770).
Sec. 27 of R.A. 6770 declared partially unconstitutional
Sec. 27 used to provide that “In all administrative
disciplinary cases, orders, directives, or decisions of the
Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the
Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari within ten
(10) days from receipt of the written notice of the order,
directive or decision or denial of the motion for
reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court.”
In the case of Fabian v. Desierto (G.R. No.
129742, September 16, 1998), this portion was struck
down as unconstitutional because it expanded the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without its
advice and concurrence.
Judicial review in administrative proceedings
File a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court with the Court of Appeals within 15 days from notice
of judgment (Enemecio v. Office of the Ombudsman , G.R.
No. 146731, January 13, 2004).
Exception:
Any order, directive or decision imposing the penalty
of public censure or reprimand, suspension of not
more than one month’s salary shall be final and
unappealable (Sec. 27 of Republic Act No. 6770,
otherwise known as The Ombudsman Act of 1989).
.
Judicial review in penal proceedings
An aggrieved party’s remedy depends on whether or not
there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction. If there was grave abuse of
discretion, he may file a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 with the Supreme Court. If there was no grave abuse
of discretion, the party has no remedy. R.A. 6770 is silent
as to the remedy of an aggrieved party in case the
Ombudsman found sufficient cause to indict him in
criminal or non-administrative cases. The Supreme Court
cannot supply such deficiency if none has been provided
23 | P a g e

in the law (Tirol v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 135913,
November 4, 1999).
SANDIGANBAYAN
Statutory origin
Sandiganbayan was created by P.D. 1606, as amended
by R.A. 8249.It’s creation was constitutionally mandated
but it is not a constitutional court. It may be abolished by
statute (Bernas, The 1987 Philippine Constitution, A
Reviewer-Primer, 2002 ed., p.489).
Composition
The court is composed of 14 Associate Justices and one
Presiding Justice (Sec. 1, P.D.1606).
Jurisdiction
A. Exclusive original
1. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corruption
Practices Act, and Republic Act No. 1379, and
Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII 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:
a. 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:
i. Provincial governors, vice-governors, members
of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial
treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other
provincial department heads;
ii. City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the
sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurer,
assessors, engineers, and other city department
heads;
iii. Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the
position of consul and higher;
iv. Philippine army and air force colonels, naval
captains, and all officers of higher rank;
v. Officers of the Philippine National Police while
occupying the position of provincial director and
those holding the rank of senior superintendent
or higher;
vi. City and provincial prosecutors and their
assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the
Office of the Ombudsman and special
prosecutor;
vii. Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers
of government-owned or controlled
Political Law
corporations, state universities or educational
institutions or foundations;
b. Members of Congress and officials thereof
classified as Grade “27” and up under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of
1989;
c. Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution;
d. Chairmen and members of Constitutional
Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of
the Constitution; and
e. All other national and local officials classified as
Grade “27” and higher under the Compensation
and Position Classification Act of 1989.
2. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or
complexed with other crimes committed by the public
officials and employees mentioned in subsection of
this section in relation to their office.
3. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in
connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and
14-A, issued in 1986 (Sec. 4, P.D. 1606).
The power of the Sandiganbayan to preventively suspend
those under its jurisdiction is distinct from the power of
Congress to discipline its members. The former is a
provisional measure while the latter is in the form of a
penalty (Defensor-Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
128055.  April 18, 2001).
B. Appellate jurisdiction
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders or
regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own
original jurisdiction orof their appellate jurisdiction as
herein provided (Sec.4, R.A. 8249).
Review of decisions
Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbyan shall be
appealable to the Supreme Court by petition for review on
certiorari raising pure questions of law in accordance with
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Whenever, in any case
decided by the Sandiganbayan, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, life imprisonment or death is imposed, the
decision shall be appealable to the Supreme Court in the
manner prescribed in the Rules of Court (Sec. 7, P.D.
1606).
ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH
Ill-gotten wealth is defined as any asset, property,
business enterprise or material possession of persons
within the purview of Executive Orders Nos. 1 and 2,
acquired by them directly, or indirectly through, dummies,
nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business
Page | 24

associates by any of the following means or similar
schemes:
a. Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse or
malversation of public funds or raids on the public
treasury;
b. Through the receipt, directly or indirectly, of any
commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any
other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or
entity in connection with any government contract or
project or by reason of the office or position of the
official concerned.
c. By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of
assets belonging to the government or any of its
subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or
government-owned or controlled corporations;
d. By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly
any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest
or participation in any business enterprise or
undertaking;
e. Through the establishment of agricultural, industrial or
commercial monopolies or other combination and/or by
the issuance, promulgation and/or implementation of
decrees and orders intended to benefit particular
persons or special interests; and
f. By taking undue advantage of official position, authority,
relationship or influence for personal gain or benefit
(Sec. 1 (A), PCGG Rules and Regulations
Implementing E.O. No. 1 and 2).
Computation of ill gotten wealth
In the case of Republic v. Sandiganbayan, (G.R. No.
152154, July 15, 2003), penned by then Associate Justice
Renato Corona, the Supreme Court held that ill-gotten
wealth is determined by looking at the income stated in
the ITR and adding the net worth based on the SALN less
the declared wealth. The difference is considered as ill-
gotten wealth because the officer cannot explain the
source of the income.
Statements of assets liabilities and net worth
A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of
office and as often thereafter as may be required by law,
submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities,
and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-
President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the
Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other
constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with
general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to
the public in the manner provided by law (Sec. 17, Art. XI,
1987 Constitution).
A court interpreter was removed by the Supreme Court for
failing to include a market stand in her SALN (Rabe v.
Flores, A.M. No. P-97-1247, May 14, 1997).
Political Law
Public officials and employees have an obligation to
accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and
the public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net
worth and financial and business interests including those
of their spouses and of unmarried children under eighteen
(18) years of age living in their households (Sec. 8, R.A.
6713).
The law requires that the SALNs must be accomplished
as truthfully, as detailed and as accurately as possible
(Flores v. Montemayor, G.R. No. 170146, August 25,
2010).
When to file:
a. Within thirty (30) days after assumption of office; 
b. On or before April 30, of every year thereafter; and 
c. Within thirty (30) days after separation from the
service (Sec. 8, R.A. 6713).
Criminal liability for nondisclosure
Any person who violates the duty to file a SALN shall be
punished by imposing a penalty of imprisonment not
exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five
thousand pesos (P5,000.00), or both, and, in the
discretion of the court of competent jurisdiction,
disqualification to hold public office (Sec. 11, R.A. 6713).
T ERMS L IMITS
Term
It is defined as the time during which the public officer may
claim to hold the office as of right, and fixes the interval
after which the several incumbents shall succeed one
another (Oliveros v. Villaluz, G.R. No. L-33362, July 30,
1971).
Term limits for local elective officials
The term of office of elective local officials, except
barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall
be three years and no such official shall serve for more
than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of
the office for any length of time shall not be considered as
an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full
term for which he was elected ( Sec. 8, Article X, 1987
Constitution).
Term limits for barangay officials
No local elective official shall serve for more than three (3)
consecutive terms in the same position. Voluntary
renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be
considered as an interruption in the continuity of service
for the full term for which the elective official concerned
was elected (Sec. 43 (b), Local Government Code).
Term limits for members of the House of Representatives
25 | P a g e
 Political Law

No Member of the House of Representatives shall serve

for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary
renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not
be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his
service for the full term for which he was elected ( Sec. 7,
Article VI, 1987 Constitution).

The three term limit will not apply in cases where an

officer takes possession of an office because of
succession because he is not considered to have fully
served his term (Borja v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 133495,
September 3, 1998).

Term limits for senators

No Senator shall serve for more than two consecutive
terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length
of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the
continuity of his service for the full term of which he was
elected (Sec. 4, Article VI, 1987 Constitution).

Term limits for appointive officials

Even appointive officials have terms. The Constitution
provides the following term limits:
1. The Chairman and Commissioners of the Civil Service
Commission (Sec.2, Article IX-B), Commission on
Elections (Sec. 2, Article IX-C), Commission on Audit
(Sec. 2, Article IX-D) all have one term limits since they
serve for only one term without reappointment.
2. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall serve for a
term of 7 years without reappointment (Sec. 11, Article
XI). In effect, they also have a one term limit.

Page | 26