2. Laurel v.

Desierto, in his capacity as Ombudsman

GR No. 145368 | 12 April 2002 | Kapunan, J.
APOLINARIO | Topic: Meaning of Public Office
Case Summary & Doctrine: Petitioner Laurel is the chair of the NCC, who is tasked to take charge of the nationwide
preparation for the National Centennial Celebrations. Upon investigation by certain Senate committees, the prosecution
of Laurel was recommended for violating rules on public bidding, for exhibiting manifest bias to AK, and for violating
RA3019. Laurel filed an MTD with the Ombudsman, but the latter denied the motion. He then filed the present petition
for certiorari assailing the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman on the ground that he is NOT a public officer because: (1)
Expocorp is a private corporation, not a GOCC; (2) NCC is not a public office; and (3) Laurel, both as chairman of the
NCC and of Expocorpo, was not a public officer as defined under the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019).

SC dismissed the petition and held that NCC is a public office, and Laurel, as its chair, is a public officer. Neither the
Constitution nor the Ombudsman Act defines who public officers are. A definition of public officers cited in jurisprudence
is the one provided by Mechem, a recognized authority on the subject. A public office is a right, authority and duty,
created and conferred by law, by which, for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the
creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be
exercised by him for the benefit of the public. The individual so invested is a public officer. Characteristics of a
public office: (1) Delegation of sovereign functions; (2) Its creation by law and not by contract; (3) An oath; (4) Salary;
(5) Continuance of the position; (6) Scope of duties; (7) Designation of the position as an office.

ITCAB, NCC performs executive functions, which concerns the implementation of the policies as set forth by law.
Moreover, the office of NCC Chair may be characterized as an honorary office, as opposed to a lucrative office or an
office of profit, (i.e., one to which salary, compensation or fees are attached) but it is a public office, nonetheless.
Neither does the fact that NCC was characterized by EO 128 as an “ad-hoc body” make the commission less of a public
office.

Facts:
1. Pres. Aquino issued AO 223 constituting a Committee for the preparation of the National Centennial
Celebration in 1998.” It was to take charge of the nationwide preparations for the National Celebration
of the Philippine Centennial of the Declaration of the Philippine Independence and the Inauguration of
the Malolos Congress.
a. Pres. Fidel Ramos issued EO 128 reconstituting the committee for the preparation of the
National Centennial Celebrations in 1988. It renamed the committee as the “National
Centennial Commission (NCC).”
b. Petitioner Salvador Laurel was appointed as the chair of NCC. NCC was characterized as an
ad-hoc body which shall terminate upon the completion of all activities related to the Centennial
Celebrations.
c. A corporation named Philippine Centennial Expo ‘98 Corporation (Expocorp) was created.
Laurel was among the 9 incorporators, who were also the first directors. He was also elected as
CEO of the corporation.
2. Sen. Coseteng delivered a privileged speech in the Senate denouncing alleged anomalies in the
construction and operation of the Centennial Exposition Project at the Clark Special Economic Zone.
The speech was referred to various Senate committees for investigation.
3. Pres. ERAP issued AO 35 creating an ad hoc and independent citizens’ committee to investigate all the
facts and circumstances surrounding the centennial projects.
a. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee filed a final report recommending the prosecution of
Laurel and of Expocorp for violating rules on public bidding and for exhibiting manifest
bias to Asia Construction & Development Corp. (AK) causing material injury to the
government and for participating in schemes to preclude audit by COA of the funds infused by
the government for implementation of the centennial contracts. [AK was awarded the centennial
contracts and the construction of the Freedom Ring without a valid contract]
b. The Saguisag Committee issued its own report also recommending further investigation and
indictment of Laurel for violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 [undue injury to govt, manifest
partiality, unwarranted benefits], in relation to Sec. 11 of RA 6713, and Art. 217 RPC
[malversation of public funds or property].
 c. The reports were referred to the Fact-finding and Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the
Ombudsman. The Bureau recommended that a formal complaint be filed.
4. OIC-Director Apostol of the Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau directed Laurel to submit
his counter affidavit and those of his witnesses.
a. Laurel filed a MTD questioning the jurisdiction of the office. The Ombudsman denied the MTD,
as well as the MR.
5. Laurel filed this present petition for certiorari assailing the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman on the ground
that he is NOT a public officer because:
a. Expocorp is a private corporation, not a GOCC.
b. NCC is not a public office.
c. Laure, both as chairman of the NCC and of Expocorpo, was not a public officer as defined
under the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019.)
6. Pending the certiorari petition the Bureau found probable cause and directed the filing of an
information. But SC issued a TRO ordering Respondents to desist from filing any information.

Issue/s and Holding:

W/N Laurel is a public officer? – YES.
● The Constitution describes the Ombudsman and his Deputies as protectors of the people who shall act
promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the
government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including GOCCs.
○ Among their powers is to “investigate...any act or omission of any public official….when such act
or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.”
○ The constitutional provisions are substantially reproduced in RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act 1989).
○ In sum, the Ombudsman has the power to investigate any malfeasance, misfeasance, and
nonfeasance by a public officer or employee of the government, or of any subdivision, agency,
instrumentality, or GOCC.
● However, neither the Constitution nor the Ombudsman Act defines who public officers are. The
definition of public officers cited in jurisprudence is the one provided by Mechem, a recognized
authority on the subject.
○ [DOCTRINE] A public office is a right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by
which, for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power,
an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government,
to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public. The individual so invested is a public
officer.
○ Characteristics of a public office:
(1) Delegation of sovereign functions
(2) Its creation by law and not by contract,
(3) An oath
(4) Salary
(5) Continuance of the position
(6) Scope of duties
(7) Designation of the position as an office.
● Petitioner Laurel submits that some of these characteristics are not present in the position of NCC
Chair––(1) delegation of sovereign functions; (2) salary, because he purportedly did not receive any
compensation; and (3) continuance, the tenure of the NCC being temporary.

(1) On delegation of sovereign functions

● Mechem describes the delegation to the individual of some of the sovereign functions as the most
important characteristic––that some portion of the sovereignty of the country, either legislative,
executive, or judicial, attaches, for the time being, to be exercised for the public benefit.
● Clearly, EO128 did not delegate legislative or judicial powers to NCC. However, SC held that NCC
performs executive functions.
 ○ Executive power is the power to enforce and administer laws. It is the power of carrying the
laws into practical operation and enforcing their due observance. Thus, it concerns the
implementation of the policies as set forth by law.
○ SC cited the three provisions to emphasize the policies being implemented by NCC:
(1) Sec. 15, Art. XIV CONST – “Arts and letters shall enjoy the patronage of the State. The State
shall conserve, promote, and popularize the nation's historical and cultural heritage and
resources, as well as artistic creations.”
(2) Preamble, AO 223 – states the purpose of the Committee as to foster nationhood and a strong
sense of Filipino identity and to effectively showcase Filipino heritage and thereby strengthen
Filipino values.
(3) EO 128 – cited “the need to strengthen the said Committee to ensure a more coordinated and
synchronized celebrations of the Philippine Centennial and wider participation from the
government and NGOs or private organizations”
○ NCC was precisely created to execute the said policies to carry them into effect. Hence, it
was vested with the following functions: “implementation of programs and projects on the
utilization of culture, arts, literature and media as vehicles for history, economic endeavors, and
reinvigorating the spirit of national unity and sense of accomplishment in every Filipino in the
context of the Centennial Celebrations.”
● SC also noted that NCC was created by an executive order.
○ Under Sec. 2, Ch. 2, Book III of EO 292, “Acts of the President providing for rules of a general
or permanent character in implementation or execution of constitutional or statutory
powers shall be promulgated in executive orders.”
● Laurel himself admitted, in the oral arguments, that NCC had a role in the country’s economic
development. There can hardly be any dispute that the promotion of industrialization and full
employment is a fundamental state policy.
○ Laurel wanted to invoke the ruling in Torio v. Fontanilla, where SC held that a town fiesta held
by a municipality is a proprietary function. He argued that a nationwide celebration may be
likened to a national fiesta.
○ SC held that Torio did not intend to law down an all-encompassing doctrine. In fact, it cautioned
that there can be no hard and fast rule for purposes of determining the true nature of an
undertaking or function of a municipality. The surrounding circumstances of a particular case
are to be considered and will be decisive.
○ SC cited the US case Pope v. City of New Haven which illustrates how the surrounding
circumstances plus the political, social, and cultural backgrounds could produce a conclusion
different from that in the Torio case.
■ In the case, the city was affirmed to have been exercising a governmental duty in doing the
fireworks display [which caused the death of a bystander] in celebration of July 4th. The court
held that the event was a national holiday calculated to entertain and instruct the people generally
and to arouse and stimulate patriotic sentiments and love of country.
○ Surely, a town fiesta cannot compare to the National Centennial Celebrations, which were
meant to commemorate the birth of the nation after centuries of struggle against our former
colonial masters.
● Clearly, NCC performs sovereign functions. Hence, it is a public office, and petitioner Laurel, as
its chair, is a public officer.

(2) On salary
● A salary is a usual but NOT a necessary criterion for determining the nature of the position. It is NOT
conclusive, but is a mere incident and forms no part of the office.
● Where a salary or fees is annexed, the office provided for it is a naked or honorary office, and is
supposed to be accepted merely for the public good.
○ HENCE, the office of NCC Chair may be characterized as an honorary office, as opposed to
a lucrative office or an office of profit, (i.e., one to which salary, compensation or fees are
attached) but it is a public office, nonetheless.

(3) On continuance
 ● The fact that NCC was characterized by EO 128 as an “ad-hoc body” does not make the commission
less of a public office.
● Chief Justice Marshall: “The term office embraces the idea of tenure and duration, and...a position
which is merely temporary and local cannot ordinarily be considered an office. But if a duty be a
continuing one, which is defined by rules prescribed by the government and not by contract,
which an individual is appointed by government to perform, who enters on the duties pertaining to his
station without any contract defining them, if those duties continue though the person be changed,
— it seems very difficult to distinguish such a charge or employment from an office of the
person who performs the duties from an officer."
○ However, this element of continuance CANNOT be considered as indispensable. If the other
elements are present, "it can make no difference," whether there be but one act or a series of
acts to be done, — whether the office expires as soon as the one act is done, or is to be held for
years or during good behavior.
● SC cited the case of In Re Corliss where it was held that the office of Commissioner of the US
Centennial Commission is an office of trust because “duties and functions of the commission were
various, delicate, and important; persons performing such duties and exercising such functions, in
pursuance of statutory direction and authority, are not to be regarded as mere employees, agents, or
committee men, but that they are, properly speaking, officers, and that places which they hold are
offices.”

Others pero medyo connected pa rin

● Laurel also argued that he is not a public officer since he did not receive any compensation, and is therefore
beyond the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. [This argument is different pa from the salary discussion above. I
didn’t combine since medyo particular to sa RA 3019]
○ RA 3019 defines a public officer to include “elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or
temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exemption service receiving compensation, even
nominal, from the government as defined in the preceding paragraph.”
○ SC held that this definition is expressly limited to the application of RA 3019 and does NOT apply for
purposes of determining the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, as defined by the Ombudsman Act.
■ The question of whether Laurel is a public officer as defined under RA 3019 is a matter best
resolved at trial as it involves appreciation of evidence and interpretation of law.
○ Moreover, the definition used the term “includes” indicating that the definition is NOT restrictive. RA 3019
is just one of the several laws that define public officers.
■ Art. 203 RPC: Public officer is any person who, by direct provision of law, popular election or
appointment by competent authority, takes part in the performance of public functions in the
Government of Philippines, or performs in said Government or in any of its branches public duties
as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class.
■ Sec. 2(14) of the Intro Provisions of the Admin Code: Officer – as distinguished from "clerk" or
"employee," refers to a person whose duties not being of a clerical or manual nature, involves the
exercise of discretion in the performance of the functions of the government. When used with
reference to a person having authority to do a particular act or perform a particular person in the
exercise of governmental power, "officer" includes any government employee, agent or body
having authority to do the act or exercise that function”
■ Sec. 3(b), RA 6713: “Public Officials" include elective and appointive officials and employees,
permanent or temporary, whether in the career or non- career service including military and police
personnel, whether or not they receive compensation, regardless of amount.
○ Assuming that the RA 3019 is exclusive, the term compensation is not defined by said law. In certain
circumstances, it include allowances, commissions, expenses, fees, honorariums, etc.
■ ITCAB, granting that Laurel did not receive any salary, the records do not show if he received any
allowance, fee, honorarium, or some other form of compensation.

● Having concluded that NCC performs executive functions, there is no need to delve at length on the
issue of whether Expocorp is a private or public corporation. But SC noted that assuming arguendo,
Laurel’s position as CEO of Expocorp arose from his chairmanship of NCC. Hence, his acts or
omissions as CEO must be viewed in light of his powers and functions as NCC chair.

Ruling: Petition is DISMISSED.

OTHERS (di na connected HAHA, pero ilagay ko na lang)
● Laurel invoked the ruling in Uy v. Sandiganbayan, where it was held that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman was
limited to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan (i.e. over public officers of Grade 27 or higher). As Laurel’s
position was not classified as Grade 27 or higher, the Sandiganbayan, and consequently, the Ombudsman would
have no jurisdiction over him.

● SC held that upon motion for clarification by the Ombudsman, the Court set aside the pronouncement in the Uy
case.
○ The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified.
It pertains to any act or omission of any public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to
be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. The law does not make a distinction between cases cognizable
by the Sandiganbayan and those cognizable by regular courts
○ The reference made by RA 6770 to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, particularly in Section 15(1)
giving the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, and Section
11(4) granting the Special Prosecutor the power to conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute
criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, should not be construed as confining the
scope of the investigatory and prosecutory power of the Ombudsman to such cases.
○ Section 15 of RA 6770 gives the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan. The grant of this authority does not necessarily imply the exclusion from its jurisdiction of
cases involving public officers and employees by other courts.
■ His primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan is not incompatible with the
discharge of his duty to investigate and prosecute other offenses committed by public officers and
employees.
○ The Ombudsman is mandated by law to act on all complaints against officers and employees of the
government and to enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability in every case where the
evidence warrants.
○ The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers and employees is one of the most important
functions of the Ombudsman. In passing RA 6770, the Congress deliberately endowed the Ombudsman
with such power to make him a more active and effective agent of the people in ensuring accountability in
public office.