Laurel v. Desierto

3/30/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 381
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Laurel vs. Desierto
*
G.R. No. 145368. April 12, 2002.
SALVADOR H. LAUREL, petitioner, vs. HON. ANIANO A.

DESIERTO, in his capacity as Ombudsman, respondent.
Constitutional Law; Ombudsman; Public Officers; The

Ombudsman has the power to investigate any malfeasance,
misfeasance and non-feasance by a public officer or employee of the
government, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations;
Public Officer Defined.—In sum, the Ombudsman has the power
to investigate any malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance by
a public officer or employee of the government, or of any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations. Neither the
Constitution nor the Ombudsman Act of 1989, however, defines
who public officers are. A definition of public officers cited in
jurisprudence is that provided by Mechem, a recognized authority
on the subject: A public office is the right, authority and duty,
created and conferred by law, by which, for a given period, either
fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an
individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions
of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the
public. The individual so invested is a public officer.
Same; Same; Same; The characteristics of a public office
include the delegation of sovereign functions, its creation by law
and not by contract, an oath, salary, continuance of the position,
scope of duties, and the designation of the position as an office.—
The characteristics of a public office, according to Mechem,
include the delegation of sovereign functions, its creation by law
and not by contract, an oath, salary, continuance of the position,
scope of duties, and the designation of the position as an office.
Same; Same; Same; Court holds that the National Centennial
Commission (NCC) performs executive functions.—We hold that
the NCC performs executive functions. The executive power “is
generally defined as the power to enforce and administer the
laws. It is the power of carrying the laws into practical operation
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001788149574d59cde8c3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/29
and enforcing their due observance.” The executive function,

therefore, concerns the implementation of the policies as set forth
by law.
______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
49
VOL. 381, APRIL 12, 2002 49
Laurel vs. Desierto
Same; Same; Same; The NCC was precisely created to ensure

a more coordinated and synchronized celebrations of the
Philippine Centennial and wider participation from the
government and non-government or private organizations and to
rationalize the relevance of historical links with other countries
and to carry them into effect.—E.O. No. 128, reconstituting the
Committee for the National Centennial Celebrations in 1998,
cited the “need to strengthen the said Committee to ensure a
more coordinated and synchronized celebrations of the Philippine
Centennial and wider participation from the government and non-
government or private organizations.” It also referred to the “need
to rationalize the relevance of historical links with other
countries.” The NCC was precisely created to execute the foregoing
policies and objectives, to carry them into effect.
Same; Same; Same; The promotion of industrialization and
full employment is a fundamental state policy.—There can hardly
be any dispute that the promotion of industrialization and full
employment is a fundamental state policy.
Same; Same; Same; The NCC performs sovereign functions; It
is a public office and petitioner is a public officer.—Clearly, the
NCC performs sovereign functions. It is, therefore, a public office,
and petitioner, as its Chair, is a public officer.
Same; Same; Same; Fact that petitioner did not receive any
compensation during his tenure is of little consequence.—That
petitioner allegedly did not receive any compensation during his
tenure is of little consequence. A salary is a usual but not a
necessary criterion for determining the nature of the position. It is
not conclusive. The salary is a mere incident and forms no part of
the office. Where a salary or fees is annexed, the office is provided
for it is a naked or honorary office, and is supposed to be accepted
merely for the public good. Hence, the office of petitioner as NCC
Chair may be characterized as an honorary office, as opposed to a
lucrative office or an office of profit, i.e., one to which salary,

compensation or fees are attached. But it is a public office,
nonetheless.
PETITION for review of a decision of the Ombudsman.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Laurel Law Offices for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondent.
50

Laurel vs. Desierto
KAPUNAN, J.:
On June 13, 1991, President Corazon C. Aquino issued

Administrative Order No. 223 “constituting a Committee
for the preparation of the National Centennial Celebration
in 1998.” The Committee was mandated “to take charge of
the nationwide preparations for the National Celebration of
the Philippine Centennial of the Declaration of Philippine
Independence
1
and the Inauguration of the Malolos
Congress.”
Subsequently, President Fidel V. Ramos issued
Executive Order No. 128, “reconstituting the Committee for
the preparation of the National Centennial Celebrations in
1998.” It renamed the Committee as the “National
Centennial Commission.” Appointed to chair the
reconstituted Commission was Vice-President Salvador
______________
1 A.O. 223, Section 1. The same section provided for the Committee’s
composition as follows:
x x x. The Committee shall be composed of six (6) representatives from the

Presidential Commission for Culture and the Arts (PCCA), and five (5)
representatives from the Philippine Centennial Foundation, Inc. (PCFI). They
shall be appointed by the President upon their nomination by their respective
groups.
The Committee members shall elect among themselves the Chairman and Vice-
Chairman, and such other officers as they may deem necessary.
The Committee was also granted the following duties and powers:
1. To undertake the overall study, formulation and implementation of

programs and projects on the utilization of culture, arts, and media as
vehicles for value education in the context of the Centennial Celebration;
To act as principal coordinator for all the activities related to awareness

2.
and celebration of the centennial;
3. To constitute sub-committees and working groups which shall undertake
the implementation of the program and projects; and
4. To call upon the assistance of any government agency or instrumentality
and corporation, and to invite private individuals and organizations to
assist it in the performance of its tasks. (Id., at Section 2.)
51
VOL. 381, APRIL 12, 2002 51

Laurel vs. Desierto
H. Laurel. Presidents Diosdado M. Macapagal and 2

Corazon
C. Aquino were named Honorary Chairpersons.
Characterized as an “ad-hoc body,” the existence of the
Commission “shall terminate upon the completion 3
of all
activities related to the Centennial Celebrations.” Like its
predecessor Committee, the Commission was tasked to
“take charge of the nationwide preparations for the
National Celebration of the Philippine Centennial of the
Declaration of Philippine Independence and the
Inauguration of the Malolos Congress.”
Per Section 6 of the Executive Order, the Commission
was also charged with the responsibility to “prepare, for
approval of the President, a Comprehensive Plan for the
Centennial Celebrations within six (6) months from the
effectivity of the Executive Order.
E.O. No. 128 also contained provisions for staff support
and funding:
SEC. 3. The Commission shall be provided with technical and

administrative staff support by a Secretariat to be composed of,
among others, detailed personnel from the Presidential
Management Staff, the National Commission for Culture and the
Arts, and the National Historical Institute. Said Secretariat shall
be headed by a full time Executive Director who shall be
designated by the President.
SEC. 4. The Commission shall be funded with an initial budget
to be drawn from the Department of Tourism and the president’s
Contingent Fund, in an amount to be recommended by the
Commission, and approved by the President. Appropriations for
succeeding years shall be incorporated in the budget of the Office
of the President.
______________
2 Other members of the Commission were the Secretaries of Education,

Culture and Sports, National Defense, Interior and Local Government,
Tourism, Trade and Industry, Public Works and Highways,
Transportation and Communications, and Budget and Management, the
Press Secretary, two (2) representatives each from the Senate and the
House of Representatives, two (2) representatives from the Judiciary, the
Executive Director of the National Historical Institute, three (3)
representatives from the National Commission for Culture and Arts, three
(3) representatives from the Philippine Centennial Foundation, Inc., and
other members from the government and the private sectors, “as may be
designated later.” (E.O. No. 128, Section 1.)
3 Id., at Section 5.
52

Laurel vs. Desierto
Subsequently, a corporation named the Philippine4

Centennial Expo ‘98 Corporation (Expocorp) was created.
Petitioner was
______________
4 The purposes of the corporation were set forth in Article 2 of the

Articles of Incorporation, thus:
PRIMARY PURPOSE
To set up and establish the Philippine Centennial International Exposition 1998

(EXPO ‘98), a project of the National Centennial Commission envisioned and
mandated under Executive Order No. 128, series of 1993, in the Clark Special
Economic Zone (CSEZ) within the Provinces of Pampanga and Tarlac, Philippines
as created, defined and delineated under Proclamation No. 163, series 1993, of the
President of the Philippines and furtherance of said purpose;
1. To operate, administer, manage, implement, and develop EXPO ’98

conformably to and in accordance with the Detailed Feasibility study and
Master Plan for said Exposition prepared by DOUGLAS/GALLAGHER,
INC. and approved by the President of the Philippines;
2. To exercise oversight functions and overall jurisdiction over the operations
of EXPO ’98 as well as manage and oversee all plans, programs, and
activities related to the implementation and operation of said Exposition;
3. To regulate the establishment, operation, and maintenance of utilities,
services, and infrastructure works in all the site components of EXPO ’98
and its support facilities;
4. To oversee the preparations for the implementation of the participation of
countries, groups, organizations, and entities at EXPO ’98;
To establish linkages with participating countries and coordinate their

5. programs and activities relevant to the theme of EXPO ’98;
6. To provide and prescribe the guidelines for the design and fabrication of
the pavilions of participating countries that played a significant role in
Philippine historical development and of other participating groups,
organizations, and entities which would be reflective of the following
objectives of EXPO ’98—
53
VOL. 381, APRIL 12, 2002 53

Laurel vs. Desierto
among the nine (9) Expocorp incorporators, who were also

its first nine (9) directors. Petitioner was elected Expocorp
Chief Executive Officer.
______________
a) showcase the national vision of the Philippines, highlighted by a rich

history and culture, and its traditional heritage and diverse cultural
influences;
b) express eloquently the Filipinism sentiment of the Philippine Centennial;
c) strengthen cultural and historical linkages between Philippines and
participating countries;
d) create an image of the Philippines as a country with rich trade and tourism
potentials; and
e) project the Filipino character and strengthen the sense of national pride
and patriotism among the Filipino people.
7. To conceive and devise varied promotional strategies towards creating

awareness and appreciation of EXPO ’98 as the centerpiece of the national
celebrations in 1998 of the centennial of the declaration of Philippine
Independence and beyond that as a permanent site for the Filipino people
to honor their rich heritage;
8. To encourage and invite the active and meaningful participation of the
private sector in managing and overseeing EXPO ’98; and
9. To forge strategic partnerships and joint ventures with local and
international investors and developers in the development, maintenance,
operation, and management of EXPO ’98 on a turn-key basis.
SECONDARY PURPOSES
(1) To purchase, acquire, own, lease, sell and convey real properties such as
lands, buildings, factories and warehouses and machineries, equipment
and other personal properties as may be necessary or incidental to the
conduct of the corporate business, and to pay in cash, shares of its capital
stock, debentures and other evidences of indebtedness, or other securities,
as may be deemed expedient, for any business or property acquired by the

corporation.
(2) To borrow or raise money necessary to meet the financial requirements of
its business by the issuance of bonds, promissory
54

Laurel vs. Desierto
On August 5, 1998, Senator Ana Dominique Coseteng

delivered a privilege speech in the Senate denouncing
alleged anomalies in
______________
notes and other evidences of indebtedness, and to secure the

repayment thereof by mortgage, pledge, deed of trust or lien upon
the properties of the corporation or to issue pursuant to law shares
of its capital stock, debentures and other evidences of indebtedness
in payment for properties acquired by the corporation or for money
borrowed in the prosecution of its lawful business;
(3) To invest and deal with the money and properties of the
corporation in such manner as may from time to time be
considered wise or expedient for the advancement of its interests
and to sell, dispose of or transfer the business, properties and
goodwill of the corporation or any part thereof for such
consideration and under such terms as it shall see fit to accept;
(4) To aid in any manner any corporation, association, or trust estate,
domestic or foreign, or any firm or individual, any shares of stock
in which or any bonds, debentures, notes, securities, evidences of
indebtedness, contracts, or obligations of which are held by or for
this corporation, directly or indirectly or through other
corporations or otherwise;
(5) To enter into any lawful arrangement for sharing profits, union of
interest, unitization or farmout agreement, reciprocal concession,
or cooperation, with any corporation, association, partnership,
syndicate, entity, person or governmental, municipal or public
authority, domestic or foreign, in the carrying on of any business
or transaction deemed necessary, convenient or incidental to
carrying out any of the purposes of this corporation;
(6) To acquire or obtain from any government or authority, national,
provincial, municipal or otherwise, or a corporation, company or
partnership or person, such charter, contracts, franchise,
privileges, exemption, licenses and concessions as may be
conducive to any of the objects of the corporation;
(7) To establish and operate one or more branch offices of agencies

and to carry on any or all of its operations and business without
any restrictions as to place or amount including the right to hold,
purchase or otherwise acquire, lease, mortgage, pledge and convey
or otherwise deal in with real and personal property anywhere
within the Philippines;
(8) To conduct and transact any and all lawful business, and to do or
cause to be done any one or more of the acts and things
55
VOL. 381, APRIL 12, 2002 55

Laurel vs. Desierto
the construction and operation of the Centennial

Exposition Project at the Clark Special Economic Zone.
Upon motion of Senator Franklin Drilon, Senator
Coseteng’s privilege speech was referred to the Committee
on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigation (The
Blue Ribbon Committee) and several other Senate
Committees for investigation.
On February 24, 1999, President Joseph Estrada issued
Administrative Order No. 35, creating an ad hoc and
independent citizens’ committee to investigate all the facts
and circumstances surrounding the Philippine centennial
projects, including its component activities. Former
Senator Rene A.V. Saguisag was appointed to chair the
Committee.
On March 23, 1999, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
filed with the Secretary of the Senate its Committee Final
Report No. 30 dated February 26, 1999. Among the
Committee’s recommendations was “the prosecution by the
Ombudsman/DOJ of Dr. Salvador Laurel, chair of NCC and
of EXPOCORP for violating the rules on public bidding,
relative to the award of centennial contracts to AK (Asia
Construction & Development Corp.); for exhibiting
manifest bias in the issuance of the NTP (Notice to
Proceed) to AK to construct the FR (Freedom Ring) even in
the absence of a valid contract that has caused material
injury to government and for participating in the scheme to
preclude audit by COA of the funds infused by the
government for the implementation of5 the said contracts all
in violation . . . of the anti-graft law.”
Later, on November 5, 1999, the Saguisag Committee
issued its own report. It recommended “the further
investigation by the Ombudsman, and indictment, in
proper cases of,” among others, NCC Chair Salvador H.

Laurel for violations of Section 3(e) of R.A. No.
______________
herein set forth as its purposes, within or without the Philippines, and
in any and all foreign countries, and to do everything necessary, desirable
or incidental to the accomplishment of the purposes or the exercise of any
one or more of the powers herein enumerated, or which shall at any time
appear conducive to or expedient for the protection or benefit of this
corporation.
5 Rollo, p. 10.
56

Laurel vs. Desierto
3019, Section 4(a) in relation to Section 11 of R.A. No. 6713,

and Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Reports of the Senate Blue Ribbon and the Saguisag
Committee were apparently referred to the Fact-finding
and Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman.
On January 27, 2000, the Bureau issued its Evaluation
Report, recommending:
1. That a formal complaint be filed and preliminary

investigation be conducted before the Evaluation
and Preliminary Investigation Bureau (EPIB),
Office of the Ombudsman against former NCC and
EXPOCORP chair Salvador H. Laurel, former
EXPOCORP President Teodoro Q. Peña and AK
President Edgardo H. Angeles for violation of Sec.
3(e) and (g) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended in
relation to PD 1594 and COA Rules and
Regulations;
2. That the Fact Finding and Intelligence Bureau
6
of
this Office, act as the nominal complainant.
In an Order dated April 10, 2000, Pelagio S. Apostol, OIC-

Director of the Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation
Bureau, directed petitioner to submit his counter-affidavit
and those of his witnesses.
On April 24, 2000, petitioner filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman a Motion to Dismiss questioning the
jurisdiction of said office.
In an Order dated June 13, 2000, the Ombudsman
denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss.
On July 3, 2000, petitioner moved for a reconsideration

of the June 13, 2000 Order but the motion was denied in an
Order dated October 5, 2000.
On October 25, 2000, petitioner filed the present petition
for certiorari.
On November 14, 2000, the Evaluation and Preliminary
Investigation Bureau issued a resolution finding “probable
cause to indict respondents SALVADOR H. LAUREL and
TEODORO Q. PEÑA before the Sandiganbayan for
conspiring to violate Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019,
in relation to Republic Act No. 1594.” The
______________
6 Id., at 134-135.
57
VOL. 381, APRIL 12, 2002 57

Laurel vs. Desierto
resolution also directed that an information for violation of

the said law be filed against Laurel and Peña. Ombudsman
Aniano A. Desierto approved the resolution with respect to
Laurel but dismissed the charge against Peña.
In a Resolution dated September 24, 2001, the Court
issued a temporary restraining order, commanding
respondents to desist from filing any information before the
Sandiganbayan or any court against petitioner for alleged
violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.
On November 14, 2001, the Court, upon motion of
petitioner, heard the parties in oral argument.
Petitioner assails the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman on
the ground that he is not a public officer because:
A.
EXPOCORP, THE CORPORATION CHAIRED BY PETITIONER

LAUREL WHICH UNDERTOOK THE FREEDOM RING
PROJECT IN CONNECTION WITH WHICH VIOLATIONS OF
THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES WERE
ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED, WAS A PRIVATE CORPORATION,
NOT A GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED
CORPORATION.
B.
THE NATIONAL CENTENNIAL COMMISSION (NCC) WAS

NOT A PUBLIC OFFICE.
C.
PETITIONER, BOTH AS CHAIRMAN OF THE NCC AND OF

EXPOCORP WAS NOT A “PUBLIC OFFICER” AS DEFINED
7
UNDER THE ANTI-GRAFT & CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT.
8
In addition, petitioner in his reply
9
invokes this Court’s
decision in Uy vs. Sandiganbayan, where it was held that
the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman was limited to cases
cognizable by the Sandi-
______________
7 Id., at 15.
8 Id., at 296-297.
9 312 SCRA 77 (1999).
58

Laurel vs. Desierto
ganbayan, i.e., over public officers of Grade 27 and higher.

As petitioner’s position was purportedly not classified as
Grade 27 or higher, the Sandiganbayan and, consequently,
the Ombudsman, would have no jurisdiction over him.
This last contention is easily dismissed. In the Court’s
decision in Uy, we held that “it is the prosecutor, not the
Ombudsman, who has the authority to file the
corresponding information/s against petitioner in the
regional trial court. The Ombudsman exercises
prosecutorial powers only in cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan.”
In its Resolution of February 22, 2000, the Court
expounded:
The clear import of such pronouncement is to recognize the

authority of the State and regular provincial and city prosecutors
under the Department of Justice to have control over prosecution
of cases falling within the jurisdiction of the regular courts. The
investigation and prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman relate
to cases rightfully falling within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan under Section 15 (1) of R.A. 6770 (“An Act
Providing for the Functional and Structural Organization of the
Office of the Ombudsman, and for other purposes”) which vests
upon the Ombudsman “primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable
by the Sandiganbayan...” And this is further buttressed by Section

11 (4a) of R.A. 6770 which emphasizes that the Office of the
Special Prosecutor shall have the power to “conduct preliminary
investigation and prosecute criminal cases within the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan.” Thus, repeated references to the
Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction clearly serve to limit the
Ombudsman’s and Special Prosecutor’s authority to cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. [Emphasis in the original.]
The foregoing ruling in Uy, however, was short-lived. Upon

motion for clarification by the Ombudsman in the same
case, the Court set aside the foregoing pronouncement in
its Resolution dated March 20, 2001. The Court explained
the rationale for this reversal:
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. It has
been held that the clause “any illegal act or omission
59
VOL. 381, APRIL 12, 2002 59

Laurel vs. Desierto
of any public official” is broad enough to embrace any crime

committed by a public officer or employee.
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 law
defines such primary jurisdiction as authorizing the Ombudsman
“to take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of the
government, the investigation of such cases.” The grant of this
authority does not necessarily imply the exclusion from its
jurisdiction of cases involving public officers and employees by
other courts. The exercise by the Ombudsman of his primary
jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan is not
incompatible with the discharge of his duty to investigate and
prosecute other offenses committed by public officers and
employees. Indeed, it must be stressed that the powers granted by

the legislature to the Ombudsman are very broad and encompass
all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance
committed by public officers and employees during their tenure of
office.
Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman
should not be equated with the limited authority of the Special
Prosecutor under Section 11 of RA 6770. The Office of the Special
Prosecutor is merely a component of the Office of the Ombudsman
and may only act under the supervision and control and upon
authority of the Ombudsman. Its power to conduct preliminary
investigation and to prosecute is limited to criminal cases within
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Certainly, the lawmakers
did not intend to confine the investigatory and prosecutory power
of the Ombudsman to these types of cases. 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. To carry out this duty, the law allows him to utilize the
personnel of his office and/or designate any fiscal, state prosecutor
or lawyer in the government service to act as special investigator
or prosecutor to assist in the investigation and prosecution of
certain cases. Those designated or deputized to assist him work
under his supervision and control. The law likewise allows him to
direct the Special Prosecutor to prosecute cases outside the
Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction in accordance with Section 11 (4c) of
RA 6770.
60

Laurel vs. Desierto
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. A review of the development of our Ombudsman
law reveals this intent. [Emphasis in the original.]
Having disposed of this contention, we proceed to the

principal grounds upon which petitioner relies. We first
address the argument that petitioner, as Chair of the NCC,
was not a public officer.
10
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 government-owned or controlled corporations.”
Among the awesome 11
powers, functions, and duties vested
by the Constitution upon the Office of the Ombudsman is
to “[i]nvestigate... any act or omission of any public official,
employee, office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.”
The foregoing constitutional provisions are substantially
reproduced in R.A. No. 6770, otherwise known as the
“Ombudsman Act of 1989.” Sections 13 and 15(1) of said
law respectively provide:
SEC. 13. Mandate.—The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as

protectors of the people shall act promptly on complaints file in
any form or manner against officers or employees of the
Government, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations,
and enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability in
every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote
efficient service by the Government to the people.
SEC. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties.—The Office of the
Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and
duties:
(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any
person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee,
office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal
unjust, improper or inefficient? It has primary jurisdiction over
cases cognizable by the
______________
10 ART. XI, SEC. 12.

11 ART. XI, SEC. 13 (1).
61
VOL. 381, APRIL 12, 2002 61

Laurel vs. Desierto
Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it

may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of
Government, the investigation of such cases;
x x x.
The coverage of the law appears to be limited only by

Section 16, in relation to Section 13, supra:
SEC. 16. Applicability.—The provisions of this Act shall apply to

all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance that have
been committed by any officer or employee as mentioned in
Section 13 hereof, during his tenure of office.
In sum, the Ombudsman has the power to investigate any

malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance by a public
officer or employee of the government, or of any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,12
including
government-owned or controlled corporations.
Neither the Constitution nor the Ombudsman Act of
1989, however, defines who public officers
13
are. A definition
of public officers cited in jurisprudence is that provided by
Mechem, a recognized authority on the subject:
A public office is the right, authority and duty, created and

conferred by law, by which, for a given period, either fixed by law
or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is
invested with some portion
______________
12 Section 22 extends these investigatory powers, under certain conditions, to

private persons:
SEC. 22. Investigatory Power.—The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the power to
investigate any serious misconduct in office allegedly committed by officials removable by
impeachment, for the purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment or over
Members of Congress, and the Judiciary.
In all cases of conspiracy between an officer or employee of the government and a private
person, the Ombudsman and his Deputies shall have jurisdiction to include such private
person as the evidence may warrant. The officer or employee and the private person shall
be tried jointly and shall be subject to the same penalties and liabilities.
13 E.g., Fernandez vs. Ledesma, 1 SCRA 620 (1963); Aparri vs. Court of Appeals,
127 SCRA 231 (1984).
62

Laurel vs. Desierto
of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by

him for the benefit
14
of the public. The individual so invested is a
public officer.
The characteristics of a public office, according to Mechem,

include the delegation of sovereign functions, its creation
by law and not by contract, an oath, salary, continuance of
the position, scope 15of duties, and the designation of the

position as an office.
Petitioner submits that some of these characteristics are
not present in the position of NCC Chair, namely: (1) the
delegation of sovereign functions; (2) salary, since he
purportedly did not receive any compensation; and (3)
continuance, the tenure of the NCC being temporary.
Mechem describes the delegation to the individual of
some of the sovereign functions of government as “[t]he
most important characteristic” in determining whether a
position is a public office or not.
The most important characteristic which distinguishes an office

from an employment or contract is that the creation and
conferring of an office involves a delegation to the individual of
some of the sovereign functions of government, to be exercised by
him for the benefit of the public;—that some portion of the
sovereignty of the country, either legislative, executive or judicial,
attaches, for the time being, to be exercised for the public benefit.
Unless the powers 16conferred are of this nature, the individual is
not a public officer.
Did E.O. 128 delegate the NCC with some of the sovereign
functions of government? Certainly, the law did not
delegate upon the NCC functions that can be described as
legislative or judicial. May the functions of the NCC then
be described as executive?
We hold that the NCC performs executive functions. The
executive power “is generally defined as the power to
enforce and administer the laws. It is the power of carrying
the laws into practi-
______________
14 F.R. MECHEM, A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF PUBLIC OFFICES

AND OFFICERS, §1.
15 Id., at §§4-10. See also 63C Am Jur 2d, Public Officers and
Employees §1.
16 Id., at §4.
63
VOL. 381, APRIL 12, 2002 63

Laurel vs. Desierto
17
cal operation and enforcing their due observance.” The
executive function, therefore, concerns the implementation
of the policies as set forth by law.
The Constitution provides in Article XIV (Education,

Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports) thereof:
SEC. 15. 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.
In its preamble, A.O. No. 223 states the purposes for the
creation of the Committee for the National Centennial
Celebrations in 1998:
WHEREAS, the birth of the Republic of the Philippines is to be

celebrated in 1998, and the centennial presents an important
vehicle for fostering nationhood and a strong sense of Filipino
identity;
WHEREAS, the centennial can effectively showcase Filipino
heritage and thereby strengthen Filipino values;
WHEREAS, the success of the Centennial Celebrations may be
insured only through long-range planning and continuous
developmental programming;
WHEREAS, the active participation of the private sector in all
areas of special expertise and capability, particularly in
communication and information dissemination, is necessary for
long-range planning and continuous developmental programming;
WHEREAS, there is a need to create a body which shall
initiate and undertake the primary task of harnessing the
multisectoral components from the business, cultural, and
business sectors to serve as effective instruments from the
launching and overseeing of this long-term project;
x x x.
E.O. No. 128, reconstituting the Committee for the

National Centennial Celebrations in 1998, cited the “need
to strengthen the said Committee to ensure a more
coordinated and synchronized celebrations of the
Philippine Centennial and wider participation from the
government and non-government or private organiza-
______________
17 Ople vs. Torres, 293 SCRA 141 (1998).
64

Laurel vs. Desierto
tions.” It also referred to the “need to rationalize the

relevance of historical links with other countries.”
The NCC was precisely created to execute the foregoing
policies and objectives, to carry them into effect. Thus, the
Commission was vested with the following functions:
(a) To undertake the overall study, conceptualization,

formulation and implementation of programs and
projects on the utilization of culture, arts, literature
and media as vehicles for history, economic
endeavors, and reinvigorating the spirit of national
unity and sense of accomplishment in every Filipino
in the context of the Centennial Celebrations. In this
regard, it shall include a Philippine National
Exposition ‘98 within Metro Manila, the original
eight provinces, and Clark Air Base as its major
venues;
(b) To act as principal coordinator for all the activities
related to awareness and celebration of the
Centennial;
(c) To serve as the clearing house for the preparation
and dissemination of all information about the
plans and events for the Centennial Celebrations;
(d) To constitute working groups which shall
undertake the implementation of the programs and
projects;
(e) To prioritize the refurbishment of historical sites
and structures nationwide. In this regard, the
Commission shall formulate schemes (e.g. lease-
maintained-and-transfer, build-operate-transfer,
and similar arrangements) to ensure the
preservation and maintenance of the historical sites
and structures;
(f) To call upon any government agency or
instrumentality and corporation, and to invite
private individuals and organizations to assist it in
the performance of its tasks; and,
(g) Submit regular reports to the President on the
plans, programs, projects, activities as well as 18
the
status of the preparations for the Celebration.
It bears noting 19the President, upon whom the executive

power is vested, created the NCC by executive order. Book
III (Office of the President), Chapter 2 (Ordinance Power),
Section 2 describes the nature of executive orders:
______________
18 Id., at Sec. 2.
19 CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE VII, SECTION 1.
65
VOL. 381, APRIL 12, 2002 65

Laurel vs. Desierto
SEC. 2. Executive Orders.—Acts of the President providing for

rules of a general or permanent character in implementation or
execution of constitutional or statutory powers shall be
promulgated in executive orders. [Italics ours.]
Furthermore, the NCC was not without a role in the

country’s economic development, especially in Central
Luzon. Petitioner himself admitted as much in the oral
arguments before this Court:
MR. JUSTICE REYNATO S. PUNO:

And in addition to that expounded by Former
President Ramos, don’t you agree that the task of the
centennial commission was also to focus on the long
term over all socio economic development of the zone
and Central Luzon by attracting investors in the area
because of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT SALVADOR H. LAUREL:
I am glad Your Honor touched on that because that is
something I wanted to touch on by lack of material
time I could not but that is a very important point.
When I was made Chairman I wanted the Expo to be
in Batangas because I am a Batangeño but President
Ramos said Mr. Vice President the Central Luzon is
suffering, suffering because of the eruption of Mt.
Pinatubo let us try to catalize [sic] economic recovery in
that area by putting this Expo in Clark Field and so it
was done I agreed and Your Honor if I may also
mention we wanted to generate employment aside from
attracting business investments and employment. And
the Estrada administration decided to junk this
project there 48, 40 thousand people who lost job, they
were employed in Expo. And our target was to provide
75 thousand jobs. It would have really calibrated,
accelerated the development of Central Luzon. Now, I
think they are going back to that because they had the
airport and there are plan to revive the Expo site into
key park which was the original plan.
There can hardly be any dispute that the promotion of

industrialization
20
and full employment is a fundamental
state policy.
______________
20 Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony) of the Constitution

provides:
Section 1. x x x.
66

Laurel vs. Desierto
Petitioner 21invokes the ruling of this Court in Torio vs.

Fontanilla that the holding by a municipality of a town
fiesta is a proprietary rather than a governmental function.
Petitioner argues that the “holding of a nationwide
celebration which marked the nation’s 100th birthday may
be likened to a national fiesta which involved only the
exercise 22of the national government’s proprietary
function.” In Torio, we held:
[Section 2282 of the Chapter on Municipal Law of the Revised

Administrative Code] simply gives authority to the municipality
to [celebrate] a yearly fiesta but it does not impose upon it a duty
to observe one. Holding a fiesta even if the purpose is to
commemorate a religious or historical event of the town is in
essence an act for the special benefit of the community and not for
the general welfare of the public performed in pursuance of a
policy of the state. The mere fact that the celebration, as claimed,
was not to secure profit or gain but merely to provide
entertainment to the town inhabitants is not a conclusive test.
For instance, the maintenance of parks is not a source of income
for the town, nonetheless it is [a] private undertaking as
distinguished from the maintenance of public schools, jails, and
the like which are for public service.
As stated earlier, there can be no hard and fast rule for
purposes of determining the true nature of an undertaking or
function of a municipality; the surrounding circumstances of a
particular case are to be considered and will be decisive. The basic
element, however beneficial to the public the undertaking may be,
is that it is government in essence, otherwise, the function
becomes private or propriety in character. Easily, no
governmental or public policy of the state is involved in the
celebration of a town fiesta.
______________
The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound
agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full
and efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in
both domestic and foreign markets. x x x.
In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the
country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. x x x.
21 85 SCRA 599 (1978).

22 Rollo, p. 466.
67
VOL. 381, APRIL 12, 2002 67

Laurel vs. Desierto
Torio, however, did not intend to lay down an all-

encompassing doctrine. Note that the Court cautioned that
“there can be no hard and fast rule for purposes of
determining the true nature of an undertaking or function
of a municipality; the surrounding circumstances of a
particular case are to be considered and will be decisive.”
Thus, in footnote 15 of Torio, the Court, citing an American
case, illustrated how the “surrounding circumstances plus
the political, social, and cultural backgrounds” could
produce a conclusion different from that in Torio:
We came across an interesting case which shows that surrounding

circumstances plus the political, social, and cultural backgrounds
may have a decisive bearing on this question. The case of Pope v.
City of New Haven, et al. was an action to recover damages for
personal injuries caused during a Fourth of July fireworks display
resulting in the death of a bystander alleged to have been caused
by defendants’ negligence. The defendants demurred to the
complaint invoking the defense that the city was engaged in the
performance of a public governmental duty from which it received
no pecuniary benefit and for negligence in the performance of
which no statutory liability is imposed. This demurrer was
sustained by the Superior Court of New Haven Country. Plaintiff
sought to amend his complaint to allege that the celebration was
for the corporate advantage of the city. This was denied. In
affirming the order, the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut
held inter alia:
Municipal corporations are exempt from liability for the
negligent performance of purely public governmental duties,
unless made liable by statute. . . .
A municipality corporation, which under permissive authority
of its charter or of statute, conducted a public Fourth of July
celebration, including a display of fireworks, and sent up a bomb

intended to explode in the air, but which failed to explode until it
reached the ground, and then killed a spectator, was engaged in
the performance of a governmental duty. (99 A.R. 51)
This decision was concurred in by three Judges while two
dissented.
At any rate the rationale of the Majority Opinion is evident
from [this] excerpt:
“July 4th, when that date falls upon Sunday, July 5th, is made
a public holiday, called Independence Day, by our statutes. All or
nearly all of the other states have similar statutes. While there is
no United States statute making a similar provision, the different
departments of the government recognize, and have recognized
since the government was estab-
68

Laurel vs. Desierto
lished, July 4th as a national holiday. Throughout the country it

has been recognized and celebrated as such. These celebrations,
calculated to entertain and instruct the people generally and to
arouse and stimulate patriotic sentiments and love of country,
frequently take the form of literary exercises consisting of
patriotic speeches and the reading of the Constitution,
accompanied by a musical program including patriotic air
sometimes preceded by the firing of cannon and followed by
fireworks. That such celebrations are of advantage to the general
public and their promotion a proper subject of legislation can
hardly be questioned. x x x”
Surely, a town fiesta cannot compare to the National

Centennial Celebrations. The Centennial Celebrations was
meant to commemorate the birth of our nation after
centuries of struggle against our former colonial master, to
memorialize the liberation of our people from oppression by
a foreign power. 1998 marked 100 years of independence
and sovereignty as one united nation. The Celebrations
was an occasion to reflect upon our history and reinvigorate
our patriotism. As A.O. 223 put it, it was a “vehicle for
fostering nationhood and a strong sense of Filipino
identity,” an opportunity to “showcase Filipino heritage
and thereby strengthen Filipino values.” The significance of
the Celebrations could not have been lost on petitioner,
who remarked during the hearing:
Oh, yes, certainly the State is interested in the unity of the

people, we wanted to rekindle the love for freedom, love for
country, that is the over-all goal that has to make everybody feel
proud that he is a Filipino, proud of our history, proud of what our
forefather did in their time. x x x.
Clearly, the NCC performs sovereign functions. It is,

therefore, a public office, and petitioner, as its Chair, is a
public officer.
That petitioner allegedly did not receive any
compensation during his tenure is of little consequence. A
salary is a usual but not a necessary criterion for
determining the nature of the position. It is not conclusive.
The salary is a mere incident and forms no part of the
office. Where a salary or fees is annexed, the office is
provided for it is a naked or honorary office,23 and is
supposed to be accepted merely for the public good. Hence,
the office of petitioner as NCC
______________
23 Id., at §§7, 15. See also Triste vs. Leyte State College Board of
Trustees, 192 SCRA 326 (1990).
69
VOL. 381, APRIL 12, 2002 69

Laurel vs. Desierto
Chair may be characterized as an honorary office, as

opposed to a lucrative office or an office of profit, 24i.e., one to
which salary, compensation or fees are attached. But it is
a public office, nonetheless.
Neither is the fact that the NCC was characterized by
E.O. No. 128 as an “ad-hoc body” make said commission
less of a public office.
The term office, it is said, embraces the idea of tenure and

duration, and certainly a position which is merely temporary and
local cannot ordinarily be considered an office. “But,” says Chief
Justice Marshall, “if a duty be a continuing one, which is defined
by rules prescribed by the government and not by contract, which
an individual is appointed by government to perform, who enters
on the duties pertaining to his station without any contract
defining them, if those duties continue though the person be
changed,—it seems very difficult to distinguish such a charge or
employment from an office of the person who performs the duties
from an officer.”
At the same time, however, this element of continuance can not
be considered as indispensable, for, if the other elements are
present “it can make no difference,” says PEARSON, C.J.,

“whether there be but one act or a series of acts to be done,—
whether the office expires as soon as the25one act is done, or is to be
held for years or during good behavior.”
Our conclusion that petitioner

26
is a public officer finds
support in In Re Corliss. There the Supreme Court of
Rhode Island ruled that the office of Commissioner of the
United States Centennial Commission is an “office of trust”
as to disqualify its holder as elector of the United States
President and Vice-President. (Under Article II of the
United States Constitution, a person holding an office of
trust or profit under the United States is disqualified from
being appointed an elector.)
x x x. We think a Commissioner of the United States Centennial

Commission holds an office of trust under the United States, and
that he
______________
24 Id., at §13.
25 Id., at §8. Emphasis supplied.
26 23 Am Rep. 538 (1876).
70

Laurel vs. Desierto
is therefore disqualified for the office of elector of President and

Vice-President of the United States.
The commission was created under a statute of the United
States approved March 3, 1871. That statute provides for the
holding of an exhibition of American and foreign arts, products,
and manufactures, “under the auspices of the government of the
United States,” and for the constitution of a commission, to
consist of more than one delegate from each State and from each
Territory of the United States, “whose functions shall continue
until close of the exhibition,” and “whose duty it shall be to
prepare and superintend the execution of the plan for holding the
exhibition.” Under the statute the commissioners are appointed
by the President of the United States, on the nomination of the
governor of the States and Territories respectively. Various duties
were imposed upon the commission, and under the statute
provision was to be made for it to have exclusive control of the
exhibit before the President should announce, by proclamation,
the date and place of opening and holding the exhibition. By an
act of Congress approved June 1st, 1872, the duties and functions
of the commission were further increased and defined. That act

created a corporation, called “The Centennial Board of Finance,”
to cooperate with the commission and to raise and disburse the
funds. It was to be organized under the direction of the
commission. The seventh section of the act provides “that the
grounds for exhibition shall be prepared and the buildings erected
by the corporation, in accordance with plans which shall have
been adopted by the United States Centennial Commission; and
the rules and regulations of said corporation, governing rates for
entrance and admission fees, or otherwise affecting the rights,
privileges, or interests of the exhibitors, or of the public, shall be
fixed and established by the United States Centennial
Commission; and no grant conferring rights or privileges of any
description connected with said grounds or buildings, or relating
to said exhibition or celebration, shall be made without the
consent of the United States Centennial Commission, and said
commission shall have power to control, change, or revoke all such
grants, and shall appoint all judges and examiners and award all
premiums.” The tenth section of the act provides that “it shall be
the duty of the United States Centennial Commission to supervise
the closing up of the affairs of said corporation, to audit its
accounts, and submit in a report to the President of the United
States the financial results of the centennial exhibition.”
It is apparent from this statement, which is but partial, that
the duties and functions of the commission were various, delicate,
and important; that they could be successfully performed only by
men of large experience and knowledge of affairs; and that they
were not merely subordinate and provisional, but in the highest
degree authoritative, discretion-
71
VOL. 381, APRIL 12, 2002 71

Laurel vs. Desierto
ary, and final in their character. We think that persons

performing such duties and exercising such functions, in
pursuance of statutory direction and authority, are not to be
regarded as mere employees, agents, or committee men, but that
they are, properly speaking, officers, and that the places which
they hold are offices. It appears, moreover, that they were
originally regarded as officers by Congress; for the act under
which they were appointed declares, section 7, that “no
compensation for services shall be paid to the commissioners or
other officers, provided for in this act, from the treasury of the
United States.” The only other officers provided for were the
“alternates” appointed to serve as commissioners when the
commissioners were unable to attend.
Having arrived at the conclusion that the NCC performs

executive functions and is, therefore, a public office, we
need no longer delve at length on the issue of whether
Expocorp is a private or a public corporation. Even
assuming that Expocorp is a private corporation,
petitioner’s position as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of
Expocorp arose from his Chairmanship of the NCC.
Consequently, his acts or omissions as CEO of Expocorp
must be viewed
27
in the light of his powers and functions as
NCC Chair.
Finally, it is contended that since petitioner supposedly
did not receive any compensation for his services as NCC or
Expocorp Chair, he is not a public officer as defined in
Republic Act No. 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act) and is, therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of
the Ombudsman.
Respondent seeks to charge petitioner with violation of
Section 3 (e) of said law, which reads:
SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.—In addition to acts or

omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the
following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer
and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxx
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official,
administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision
shall apply to officers and employees of offices
______________
27 See Yasay vs. Desierto, 300 SCRA 494 (1998).
72

Laurel vs. Desierto
or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or

permits or other concessions.
A “public officer,” under R.A. No. 3019, is defined by

Section 2 of said law as follows:
SEC. 2. Definition of terms.—As used in this Act, the term—

xxx
(b) “Public officer” includes elective and appointive officials and

employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or
unclassified or exemption service receiving compensation, even
nominal, from the government as defined in the preceding
paragraph. [Emphasis supplied.]
It is clear from Section 2 (b), above, that the definition of a

“public officer” is expressly limited to the application of
R.A. No. 3019. Said definition does not apply for purposes
of determining the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, as defined
by the Constitution and the Ombudsman Act of 1989.
Moreover, the question of whether petitioner is a public
officer under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
involves the appreciation of evidence and interpretation of
law, matters that are best resolved at trial.
To illustrate, the use of the term “includes” in Section
28
2
(b) indicates that the definition is not restrictive. The
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act is just one of several
laws that define “public officers.” Article 203 of the Revised
Penal Code, for example, provides that a public officer is:
x x x any person who, by direct provision of law, popular election

or appointment by competent authority, takes part in the
performance of public functions in the Government of Philippines,
or performs in said Government or in any of its branches public
duties as an employee, agent or subordinate” official, of any rank
or class.
Section 2 (14) of the Introductory

29
Provisions of the
Administrative Code of 1987, on the other hand, states:
______________
28 Preclaro vs. Sandiganbayan, 247 SCRA 454 (1995).

29 Executive Order No. 292.
73
VOL. 381, APRIL 12, 2002 73

Laurel vs. Desierto
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.
It bears noting that under Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No.

6713 (The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees), one may be considered a
“public official” whether or not one receives compensation,
thus:
“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.
Which of these definitions should apply, if at all?
Assuming that the definition of public officer in R.A. No.

3019 is exclusive, the term “compensation,” which is not
defined by said law, has many meanings.
Under particular circumstances, “compensation” has been held to

include allowance for personal expenses, commissions, expenses,
fees, an honorarium, mileage or traveling expenses, payments for
services,
30
restitution or a balancing of accounts, salary, and
wages.
How then is “compensation,” as the term is used in Section

2 (b) of R.A. No. 3019, to be interpreted?
Did petitioner receive any compensation at all as NCC
Chair? Granting that petitioner did not receive any salary,
the records do not reveal if he received any allowance, fee,
honorarium, or some other form of compensation. Notably,
under the by-laws of Expocorp,
31
the CEO is entitled to per
diems and compensation. Would such fact bear any
significance?
______________
30 15 C.J.S. Compensation, p. 654.

31 Rollo, p. 470.
74

Tan vs. People
Obviously, this proceeding is not the proper forum to settle

these issues lest we preempt the trial court from resolving
them.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The
preliminary injunction issued in the Court’s Resolution
dated September 24, 2001 is hereby LIFTED.
SO ORDERED.
Puno and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), No part due to close
relations with a party.
Petition dismissed, preliminary injunction lifted.
Note.—Public officer under Section 2 (b) of Republic Act

No. 3019 includes elective or appointive officials and
employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the Career
Service and Non-Career Service. (Preclaro vs.
Sandiganbayan, 247 SCRA 454 [1995])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Laurel v. Desierto

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Laurel v. Desierto

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/30/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 381

48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

SALVADOR H. LAUREL, petitioner, vs. HON. ANIANO A.

Constitutional Law; Ombudsman; Public Officers; The

and enforcing their due observance.” The executive function,

VOL. 381, APRIL 12, 2002 49

Laurel vs. Desierto

Same; Same; Same; The NCC was precisely created to ensure

lucrative office or an office of profit, i.e., one to which salary,

PETITION for review of a decision of the Ombudsman.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

On June 13, 1991, President Corazon C. Aquino issued

x x x. The Committee shall be composed of six (6) representatives from the

1. To undertake the overall study, formulation and implementation of

To act as principal coordinator for all the activities related to awareness

VOL. 381, APRIL 12, 2002 51

H. Laurel. Presidents Diosdado M. Macapagal and 2

SEC. 3. The Commission shall be provided with technical and

2 Other members of the Commission were the Secretaries of Education,

52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Subsequently, a corporation named the Philippine4

4 The purposes of the corporation were set forth in Article 2 of the

To set up and establish the Philippine Centennial International Exposition 1998

1. To operate, administer, manage, implement, and develop EXPO ’98

To establish linkages with participating countries and coordinate their

VOL. 381, APRIL 12, 2002 53

among the nine (9) Expocorp incorporators, who were also

a) showcase the national vision of the Philippines, highlighted by a rich

7. To conceive and devise varied promotional strategies towards creating

as may be deemed expedient, for any business or property acquired by the

54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

On August 5, 1998, Senator Ana Dominique Coseteng

notes and other evidences of indebtedness, and to secure the

(7) To establish and operate one or more branch offices of agencies

VOL. 381, APRIL 12, 2002 55

the construction and operation of the Centennial

proper cases of,” among others, NCC Chair Salvador H.

56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

3019, Section 4(a) in relation to Section 11 of R.A. No. 6713,

1. That a formal complaint be filed and preliminary

In an Order dated April 10, 2000, Pelagio S. Apostol, OIC-

On July 3, 2000, petitioner moved for a reconsideration

VOL. 381, APRIL 12, 2002 57

resolution also directed that an information for violation of

EXPOCORP, THE CORPORATION CHAIRED BY PETITIONER

THE NATIONAL CENTENNIAL COMMISSION (NCC) WAS

PETITIONER, BOTH AS CHAIRMAN OF THE NCC AND OF

58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ganbayan, i.e., over public officers of Grade 27 and higher.

The clear import of such pronouncement is to recognize the

by the Sandiganbayan...” And this is further buttressed by Section

The foregoing ruling in Uy, however, was short-lived. Upon

The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the

VOL. 381, APRIL 12, 2002 59

of any public official” is broad enough to embrace any crime

employees. Indeed, it must be stressed that the powers granted by

60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers and

Having disposed of this contention, we proceed to the

against public officials or employees of the government, or

SEC. 13. Mandate.—The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as

10 ART. XI, SEC. 12.