University of Cebu-Banilad Campus

Banilad, Cebu City

College of Law

MODULE
LAW ON PUBLIC
OFFICERS
Prepared By: Atty. Judiel M. Pareja

____Mahinay, Shammah Rey C.____

Page 1 of 31

INTRODUCTION
Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provides that a "Public office is a public
trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people,
serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism
and justice, and lead modest lives."
Pursuant to this constitutional mandate, Republic Act No. 6713 (The Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) directs the public officials and
employees to uphold public interest over personal interest and for this purpose, to use
government resources and the powers of their offices efficiently, effectively, honestly
and economically to avoid wastage of government resources.
NATURE OF PUBLIC OFFICE
In the case of Cornejo vs. Gabriel, November 17, 1920, the court said that [i]t is,
however, well settled in the United States, that a public office is not property within the
sense of the constitutional guaranties of due process of law, but is a public trust or
agency. In the case of Taylor vs.Beckham ([1899], 178, U. S., 548), Mr. Chief Justice
Fuller said that: "Decisions are numerous to the effect that public offices are mere
agencies or trust, and not property as such." The basic idea of government in the
Philippine Islands, as in the United States, is that of a popular representative
government, the officers being mere agents and not rulers of the people, one where no
one man or set of men has a proprietary or contractual right to an office, but where
every officer accepts office pursuant to the provisions of the law and holds the office as
a trust for the people whom he represents.
Section 2(9) of the 1987 Administrative Code of the Philippines provides that an [o]ffice
refers, within the framework of governmental organization, to any major functional unit of a
department or bureau including regional offices. It may also refer to any position held or
occupied by individual persons, whose functions are defined by law or regulation.
"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 function of the government,
to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public" (7 Mechem, Public Officers, Section
1; See also 42 Am. Jur., 944-955; Emphasis supplied). There is no such thing as a vested
interest or an estate in an office, or even an absolute right to hold office. Excepting
constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no
one can be said to have any vested right in an office or its salary (42 Am. Jur. 881).
Page 2 of 31

In the case of State, ex rel. Barney, vs. Hawkins, the court said "[a]fter an exhaustive
examination of the authorities, we hold that five elements are indispensable in any
position of public employment, in order to make it a public office of a civil nature: (1) It
must be created by the Constitution or by the legislature or created by a municipality or
other body through authority conferred by the legislature; (2) it must possess a
delegation of a portion of the sovereign power of 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 control of a superior power other
than the law, unless they be those of an inferior or subordinate office, created or
authorized by the legislature, and by it placed under the general control of a superior
officer or body; (5) it must have some permanency and continuity, and not be only
temporary or occasional."
PUBLIC OFFICER
The rule concerning the distinction between a public officer and an employee was
enunciated with clarity in People vs. Freedland, 308 Mich 449; 14 NW2d 62 (1944). The
court said that the correct rule is stated in Mechem on Public Offices and Officers, Secs.
1 and 2, as follows:
"A public office is the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by
which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the
creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign
functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public.
The individual so invested is a public officer.
The Administrative Code of the Philippines also distinguished an officer from a mere
employee, to wit:
(14) "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 function in the exercise of governmental power, "officer" includes any
government employee, agent or body having authority to do the act or exercise
that function.
(15) "Employee", when used with reference to a person in the public service,
includes any person in the service of the government or any of its agencies,
divisions, subdivisions or instrumentalities.

Page 3 of 31

In Solomon vs. Highland Park Civil Service Commission, 64 Mich App 433, p 438; 236
NW2d 94 (1975), the court stated that:
'A public officer in the general everyday acceptance of the term is a special
classification of those involved in government at what may be described as in an
executive classification, whether his elevation to that status is elective or
appointive. His compensation is fixed by legislative action, state or local. He does
not collectively bargain for his wages or working conditions, and in no case that
we know of are his duties and the standard of performance therefore agreed on
by labor contracts. . . .' 64 Mich App 433, 437-438; 236 NW2d 94
Task 1
Encircle the words that are related to the different classifications of public officers.
O
R
J
M
E
E
N
U
C
O
P
A
B
K
E

T
L
F
F
I
V
E
H
R
J
T
B
I
V
A

C
F
I
P
O
I
I
Y
A
S
I
E
I
S
I

A
I
E
V
M
V
U
T
L
W
D
T
T
N
O

F
H
L
S
I
B
F
A
A
L
C
R
S
O
G

E
Y
A
N
L
C
P
E
G
L
O
T
E
P
M

D
N
D
U
I
O
Q
C
E
Z
S
S
G
A
R

C
H
A
O
T
D
E
T
S
U
R
I
B
E
E

S
O
B
L
A
C
O
L
M
U
V
A
G
U
L

M
S
I
G
R
L
O
A
C
I
L
U
E
E
P

A
O
S
A
Y
T
N
N
X
E
F
O
C
M
L

S
E
R
Z
R
T
O
O
S
N
R
H
I
F
N

W
E
X
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
P
U
T
S
L

O
S
N
L
P
E
L
T
A
A
I
U
J
Y
B

U
U
I
R
E
I
U
A
V
O
Y
C
W
E
O

H
T
R
N
C
O
A
N
M
B
K
R
T
G
D

Y
U
K
I
S
T
I
U
J
A
O
T
I
A
R

O
A
D
N
E
V
I
T
N
I
O
P
P
A
I

B
U
T
O
U
M
T
P
A
I
O
C
U
E
S

J
L
A
I
C
I
D
U
J
E
M
S
P
B
T

Task 2
The principles discussed above, particularly the portion which enumerates the
characteristics of an officer, have been followed consistently by courts. By applying the
said the characteristics, determine whether the individuals involved are occupying a
public office. Write P if the individual is a public officer and NP if not.
1. Notary Public P
2. Attorney-at-law NP
Page 4 of 31

3. Policeman P
4. Security Guards NP
5. Clergyman in the celebration of marriage P
Case Analysis 1
Read and discuss the important legal doctrines, principles and concepts enunciated in
the following cases.
1. Preclaro vs. Sandiganbayan, August 21, 1995
The list of public officers in Section 2 (b) of RA 3019 is not restrictive because of
the word includes. The petitioner was ruled as a public officer hired by the ITDI
on contractual basis for a particular project and for a specified period. He falls
under the non-career service category of the Civil Service and thus is a public
officer as defined by Sec 2(b) of RA 3019._______________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
2. Serana vs. Sandiganbayan, January 22, 2008
A government scholar and UP student regent is considered a public officer. The
BOR performs functions similar to those of a board of trustees of a non-stock
corporation. By express mandate of law, petitioner is a public officer as
contemplated by P.D. No. 1606 the statute defining the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. It was also ruled that compensation is not an essential element
of public office. At most, it is merely incidental to the public office.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
3. Namil vs. COMELEC, October 28, 2003
COMELEC is vested with a broad power to enforce all election laws but the
same is subject to the right of the parties to due process. Although public office is
not property under the Constitution, and one cannot acquire a vested right to
public office, it is, still a protected right and a public officer should not be
removed
from
office
without
due
process
of
Page 5 of 31

law._____________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Q&A1
Is compensation indispensable to public office?
No, compensation is dispensable for a public officer. Compensation is merely incidental
to the functions performed and is not an indicator of the nature of the position held.
What is necessary is the delegation of sovereign functions to the public office.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
SELECTION FOR PUBLIC OFFICE
Appointment
In the case of Aparri vs. CA, January 31, 1984, the court explained that [b]y
"appointment" is meant the act of designation by the executive officer, board or body, to
whom that power has been delegated, of the individual who is to exercise the functions
of a given office (Mechem op. cit., Sec. 102). When the power of appointment is
absolute, and the appointee has been determined upon, no further consent or approval
is necessary, and the formal evidence of the appointment, the commission, may issue at
once. Where, however, the assent or confirmation of some other officer or body is
required, the Commission can issue or the appointment is complete only when such
assent or condition is obtained (People vs. Bissell, 49 Cal. 407). To constitute an
"appointment" to office, there must be some open, unequivocal act of appointment on
the part of the appointing authority empowered to make it, and it may be said that an
appointment to office is made and is complete when the last act required of the
appointing authority has been performed (Molnar vs. City of Aurora, 348 N.E. 2d 262, 38
III App. 3d 580). In either case, the appointment becomes complete when the last act
required of the appointing power is performed (State vs. Barbour, 53 Conn. 76, 55 Am.
Rep. 65).

Designation
In Binamira vs. Garrucho, July 30, 1990, the court stated that:
Page 6 of 31

Appointment may be defined as the selection, by the authority vested with the
power, of an individual who is to exercise the functions of a given office. When
completed, usually with its confirmation, the appointment results in security of
tenure for the person chosen unless he is replaceable at pleasure because of the
nature of his office. Designation, on the other hand, connotes merely the
imposition by law of additional duties on an incumbent official, as where, in the
case before us, the Secretary of Tourism is designated Chairman of the Board of
Directors of the Philippine Tourism Authority, or where, under the Constitution,
three Justices of the Supreme Court are designated by the Chief Justice to sit in
the Electoral Tribunal of the Senate or the House of Representatives. It is said
that appointment is essentially executive while designation is legislative in nature.
Designation may also be loosely defined as an appointment because it likewise
involves the naming of a particular person to a specified public office. That is the
common understanding of the term. However, where the person is merely
designated and not appointed, the implication is that he shall hold the office only
in a temporary capacity and may be replaced at will by the appointing authority.
In this sense, the designation is considered only an acting or temporary
appointment, which does not confer security of tenure on the person named.
Presidents Appointing Power
The 1987 Constitution provides:
Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments,
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces
from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments
are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of
the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and
those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law,
vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the
courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.
The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of
the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be
effective only until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the
next adjournment of the Congress.
In the case of Gonzales III vs. Office of the President, September 04, 2012, the court
said that [u]nder the doctrine of implication, the power to appoint carries with it the
power to remove. As a general rule, therefore, all officers appointed by the President
Page 7 of 31

are also removable by him. The exception to this is when the law expressly provides
otherwise - that is, when the power to remove is expressly vested in an office or
authority other than the appointing power. In some cases, the Constitution expressly
separates the power to remove from the President's power to appoint. Under Section 9,
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, the Members of the Supreme Court and judges of
lower courts shall be appointed by the President. However, Members of the Supreme
Court may be removed after impeachment proceedings initiated by Congress (Section
2, Article XI), while judges of lower courts may be removed only by the Supreme Court
by virtue of its administrative supervision over all its personnel (Sections 6 and 11,
Article VIII). The Chairpersons and Commissioners of the Civil Service Commission
Section 1(2), Article IX(B), the Commission on Elections Section 1(2), Article IX(C), and
the Commission on Audit Section 1(2), Article IX(D) shall likewise be appointed by the
President, but they may be removed only by impeachment (Section 2, Article XI). As
priorly stated, the Ombudsman himself shall be appointed by the President (Section 9,
Article XI) but may also be removed only by impeachment (Section 2, Article XI).
Election
The Rules of Procedure in Election Contests before the Courts involving Elective
Municipal and Barangay Officials (AM. No. 07-4-15-SC) provides that:
Election - means the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular
vote through the use of the ballot. Specifically, it may refer to the conduct of the
polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral campaign, and the
casting and counting of ballots and canvassing of return.
Q&A2
Read each question very carefully. Answer legibly, clearly, and concisely.
1. It is readily apparent that under the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, there are
four (4) groups of officers whom the President shall appoint. Enumerate these
groups and determine which group/s require or requires the concurrence of the
Commission on the Appointments.
1. Appointments vested in the President by the Constitution like heads of executive
departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, officers of the armed
forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain. These officials require the concurrence
of the Commission of Appointments.______________________________________

Page 8 of 31

2. Officers whose appointments are not provided by law and they refer to officers to be
appointed to lower offices created by Congress. These officials do not need the
concurrence of the Commission on Appointments. ___________________________
3.Those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint such as heads of
GOCCs. These officials do not need the concurrence of the Commission on
Appointments._____________________________________________________

_
4. Other officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress by law vests in the
President alone. These officials do not need the concurrence of the Commission on
Appoitments._______________________________________________________

2. Can the President appoint acting secretaries without the consent of the
Commission on Appointments while Congress is in session?
Yes, the President can appoint acting secretaries without the consent of the
Commission on Appointments. An acting appointment cannot be confirmed by
the Commission on Appointments because confirmation presupposes a valid
nomination._______________________________________________________
Task 3
Choose which of the following appointments by the president require the consent of the
Commission on Appointments.
Commissioner of Customs
AFP Chief of Staff
Lieutenant

Naval Captain

NLRC Chairman
NBI Director
Consuls

Secretary of Justice

Ombudsman

CTA Justice

PNP Director

CHR Chairman

Secretary
of
Justice,
Naval
Captain,
Consuls,
AFP
Chief
of
Staff__________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Task 4
The following terms are the different steps in the appointing process. Make a schematic
diagram to show the said process and briefly explain each step.
Attestation
Confirmation

Nomination
Acceptance
Issuance of commission
Page 9 of 31

Nominatio
n

Attestati
on

Confirmati
on

(Possible
appointees
are named)

(CSC checks
the
qualification
s of

(CSC
confirms

Issuance of
commission of written
authority to the
appointed official

Acceptance
(appointed official
accepts
appointment)

Case Analysis 2
Read and discuss the important legal doctrines, principles and concepts enunciated in
the following cases.
1. Farias vs. Executive Secretary, December 10, 2003
Elective officials continue in office even as they campaign for reelection, or
election for another elective position. In fine, an elective official may run for
another position without forfeiting his seat. Section 14 has been held as not
violative of the equal protection provision of the Constitution on the ground that
"substantial distinctions clearly exist between elective officials and appointive
officials"._________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
2. Quinto vs. COMELEC, February 22, 2010
There is a rational justification for excluding elected officials from the operation of
the deemed resigned provisions. complete deference is accorded to the will of
the electorate that they be served by such officials until the end of the term for
which they were elected. In contrast, there is no such expectation insofar as
appointed officials are concerned._____________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Page 10 of 31

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
3. Triste vs. Leyte State College Board of Trustees, December 17 , 1990
A temporary appointment cannot be used by the appointing authority as a device
or justification in order to evade or avoid the security of tenure principle in the
Constitutions and the Civil Service Law. petitioner could be removed only for
justifiable reason and only after she was accorded due process.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
4. Garces vs. Court of Appeals, July 17, 1996
The incumbent must be lawfully removed or his appointment validly terminated
before one could be validly installed to succeed him, since an appointment to an
office not vacant is null and void ab initio. No permanent transfer can take place
unless the officer or employee is first removed from the position held, and then
appointed to another position._____________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
ELIGIBILITY AND QUALIFICATION
Blacks Law Dictionary provides that qualification means the possession of the qualities
or circumstances which are inherently or legally necessary to render him eligible to fill
an office or to perform a public duty or function. Moreover, Carlo Cruz said that lack of
disqualifications is itself a qualification.
Task 5

Page 11 of 31

Complete the table below by writing the qualifications of the following elective officials.
Write N/A if not applicable.
Elective
Citizenship
Officials
President and Natural-born
Vice-President Filipino

Age

Literacy

Voter

Residency

At least 40
years old
on the day
of election

Able to
read and
write

Must be a
registered
voter

Senator

Natural-born
Filipino

At least 35
years old
on the day
of election

Able to
read and
write

Must be a
registered
voter

Resident of the
Philippines for at
least 10 years
immediately
preceeding the
election
Resident of the
Philippnes for
not less than 2
years
immediately
preceeding the
elections

District
Representativ
e

Natural-born
Filipino

At least 25
years old
on the day
of election

Able to
read and
write

Must be a
registered
voter in the
district where
he wishes to
be elected

Party-list
Representativ
e

Natural-born
Filipino

At least 25
years old
on the day
of election

Able to
read and
write

Must be
registered
voter

Governor,
Filipino
Vice-governor, citizen
or Member of
the SP

At least 23
years old
on the day
of elections

Able to
read and
write

Must be a
registered
voter in the
province

Resident for at
least one year
immediately
preceeding
elections

Mayor,
Vice- Filipino
mayor
or citizen
Member of the
SP
of
independent
cities

At least 23
years old
on the day
of elections

Able to
read and
write

Must be a
registered
voter

Resident for at
least one year
immediately
preceeding
elections

Mayor,
Vice- Filipino
mayor
or citizen
Member of the

At least 21
years old
on the day

Able to
read and
write

Must be a
registered
voter

Resident for at
least one year
immediately
preceeding

Resident of
the district for
at least one
year
immediately
preceeding the
elections
Resident for at
least one year
immediately
preceeding the
elections

Page 12 of 31

elections

SP or SB of
component
cities
or
municipalities

of elections

Punong
Filipino
Barangay
or citizen
Member of the
Sangguniang
Barangay

At least 18
years old
on the day
of elections

Able to
read and
write

Must be a
registered
voter

Resident for at
least one year
immediately
preceeding
elections

Sangguniang
Kabataan (SK)

At least
15years
old on the
day of
elections

Able to
read and
write

Must be a
registered
voter

Resident for at
least one year
immediately
preceeding
elections

Filipino
citizen

Disqualifications
Disqualifications to hold public office are mental or physical incapacity, misconduct or
crime, impeachment, removal or suspension from office, previous tenure of office,
consecutive terms, holding more than one office, relationship with the appointing power,
office newly created or the emoluments of which have been increased, being an elective
official, having been a candidate for any elective position, and grounds under the local
government code (Ateneo Political Law Reviewer and Memory Aid).

DE FACTO OFFICERS
De Facto Officer refers to an officer holding a colorable right or title to the office
accompanied by possession.
In the case of Tuanda vs. Sandiganbayan, the court said:
The conditions and elements of de facto officership are the following:
1. There must be a de jure office;
2. There must be color of right or general acquiescence by the public; and
3. There must be actual physical possession of the office in good faith.
Page 13 of 31

One can qualify as a de facto officer only if all the aforestated elements are
present. There can be no de facto officer where there is no de jure office,
although there may be a de facto officer in a de jure office.
An officer de facto is to be distinguished from an officer de jure, and is one who has the
reputation or appearance of being the officer he assumes to be but who, in fact, under
the law, has no right or title to the office he assumes to hold. He is distinguished from a
mere usurper or intruder by the fact that the former holds by some color of right or title
while the latter intrudes upon the office and assumes to exercise its functions without
either the legal title or color of right to such office. (McQuillin, Municipal Corporations,
Vol. 3, 3rd ed., pp. 376-377.)
To constitute a de facto officer, there must be an office having a de facto existence, or at
least one recognized by law and the claimant must be in actual possession of the office
under color of title or authority. State vs. Babb, 124 W. Va. 428, 20 S.E. (2d) 683.
(McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, supra footnote No. 11, p. 383.)
In his concurring opinion in the case of Nacionalista Party vs. De Vera, Justice Ozaeta
explained that usurper is one "who undertakes to act officially without any color of right."
Task 6
Read the assigned case and determine if the public officer involved is a de jure, de facto
or a usurper. Explain your answer.
1. Judge Capistrano in the case of Tayko vs. Capistrano, October 2, 1928
He is a de facto judge. A de facto judge is one who exercises the duties of a
judicial office under color of an appointment or election thereto. His term of office
may have expired, but his successor has not been appointed, and as good faith
is presumed, he must be regarded as holding over in good faith.
________________________________________________________________
2. Executive Assistant IV Priscilla Ong, May 27, 2004
Ong is a de jure officer. A de jure officer is One who has the reputation of being
the officer he assumes and yet is not a good officer in point of law." The position
of Executive Assistant IV in the POEA Administrators office was created
because of a request made by the respondent for a position in his office under a
contractual status. Ong validly held the position.__________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Page 14 of 31

Case Analysis 3
Read and discuss the important legal doctrines, principles and concepts enunciated in
the following cases.
1. Menzon vs. Executive Petilla, May 20, 1991
The mode of succession for permanent vacancies may be observed in a
temporary vacancy in the same office. There was a need to fill the vacancy. The
petitioner is the member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan with the highest
number of votes. The Department Secretary acted correctly in extending the
temporary appointment._____________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
2. Nacionalista Party vs. De Vera, December 7, 1949
COMELEC cannot go beyond the election returns in canvassing the same. The
Commission has no jurisdiction over questions involving the right to vote which
includes qualifications and disqualifications of voters, the right of a person to be
registered as voter, the right to cast his vote, and other allied questions.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Emoluments of a De Facto Officer
Merriam Webster Dictionary defines emolument as the returns arising from office or
employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites.
Case Analysis 4
Read the cases of Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary, February 22, 1991, and
Malaluan vs. COMELEC, March 6, 1996. Thereafter, discuss the important legal
doctrines, principles and concepts enunciated in the following cases.
In the Civil Liberties case, the court held that even though the respondents held multiple
offices, they are to be considered de facto officers during their tenure and are entitled to
Page 15 of 31

emoluments for actual services rendered. Any emoluments received by the

respondents
by
virtue
of
actual
services
rendered
were
retained._____________________________
In the Malaluan case, it has been also held that the petitioner is a de facto officer who is
legally entitled to the emoluments of the office. A subsequent ouster as a result of an
election protest is immaterial for the recovery of compensation. An elective official who
has been proclaimed by the COMELEC as winner in an electoral contest s entitled to
the compensation, emoluments and allowances legally provided for the position.______
AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC OFFICER
As explained by Carlo Cruz, the authority of public officer is derived from the people
themselves. Section 1, Article II of the 1987 constitution provides that [t]he Philippines
is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them.
Scope of power of a public officer consists of those powers which are expressly
conferred upon him by the law under which he has been appointed or elected; expressly
annexed to the office by the law which created it or some other law referring to it; or
attached to the office as incidents to it (Ateneo Political Law Reviewer and Memory Aid).

Task 7
The duties of the public officer may be discretionary or ministerial. Compare and
contrast the two kinds of duties of the public officer. Cite at least one example for each
kind.
A duty is ministerial when it is absolute, certain, and imperative involving merely
execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts. Discretionary duties
on the other hand necessarily require the exercise of reason and discretion in
determining how or whether the act shall be done or the course pursued. An example of
a discretionary duty is the determination of programs to be implemented by a municipal
mayor while an example of a ministerial duty is the issuance of marriage certificate
upon
showing
that
all
requisites
have
been
complied
with.____________________________
Page 16 of 31

RESPONSIBILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

It is a basic principle of the law on public officers that a public official or employee is
under a three-fold responsibility for violation of duty or for a wrongful act or omission.
Case Analysis 5
Read the case of Flores vs. Montemayor, June 8, 2011. Thereafter, explain the meaning
and nature of the above-mentioned legal principle.
The same wrongful act committed by the public officer can subject him to civil,
administrative
and
criminal
liabilities._________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_
Dismissal of a criminal action does not foreclose institution of an administrative
proceeding against the same respondent, nor carry with it the relief from administrative
liability. Res judicata did not set in because there is no identity of causes of action.
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL SERVICE
Under the Constitution, the Civil Service Commission is the central personnel agency of
the government charged with the duty of determining questions of qualifications of merit
and fitness of those appointed to the civil service. Its power to issue a certificate of
eligibility carries with it the power to revoke a certificate for being null and void.

Task 8
Copy the entire provision concerning the Civil Service Commission in Article IX of the
1987 Constitution.
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Page 17 of 31

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Q and A 3
APPOINTMENT STATUS OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Read the case Chua vs. CSC, G.R. No. 88979 February 7, 1992. Does the classification
of regular employee relevant in government service?
No, there is no such specie in the public sector. The classifications relevant in
government service are those found in the circulars of the Civil Service Commission.
For career service, there are temporary and permanent employees and the non-career
services are further identified.______________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Page 18 of 31

Task No. 9
Define the following appointment status of government employees in both career and
non-career service.
1. Permanent
Issued to a person who meets all the requirements for the position to which he is
appointed. It lasts until lawfully terminated. ______________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
2. Temporary
Issued to a person who meets all the requirements for the position to which he is
being appointed except the appropriate civil service eligibility. It shall not exceed
twelve (12) months._________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
3. Casual
A non-career employment which is not permanent but occasional, unpredictable,
sporadic and brief in nature._______________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

OTHER IMPORTANT CONCEPTS

Task 10
Explain thoroughly the following legal concepts.
1. Quo Warranto
A petition for quo warranto is a special civil action under the Omnibus Election
Code to unseat the respondent official from office but not necessarily to install
the petitioner in his place.__________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Page 19 of 31

2. Hold-over Principle
It means that a public officers term has expired or his services terminated but he
should continue holding his office until his successor is appointed or chosen and
had qualified. It is usually provided by law and applies only where a fixed term is
annexed to an office.________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
3. Nepotism
Is an appointment made in favor of a relative of the: (a) appointing authority; (b)
recommending authority; (c) chief of the bureau or office; or (d) person
exercising immediate supervision over the appointee. As used in the law, the
word "relative" and members of the family referred to are those related within the
third degree either of consanguinity or of affinity It is prohibited under the law.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
4. Next-in-rank Rule
The one who is "next-in-rank" to a vacancy is given preferential consideration for
promotion to a vacant position, but it does not necessarily follow that he alone
and no one else can be appointed .__________________________________
________________________________________________________________
5. Divestment
A public official or employee shall resign from his position in any private business
enterprise and/or divest himself of his shareholdings or interest in order to avoid
conflicts of interest. Divestment is mandatory for any official or employee even if
he has resigned from his position in any private business enterprise .__________.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
6. Official Immunity
Public officers and employees are protected to some reasonable degree by
being relieved from private liability in relation to the discharge of their duties.
Official immunity is for the promotion of fearless, vigorous, and effective
administration
of
policies
of
government.______________________________________________
Page 20 of 31

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Case Analysis 6
Read and discuss the important legal doctrines, principles and concepts enunciated in
the following cases.
1. Sambarani vs. COMELEC, September 15, 2004
The Local Government Code limits the term of elective barangay officials to three
years. But RA 9164 provides that incumbent barangay officials may continue in
office in a hold-over capacity until their successors are elected. The application
of the hold-over principle preserves continuity in the transaction of official
business
and
prevents
a
hiatus
in
government.___________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
2. Laurel V vs. CSC, October 28, 1991
Nepotism applies to a non-career service position which belongs to the personal
and confidential staff of an elective official. Petitioners contention that the
designation of his brother is not covered by the prohibition cannot be accepted
for by legal contemplation, the prohibitive mantle on nepotism would include
designation, because what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
3. City Mayor Debulgado vs. CSC, September 26, 1994
The prohibition against nepotism applies to BOTH original and promotional
appointments. Both an original appointment and a promotion are particular
species of personnel action, which must comply with the prohibition against
nepotism. However, the subsequent marriage of one to the other of petitioners
did not retroactively convert the original appointment of petitioner Victoria into a
Page 21 of 31

prohibited nepotic one.______________________________________________

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
4. Panis vs. CSC, February 2, 1994
The one who is "next in rank" to a vacancy is given preferential consideration for
promotion to the vacant position, but it does not necessarily follow that he alone
and no one else can be appointed. There is no vested right granted the next in
rank nor a ministerial duty imposed on the appointing authority to promote the
holder to the vacant position. _________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
5. Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan, February 26, 1997
A private individual who has in his charge any of the public funds or property
enumerated therein and commits any of the acts defined in any of the provisions
of Chapter Four, Title Seven of the RPC, should be penalized with the same
penalty meted to erring public officers. Nowhere in this provision is it expressed
or implied that a private individual falling under said Article 222 is to be deemed a
public officer.______________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
6. Barrozo vs. CSC, June 25 1991
The law does not absolutely require that the person who is next in rank shall be
promoted to fill a vacancy. The vacancy may be filled not by promotion but "by
transfer of present employees in the government service, by reinstatement by reemployment of persons separated through reduction in force, or by appointment
of persons with the civil service eligibility appropriate to the position."
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Page 22 of 31

SUSPENSION
The Supreme Court has established a clear-cut distinction between suspension as
preventive measure and suspension as penalty. In the case of Quimbo vs. Acting
Ombudsman Gervacio, August 09, 2005, the highest court emphasized the distinction,
to wit:
Preventive suspension is merely a preventive measure, a preliminary step in an
administrative investigation. The purpose of the suspension order is to prevent
the accused from using his position and the powers and prerogatives of his office
to influence potential witnesses or tamper with records which may be vital in the
prosecution of the case against him. If after such investigation, the charge is
established and the person investigated is found guilty of acts warranting his
suspension or removal, then he is suspended, removed or dismissed. This is the
penalty.
xxx
Clearly, service of the preventive suspension cannot be credited as service of
penalty. To rule otherwise is to disregard above-quoted Sections 24 and 25 of the
Administrative Code of 1987 and render nugatory the substantial distinction
between, and purposes of imposing preventive suspension and suspension as
penalty.
In the case of Aldovino vs. COMELEC, December 23, 2009, the court explained the
nature of preventive suspension, to wit:
Preventive suspension whether under the Local Government Code, the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act, or the Ombudsman Act is an interim remedial
measure to address the situation of an official who have been charged
administratively or criminally, where the evidence preliminarily indicates the
likelihood of or potential for eventual guilt or liability.
Preventive suspension is imposed under the Local Government Code "when the
evidence of guilt is strong and given the gravity of the offense, there is a
possibility that the 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." Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, it is imposed after a
valid information (that requires a finding of probable cause) has been filed in
court, while under the Ombudsman Act, it is imposed when, in the judgment of
the Ombudsman, the evidence of guilt is strong; and (a) the charge involves
Page 23 of 31

dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of

duty; or (b) the charges would warrant removal from the service; or (c) the
respondents continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him.
Notably in all cases of preventive suspension, the suspended official is barred
from performing the functions of his office and does not receive salary in the
meanwhile, but does not vacate and lose title to his office; loss of office is a
consequence that only results upon an eventual finding of guilt or liability.
Preventive suspension is a remedial measure that operates under closelycontrolled conditions and gives a premium to the protection of the service rather
than to the interests of the individual office holder. Even then, protection of the
service goes only as far as a temporary prohibition on the exercise of the
functions of the officials office; the official is reinstated to the exercise of his
position as soon as the preventive suspension is lifted. Thus, while a temporary
incapacity in the exercise of power results, no position is vacated when a public
official is preventively suspended.
In the case of Hon. Gloria vs. CA, April 21, 1999, the court said that [t]here are thus two
kinds of preventive suspension of civil service employees who are charged with
offenses punishable by removal or suspension: (1) preventive suspension pending
investigations (51) and (2) preventive suspension pending appeal if the penalty
imposed by the disciplining authority is suspension or dismissal and, after review, the
respondent is exonerated ( 47(4)). There is no right to compensation for preventive
suspension pending investigation even if employee is exonerated.
In the case of Bolastig vs. Sandiganbayan, August 4, 1994, the court ruled that [t]he
duration of preventive suspension is thus coeval with the period prescribed for deciding
administrative disciplinary cases. If the case is decided before ninety days, then the
suspension will last less than ninety days, but if the case is not decided within ninety
days, then the preventive suspension must be up to ninety days only. Similarly, as
applied to criminal prosecutions under Republic Act No. 3019, preventive suspension
will last for less than ninety days only if the case is decided within that period; otherwise,
it will continue for ninety days. The duration of preventive suspension will, therefore,
vary to the extent that it is contingent on the time it takes the court to decide the case
but not on account of any discretion lodged in the court, taking into account the
probability that the accused may use his office to hamper his prosecution.
Q and A 4
Is the preventive suspension of an elected public official an interruption of his term of
office for purposes of the three-term limit rule under Section 8, Article X of the
Page 24 of 31

Constitution and Section 43(b) of Republic Act No. 7160 (RA 7160, or the Local
Government Code)?
No, the preventive suspension will not be deemed an interruption of office. Preventive
suspension is merely a measure to prevent the accused from using his position and the
powers to influence the investigation and not a punishment. He is by no means
deprived permanently of his position and may resume his functions upon expiration of
the
suspension.____________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Authority of the Ombudsman to Impose Preventive Suspension
R.A. 6770, the Ombudsman Law, grants the Office of the Ombudsman the statutory
power to conduct administrative investigations. Thus, Section 19 of said law provides:
Sec. 19. Administrative Complaints. The Ombudsman shall act on all
complaints relating, but not limited to acts or omissions which:
1. Are contrary to law or regulation;
2. Are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or discriminatory;
3. Are inconsistent with the general course of an agency's functions, though
in accordance with law;
4. Proceed from a mistake of law or an arbitrary ascertainment of facts;
5. Are in the exercise of discretionary powers but for an improper purpose; or
6. Are otherwise irregular, immoral or devoid of justification.
Sec. 21 of R.A. 6770 names the officials subject to the Ombudsman's disciplinary
authority:
Sec. 21. Officials Subject To Disciplinary Authority; Exceptions. 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.
In the case of Mayor Garcia vs. Hon. Mojica, September 10, 1999, the court reminded
us that the power of the Office of the Ombudsman to preventively suspend an official
Page 25 of 31

subject to its administrative investigation is provided by specific provision of law. Under

Section 24 of R.A. 6770
Sec. 24. Preventive Suspension. 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 (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.
The Court clearly explained:
x x x [T]he preventive suspension shall continue until the case is terminated by
the Office of the Ombudsman but not more than six months, without pay, except
when the delay in the disposition of the case by the Office of the Ombudsman is
due to the fault, negligence or petition of the respondent, in which case the
period of such delay shall not be counted in computing the period of suspension
herein provided.
We have previously interpreted the phrase "under his authority" to mean that the
Ombudsman can preventively suspend all officials under investigation by his
office, regardless of the branch of government in which they are employed,
excepting of course those removable by impeachment, members of Congress
and the Judiciary.
Moreover, the court further said that [t]he determination of whether or not the evidence
of guilt is strong as to warrant preventive suspension rests with the Ombudsman. The
discretion as regards the period of such suspension also necessarily belongs to the
Ombudsman, except that he cannot extend the period of suspension beyond that
provided by law.
Q and A 5
Has the Ombudsman under R.A. No. 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of
1989, been divested of his or her authority to conduct administrative investigations over
local elective officials by virtue of the subsequent enactment of R.A. No. 7160,
otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991?
No, the Ombudsman is not prevented from conducting investigations on local officials.
The power of the Ombudsman to investigate includes non-impeachable public officials
Page 26 of 31

like the local government officials. The Local Government Code does not expressly or
impliedly prohibit investigations conducted by the Ombudsman. Absent such
inconsistency, a subsequent legislation like the Local Government Code cannot repeal
the provision in the Ombudsman Act.________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
VACANCY
There is a vacancy 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 perform its duties.
There can be no appointment to a non-vacant position (Ateneo Political Law Reviewer
and Memory Aid).
MODES OF TERMINATION OF OFFICIAL RELATIONS
The different modes of terminating official relations may be classified into natural
causes, acts or neglect of officer and acts of the government and people.
Natural Causes
1. Expiration of the Term or Tenure of Office
2. Reaching the Age Limit (Retirement)
3. Death or Permanent Disability
Acts / Neglect of Officer
1. Resignation
2. Acceptance of an Incompatible Office
3. Abandonment of Office
4. Prescription of Right to Office
Acts of the Government or People
1. Removal
2. Impeachment
3. Abolition of Office
4. Conviction of a Crime
5. Recall
Task 11
Page 27 of 31

The class will be divided into groups. Each group will be assigned to research at least
two (2) modes of terminating official relations. Thereafter, the designated group will
creatively present the assigned topics in the class.
Group 1
Expiration of the Term or Tenure of Office
Reaching the Age Limit (Retirement)
Death or Permanent Disability
Group 2
Resignation
Acceptance of an Incompatible Office
Abandonment of Office
Prescription of Right to Office
Group 3
Removal
Abolition of Office
Conviction of a Crime
Group 4
Impeachment
Recall

SPECIAL LAWS
Task 12
Read the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
(RA No. 6713) and the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 (RA No. 9485). Thereafter, write a
1000-word written report on the following statutes. Please follow the format below:
A. Important Features
B. Insights and Reaction; and
C. Conclusion.

RA 6713 seeks to promote a high standard ethics in public service. It outlines the
duties as well as incentives for public officials and employees. Public Officials and
Page 28 of 31

employees are tasked to: (a) Act promptly on letters and requests; (b) Submit annual
performance; (c) Process documents and papers expeditiously; and (d)Make
documents accessible to the public. It also provides a Committee on Awards to
Outstanding Public Officials and Employees where they would identify those public
officials and employee who have done good in service with the following criteria : years
of service and the quality, consistency of performance, obscurity of position, level of
salary, unique and exemplary of a certain achievement, and the risk and temptation
inherit in the work. The officials and employees chosen by the Committee would be
promoted to the next high rank and increased salary grade.
The law also prohibits actions and transactions with financial and material
interest, are outside employment and other activities related thereto, with misuse of
confidential information, and in solicitation or acceptance of gift. Employees and officials
are also tasked to disclose their properties, assets, income, business of their
wife/husband and their children under 18 years old in Statement of Assets and
Liabilities and Financial Disclosure every year.
RA 9485, on the other hand, seeks to improve efficiency in the delivery of
government service to the public by reducing bureaucratic red tape and prevent graft
and corruption in government agencies and offices. According to Section 5 of the Act,
all offices and agencies which provide frontline services are hereby mandated to
regularly undertake time and motion studies, undergo evaluation and improvement of
their transaction systems and procedures and re-engineer the same if deemed
necessary to reduce bureaucratic red tape and processing time. All government
agencies to set up their respective service standards to be known as the Citizens
Charter in the form of information billboards which should be posted at the main
entrance of offices or at the most conspicuous place. The Citizen Charter is aimed to
guide citizens when they are transacting or getting the services of the government
agencies.
The Anti-red tape law in the Philippines punishes fixers and violators of the Act.
Light penalties like failure to act on an application and/or request is punishable by thirty
(30) days suspension without pay on the first offense, three (3) months suspension
without pay on the second offense; and dismissal and perpetual disqualification from
public service on the third offense. Grave offenses like fixing and/or collusion with fixers
in consideration of economic and/or other gain or advantage will be penalized by
dismissal and perpetual disqualification from public service.
These two laws are an attempt of Congress to further streamline the delivery of
government services in the country. The Code of Conduct recognizes that positive
inducements are means of encouraging public officials and government employees in
performing better while the Anti-Red Tape Act seeks to curb red tape in the bureaucracy
by providing penal provisions for violations under this law. Incentives and additional
compensation for public service employees and officers help boost their morale and
encourage employee to work more productively. Penal provisions provide limitations to
what a public officer can validly perform. Together, these two laws is a carrot and stick
Page 29 of 31

method; providing both positive and negative consequences for the performance of the
public officials.
While these two laws are commendable, there are some issues that could still
use further improvements. What drives red-tape and non-performing public service
employees is the sheer number of transactions these employees process every day.
Whenever one goes to process a government paper, one should prepare for the long
queues and even longer processing time. Some people would then resort to fixers and
would bribe employees to expedite their transactions. Some public employees would
intentionally prolong the processing time in order to pressure the person to give some
pampadulas.
The obvious solution to this is to declog these offices. The question now is on
how to do it. One way to do this is by providing more employees and more offices to
perform these functions. However, doing that would entail more expenses on the part of
the government as more employees mean more salaries to pay and more resources to
utilize. This is a good way to increase the productivity of the government but it is not the
most efficient way to do it. Another way that the government should look into is the use
of online processing. Most government transactions are still manually processed. This
takes up time and resources both for the government and the civilian. Personally going
to the government office and processing your document takes up at least an entire day
and exhausts both the public employees and the people. As a result, some would be
enticed to resort to illegal means to expedite their transactions. Since technology is
already available, it is to our best interest to make the most out of it. Setting up efficient
websites could be less costly than hiring new employees and processing online could
reduce queues and save time. Online processing would make the whole transaction
easier for the people and for the employees. This would unclog public offices and public
employees would no longer be dealing with unruly and sometimes angry applicants.
The laws are aimed at making public employees more accountable and efficient
in their services. However, there are still areas for improvement to be looked into. The
laws are looking at the efficiency of the public employee but efficiency could also be
achieved through the aid of technology. Technologys purpose is to make things easier
for people, and therefore we must make the most out of it. It has always been a mystery
why the country still chooses to manually do the majority of its transactions these days
when social media and online shopping are the norm. There are government agencies
that are providing online processing but there are only a handful of them. Hopefully, this
option would be looked into and would garner a more careful consideration from
government officials and lawmakers.

Page 30 of 31

The business of a law school is not sufficiently described when you merely say
that it is to teach law or to make lawyers; it is to teach law in the grand manner,
and to make great lawyers.
-Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Page 31 of 31