Laurel vs.

Desierto [GR 145368, April 12, 2002]

(Public Officers, Chair of National Centennial Commission)

Facts: Petitioner is the Chair of the National Centennial Commission (NCC), 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.

Subsequently, a corporation named the Philippine Centennial Expo 98 Corporation (Expocorp) was
created and Petitioner was elected Expocorp Chief Executive Officer.

An investigation of the anomalies in the construction and operation of the centennial projects was
effected and the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee filed with the Secretary of the Senate its Committee
Final Report recommending for the prosecution by the Ombudsman/DOJ of Dr. Salvador Laurel, chair of
NCC and of EXPOCORP for violating the rules on public bidding, in violation of the anti-graft law.

The Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau issued a resolution finding probable cause to indict
petitioner before the Sandiganbayan for conspiring to violate Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, in
relation to Republic Act No. 1594.

Petitioner assails the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman on the ground that he is not a public officer
because he, both as chairman of the NCC and of the EXPOCORP was not a public officer.

Issue: WON petitioner, as Chair of the NCC, was not a public officer.

Held: No. 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 (Mechem).

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 conferred are of this nature, the individual is not a
public officer.

Certainly, the law did not delegate upon the NCC functions that can be described as legislative or
judicial. 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 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 nations 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 multi-sectoral components from the business, cultural, and business sectors to serve as
effective instruments from the launching and overseeing of this long-term project;

Hence, the NCC performs sovereign functions. It is, therefore, a public office, and petitioner, as its Chair,
is a public officer.

ABAKADA V PURISIMA

Facts:
Petitioners seeks to prevent respondents from implementing and enforcing Republic Act (RA) 9335. R.A.
9335 was enacted to optimize the revenue-generation capability and collection of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC). The law intends to encourage BIR and BOC officials and
employees to exceed their revenue targets by providing a system of rewards and sanctions through the
creation of a Rewards and Incentives Fund (Fund) and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board (Board).
It covers all officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC with at least six months of service, regardless
of employment status.
Petitioners, invoking their right as taxpayers filed this petition challenging the constitutionality of RA
9335, a tax reform legislation. They contend that, by establishing a system of rewards and incentives, the
law transforms the officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC into mercenaries and bounty
hunters as they will do their best only in consideration of such rewards. Thus, the system of rewards
and incentives invites corruption and undermines the constitutionally mandated duty of these officials
and employees to serve the people with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.
Petitioners also claim that limiting the scope of the system of rewards and incentives only to officials and
employees of the BIR and the BOC violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. There is no
valid basis for classification or distinction as to why such a system should not apply to officials and
employees of all other government agencies.
In addition, petitioners assert that the law unduly delegates the power to fix revenue targets to the
President as it lacks a sufficient standard on that matter. While Section 7(b) and (c) of RA 9335 provides
that BIR and BOC officials may be dismissed from the service if their revenue collections fall short of the
target by at least 7.5%, the law does not, however, fix the revenue targets to be achieved. Instead, the
fixing of revenue targets has been delegated to the President without sufficient standards. It will
therefore be easy for the President to fix an unrealistic and unattainable target in order to dismiss BIR or
BOC personnel.
Finally, petitioners assail the creation of a congressional oversight committee on the ground that it
violates the doctrine of separation of powers. While the legislative function is deemed accomplished and
completed upon the enactment and approval of the law, the creation of the congressional oversight
committee permits legislative participation in the implementation and enforcement of the law.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the scope of the system of rewards and incentives limitation to officials and
employees of the BIR and the BOC violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.

2. Whether or not there was an unduly delegation of power to fix revenue targets to the President.

3. Whether or not the doctrine of separation of powers has been violated in the creation of a
congressional oversight committee.

Discussions:

1. The Court referred to the ruling of Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, which states that
the guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not a guaranty of equality in the application of the
laws upon all citizens of the State.

The equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution allows classification. Classification in law, as
in the other departments of knowledge or practice, is the grouping of things in speculation or practice
because they agree with one another in certain particulars. A law is not invalid because of simple
inequality. The very idea of classification is that of inequality, so that it goes without saying that the mere
fact of inequality in no manner determines the matter of constitutionality.
The Court has held that the standard is satisfied if the classification or distinction is based on a
reasonable foundation or rational basis and is not palpably arbitrary.

2. To determine the validity of delegation of legislative power, it needs the following: (1) the
completeness test and (2) the sufficient standard test. A law is complete when it sets forth therein
the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate. It lays down a sufficient
standard when it provides adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries
of the delegates authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. To be sufficient, the
standard must specify the limits of the delegates authority, announce the legislative policy and
identify the conditions under which it is to be implemented.
3. Based from the ruling under Macalintal v. Commission on Elections, it is clear that congressional
oversight is not unconstitutional per se, meaning, it neither necessarily constitutes an encroachment
on the executive power to implement laws nor undermines the constitutional separation of powers.
Rather, it is integral to the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system of government. It
may in fact even enhance the separation of powers as it prevents the over-accumulation of power in
the executive branch.

Rulings:

1. The equal protection clause recognizes a valid classification, that is, a classification that has a
reasonable foundation or rational basis and not arbitrary. 22 With respect to RA 9335, its expressed
public policy is the optimization of the revenue-generation capability and collection of the BIR and
the BOC.23 Since the subject of the law is the revenue- generation capability and collection of the BIR
and the BOC, the incentives and/or sanctions provided in the law should logically pertain to the said
agencies. Moreover, the law concerns only the BIR and the BOC because they have the common
distinct primary function of generating revenues for the national government through the collection
of taxes, customs duties, fees and charges.

Both the BIR and the BOC principally perform the special function of being the instrumentalities through
which the State exercises one of its great inherent functions taxation. Indubitably, such substantial
distinction is germane and intimately related to the purpose of the law. Hence, the classification and
treatment accorded to the BIR and the BOC under R.A. 9335 fully satisfy the demands of equal
protection.

2. R.A. 9335 adequately states the policy and standards to guide the President in fixing revenue
targets and the implementing agencies in carrying out the provisions of the law under Sec 2 and 4 of
the said Act. Moreover, the Court has recognized the following as sufficient standards: public
interest, justice and equity, public convenience and welfare and simplicity, economy and
welfare.33 In this case, the declared policy of optimization of the revenue-generation capability and
collection of the BIR and the BOC is infused with public interest.

3. The court declined jurisdiction on this case. The Joint Congressional Oversight Committee in RA
9335 was created for the purpose of approving the implementing rules and regulations (IRR)
formulated by the DOF, DBM, NEDA, BIR, BOC and CSC. On May 22, 2006, it approved the said IRR.
From then on, it became functus officio and ceased to exist. Hence, the issue of its alleged
encroachment on the executive function of implementing and enforcing the law may be considered
moot and academic.

Evelyn Abeja vs Federico Taada

In 1992, Rosauro Radovan was declared the winner of the mayoralty elections in Pagbilao, Quezon. His
rival, Evelyn Abeja, filed an election protest where she questioned the results in 22 precincts. Radovan
filed a counter protest where he questioned the results in 36 precincts with counterclaim for damages.
Abeja then caused the revision of the ballots covering the 22 precincts and paid the expenses therefor.
Abeja then urged Radovan to cause the revision of the 36 precincts he is questioning. Radovan however
refused and so Abeja filed a motion that a judgment be rendered based on the results from the 22
precincts. The original judge did not rule on the motion before he was transferred. Before the judge
could be replaced, Radovan died. Radovan was then substituted by the vice mayor (Conrado de Rama)
and Radovans wife, Ediltrudes. Ediltrudes substituted his deceased husband insofar as the latters
counterclaim for damages is concerned.
In 1993, the new judge, Federico Taada ruled that Abejas motion is premature because the 36
precincts are not yet revised. Taada agreed with Radovan that the 36 precincts may only be revised if
Abeja can show that she (Abeja) leads by at least one point vote over Radovan.
ISSUE: Whether or not the judge is correct.
HELD: No. There is no rule in election protests cases which states that a protestant (Abeja) must first
show that she won in the precincts she is contesting before evidence on the protestees (Radovan)
counter-protest can be had. This will render the protestants case to be at the mercy of the protestee
who can just prolong the case until his term is over.
Also, the Supreme Court ruled that the substitution of Ediltrudes for her deceased husband is
erroneous. This is notwithstanding the counter-claim for damages in the counter protest. Public
office is personal to the incumbent and is not a property which passes to his heirs. The heirs may
no longer prosecute the deceased protestees counter-claim for damages against the protestant
for that was extinguished when death terminated his right to occupy the contested office.

Various laws provide for the appointment of a private sector representative in governmental bodies. For
example, the Renewable Energy Act of 2008 creates the National Renewable Energy Board and provides
for the appointment of private sector representatives to the board.

Is a private sector representative to the board a public officer?

Carolina R. Javier vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 147026-27, September 11, 2009,

Javier was charged with malversation of public funds. Javier was the private sector representative in the
National Book Development Board (NBDB), which was created by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8047,
otherwise known as the Book Publishing Industry Development Act. R.A. No. 8047 provided for the
creation of the NBDB, which was placed under the administration and supervision of the Office of the
President. The NBDB is composed of eleven (11) members who are appointed by the President, five (5)
of whom come from the government, while the remaining six (6) are chosen from the nominees of
organizations of private book publishers, printers, writers, book industry related activities, students and
the private education sector.
The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Javier for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act and recommended the filing of the corresponding information. In an Information dated
February 18, 2000, Javier was charged with violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act before the Sandiganbayan.
The Commission on Audit also charged Javier with malversation of public funds, as defined and penalized
under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, an Information dated February 29, 2000 was filed
before the Sandiganbayan.

On October 10, 2000, Javier filed a Motion to Quash Information, averring that the Sandiganbayan has
no jurisdiction to hear the case as the information did not allege that she is a public official who is
classified as Grade 27 or higher. Neither did the information charge her as a co-principal, accomplice or
accessory to a public officer committing an offense under the Sandiganbayans jurisdiction. She also
averred that she is not a public officer or employee and that she belongs to the NBDB only as a private
sector representative under R.A. No. 8047, hence, she may not be charged under the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act before the Sandiganbayan or under any statute which covers public officials.
Moreover, she claimed that she does not perform public functions and is without any administrative or
political power to speak of that she is serving the private book publishing industry by advancing their
interest as participant in the governments book development policy.

On January 17, 2001, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying Javiers motion. Javier filed a
petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Javier hinges her petition on the ground that the Sandiganbayan has committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction for not quashing the two informations charging her with
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Revised Penal Code on malversation of
public funds. She advanced the following arguments in support of her petition, to wit: first, she is not a
public officer, and second, she was being charged under two (2) informations, which is in violation of her
right against double jeopardy.

The Supreme Court ruled that Javier was a public officer:

To substantiate her claim, petitioner maintained that she is not a public officer and only a private sector
representative, stressing that her only function among the eleven (11) basic purposes and objectives
provided for in Section 4, R.A. No. 8047, is to obtain priority status for the book publishing industry. At
the time of her appointment to the NDBD Board, she was the President of the BSAP, a book publishers
association. As such, she could not be held liable for the crimes imputed against her, and in turn, she is
outside the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

The NBDB is the government agency mandated to develop and support the Philippine book publishing
industry. It is a statutory government agency created by R.A. No. 8047, which was enacted into law to
ensure the full development of the book publishing industry as well as for the creation of organization
structures to implement the said policy. To achieve this end, the Governing Board of the NBDB was
created to supervise the implementation. . .

A perusal of the above powers and functions leads us to conclude that they partake of the nature of
public functions. 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.
Notwithstanding that petitioner came from the private sector to sit as a member of the NBDB, the law
invested her with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, so that the purpose of the
government is achieved. In this case, the government aimed to enhance the book publishing industry as
it has a significant role in the national development. Hence, the fact that she was appointed from the
public sector and not from the other branches or agencies of the government does not take her position
outside the meaning of a public office. She was appointed to the Governing Board in order to see to it
that the purposes for which the law was enacted are achieved. The Governing Board acts collectively and
carries out its mandate as one body. The purpose of the law for appointing members from the private
sector is to ensure that they are also properly represented in the implementation of government
objectives to cultivate the book publishing industry.

Moreover, the Court is not unmindful of the definition of a public officer pursuant to the Anti-Graft Law,
which provides that a public officer includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent
or temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation, even
nominal, from the government.

Thus, pursuant to the Anti-Graft Law, one is a public officer if one has been elected or appointed to a
public office. Petitioner was appointed by the President to the Governing Board of the NDBD. Though
her term is only for a year that does not make her private person exercising a public function. The fact
that she is not receiving a monthly salary is also of no moment. Section 7, R.A. No. 8047 provides that
members of the Governing Board shall receive per diem and such allowances as may be authorized for
every meeting actually attended and subject to pertinent laws, rules and regulations. Also, under the
Anti-Graft Law, the nature of ones appointment, and whether the compensation one receives from the
government is only nominal, is immaterial because the person so elected or appointed is still considered
a public officer.

On the other hand, the Revised Penal Code defines a public officer as any person who, by direct
provision of the law, popular election, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall
take part in the performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall
perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent, or
subordinate official, of any rank or classes, shall be deemed to be a public officer.

Where, as in this case, petitioner performs public functions in pursuance of the objectives of R.A. No.
8047, verily, she is a public officer who takes part in the performance of public functions in the
government whether as an employee, agent, subordinate official, of any rank or classes. In fact, during
her tenure, petitioner took part in the drafting and promulgation of several rules and regulations
implementing R.A. No. 8047. She was supposed to represent the country in the canceled book fair in
Spain.

In fine, We hold that petitioner is a public officer.

On the issue of double jeopardy, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no double jeopardy.

Records show that the Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 25867 and 25898 refer to offenses penalized
by different statues, R.A. No. 3019 and RPC, respectively. It is elementary that for double jeopardy to
attach, the case against the accused must have been dismissed or otherwise terminated without his
express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon valid information sufficient in form and
substance and the accused pleaded to the charge. In the instant case, petitioner pleaded not guilty to
the Information for violation of the Anti-Graft Law. She was not yet arraigned in the criminal case for
malversation of public funds because she had filed a motion to quash the latter information. Double
jeopardy could not, therefore, attach considering that the two cases remain pending before the
Sandiganbayan and that herein petitioner had pleaded to only one in the criminal cases against her.

It is well settled that for a claim of double jeopardy to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1)
there is a complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a
conviction; (2) the same is filed before a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) there is a valid arraignment
or plea to the charges; and (4) the accused is convicted or acquitted or the case is otherwise dismissed or
terminated without his express consent.[38] The third and fourth requisites are not present in the case
at bar.