Petitioner Vs Vs Respondent Laurel Law Office The Solicitor General
Petitioner Vs Vs Respondent Laurel Law Office The Solicitor General
Petitioner Vs Vs Respondent Laurel Law Office The Solicitor General
SYNOPSIS
SYLLABUS
DECISION
KAPUNAN , J : p
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 and the Inauguration of the Malolos Congress." 1
Subsequently, President Fidel V. Ramos issued Executive Order No. 128, "reconstituting
the Committee for the preparation of the National Centennial Celebrations in 1988." It
renamed the Committee as the "National Centennial Commission." Appointed to chair the
reconstituted Commission was Vice-President Salvador H. Laurel. Presidents Diosdado M.
Macapagal and Corazon C. Aquino were named Honorary Chairpersons. 2
Characterized as an "ad-hoc body," the existence of the Commission "shall terminate upon
the completion of all activities related to the Centennial Celebrations." 3 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
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.
2. That the Fact Finding and Intelligence Bureau of this Office, act as the
nominal complainant. 6
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 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.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
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 UNDER THE ANTI-GRAFT & CORRUPT
PRACTICES ACT. 7
In addition, petitioner in his reply 8 invokes this Court's decision in Uy vs. Sandiganbayan, 9
where it was held that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman was limited to cases cognizable
by the Sandiganbayan, i.e., over public officers of Grade 27 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 of any public official" is broad enough to
embrace any crime committed by a public officer or employee. SIDEaA
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. SAaTHc
The Constitution 10 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
powers, functions, and duties vested by the Constitution 11 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
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 filed 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 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;
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, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
12 SHEC cD
Neither the Constitution nor the Ombudsman Act of 1989, however, defines who public
officers are. A definition of public officers cited in jurisprudence 13 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. 14
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 practical operation and enforcing their due observance." 17 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: aDcTHE
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;
xxx xxx xxx.
E.O. No. 128, reconstituting the Committee for the National Centennial Celebrations in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
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. 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 the status of the preparations for the
Celebration. 18
It bears noting the President, upon whom the executive power is vested, 19 created the
NCC by executive order. Book III (Office of the President), Chapter 2 (Ordinance Power),
Section 2 describes the nature of executive orders:
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:
There can hardly be any dispute that the promotion of industrialization and full
employment is a fundamental state policy. 2 0
Petitioner invokes the ruling of this Court in Torio vs. Fontanilla 21 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 of the
national government's proprietary function." 22 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.
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
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. . . .
"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 established, 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. . . . "
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
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. . . . .
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, and is supposed to be accepted merely for the public good. 23 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. 24 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 the one act is done, or is to be held for years
or during good behavior." 25
Our conclusion that petitioner is a public officer finds support in In Re Corliss. 26 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.)
. . . . We think a Commissioner of the United States Centennial Commission holds
an office of trust under the United States, and that he 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
"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, discretionary, 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 in the light of his powers and functions as NCC Chair. 27
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
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 xxx 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 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 xxx 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. [Italics 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 2 (b) indicates that the definition is
not restrictive. 28 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:
. . . 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.
It bears noting that under Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 6713 (The Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Of cials 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.
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,
the CEO is entitled to per diems and compensation. 3 1 Would such fact bear any
significance?
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., took no part, due to close relations to a party.
Footnotes
1. A.O. 223, Section 1. The same section provided for the Committee's composition as
follows:
. . . . 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:
2. To act as principal coordinator for all the activities related to awareness and
celebration of the centennial;
3. Id., at Section 5.
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;
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.
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 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
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;
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, 7 SCRA 620 (1963); Aparri vs. Court of Appeals, 127 SCRA
231 (1984).
15. Id., at §§4-10. See also 63C Am Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees §1.
16. Id., at §4.
17. Ople vs. Torres, 293 SCRA 141 (1998).
18. Id., at Sec. 2.
19. CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE VII, SECTION 1.
20. Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony) of the Constitution provides:
Section 1. . . . .
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. . . . .
In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the
country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. . . . .
21. 85 SCRA 599 (1978).