The Supreme Court ruled that while the Court of Appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing a temporary restraining order to stop Binay Jr.'s suspension based on the existing condonation doctrine, the condonation doctrine itself should be abandoned. The Court found that election does not condone administrative offenses and that public office is a public trust requiring accountability. However, the abandonment of the condonation doctrine only applies prospectively, as the doctrine was previously established law.
The Supreme Court ruled that while the Court of Appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing a temporary restraining order to stop Binay Jr.'s suspension based on the existing condonation doctrine, the condonation doctrine itself should be abandoned. The Court found that election does not condone administrative offenses and that public office is a public trust requiring accountability. However, the abandonment of the condonation doctrine only applies prospectively, as the doctrine was previously established law.
The Supreme Court ruled that while the Court of Appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing a temporary restraining order to stop Binay Jr.'s suspension based on the existing condonation doctrine, the condonation doctrine itself should be abandoned. The Court found that election does not condone administrative offenses and that public office is a public trust requiring accountability. However, the abandonment of the condonation doctrine only applies prospectively, as the doctrine was previously established law.
The Supreme Court ruled that while the Court of Appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing a temporary restraining order to stop Binay Jr.'s suspension based on the existing condonation doctrine, the condonation doctrine itself should be abandoned. The Court found that election does not condone administrative offenses and that public office is a public trust requiring accountability. However, the abandonment of the condonation doctrine only applies prospectively, as the doctrine was previously established law.
(Short Version) Issue: Whether or not Whether or not the CA gravely abused its
discretion in issuing the TRO and the WPI enjoining the
Morales v CA and Binay implementation of the preventive suspension order against Binay, Jr. based on the condonation doctrine Facts: Ruling: Binay, Jr. was charged with administrative and criminal cases in connection with the allegation that he is No. The CA's resolutions were all hinged on cases involved in anomalous activities attending the enunciating the condonation doctrine. By merely procurement and construction phases of the Makati following settled precedents on the condonation Parking Building project, committed during his previous doctrine, which at that time, unwittingly remained "good and present terms as City Mayor of Makati. law," it cannot be concluded that the CA committed a Binay, Jr. argued that he could not be held grave abuse of discretion based on its legal attribution. administratively liable since Phases I and II were However, the condonation doctrine should be undertaken before he was elected Mayor of Makati and abandoned. There is no constitutional or statutory Phases III to V transpired during his first term. His re- basis to support it. election as mayor for a second term effectively The continued application of the condonation doctrine is condoned his administrative liability therefor, if any, thus simply inconsistent and impermissible under the rendering the administrative cases against him moot and auspices of the present Constitution which academic. explicitly mandates that public office is a public The Ombudsman issued an order placing Binay, et al. trust and that public officials shall be accountable under preventive suspension. to the people at all times. The CA granted Binay’s prayer for TRO enjoining the Election is not a mode of condoning an administrative implementation of the preventive suspension order. offense. According to the CA, it was more prudent on its part to In fact the LGC and the RRACCS precludes condonation issue a TRO considering that if it were established that since in the first place, an elective local official who is the acts subject of the administrative cases against meted with the penalty of removal could not be re- Binay, Jr. were all committed during his prior term, then, elected to an elective local position due to a direct applying the condonation doctrine, Binay, Jr.'s re-election disqualification from running for such post. meant that he can no longer be administratively There is no presumption in any statute or charged. procedural rule that the electorate, when re-electing a Under the Condonation Doctrine, which applies only local official, do so with knowledge of his life and to administrative cases, character, and that they disregarded or forgave his (1) the penalty of removal may not be extended faults or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. beyond the term in which the public officer was elected In reality, most corrupt acts by public officers are for each term is separate and distinct; shrouded in secrecy, and concealed from the public. (2) an elective official's re-election serves as a Condonation presupposes that the condoner has actual condonation of previous misconduct, thereby knowledge of what is to be condoned. Thus, there could cutting the right to remove him therefor; and be no condonation of an act that is unknown. (3) courts may not deprive the electorate, who are However, the Court's abandonment of the assumed to have known the life and character of condonation doctrine should be prospective in candidates, of their right to elect officers. application. It should be, as a general rule, recognized as "good law" prior to its abandonment. Consequently, administrative cases against Binay, Jr. were all the people's reliance thereupon should be respected. committed during his prior term, then, applying the condonation doctrine, Binay, Jr.'s re-election meant that he can no longer be administratively charged.
Binay’s contention:
Phases I and II were undertaken before he was elected
Mayor of Makati in 2010; and (b) Phases III to V transpired during his first term and that his re-election as City Mayor of Makati for a second term effectively condoned his administrative liability (longer version) therefor, if any, thus rendering the administrative cases against him moot and academic. Morales v CA and Binay In view of the condonation doctrine, as well as the lack of evidence to sustain the charges against him, his Facts: suspension from office would undeservedly deprive the electorate of the services of the person they have A complaint was filed against Binay and other public conscientiously chosen and voted into office. officers of the City Government of Makati charging them with administrative cases for Grave Misconduct, Serious The Ombudman’s contentions: Dishonesty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and criminal cases for violation of RA The condonation doctrine is irrelevant to the 3019, Malversation of Public Funds, and Falsification of determination of whether the evidence of guilt is strong Public Documents. Binay, Jr. was alleged to be involved for purposes of issuing preventive suspension orders. in anomalous activities attending the procurement and Reliance on the condonation doctrine is a matter of construction phases of the Makati Parking Building defense, which should have been raised by before it project, committed during his previous and present during the administrative proceedings. terms as City Mayor of Makati. There is no condonation because Binay, Jr. committed The Ombudsman issued a preventive suspension order, acts subject of the OMB Complaint after his re-election in placing Binay Jr., et al., under preventive suspension for 2013. not more than six (6) months without pay, during the pendency of the OMB Cases. Issue: Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion in Binay, Jr. filed a petition for certiorari before the CA issuing the TRO and the WPI enjoining the implementation of seeking the nullification of the preventive suspension the preventive suspension order against Binay, Jr. based on the order. condonation doctrine. The CA granted Binay, Jr.'s prayer for a TRO, notwithstanding Peña, Jr.'s assumption of duties as Ruling: No. However, the condonation doctrine is Acting Mayor. Citing Governor Garcia, Jr. v. CA, it found abandoned, but the abandonment is prospective in that it was more prudent on its part to issue a TRO in effect. view of the extreme urgency of the matter and A. The WPI against the Ombudsman's preventive suspension seriousness of the issues raised, considering that if it order was correctly issued. were established that the acts subject of the 1. The CA's resolutions directing the issuance of the 1. There is really no established weight of authority in the assailed injunctive writs were all hinged on cases US favoring the doctrine of condonation. enunciating the condonation doctrine. By merely following settled precedents on the condonation 2. The plain difference in setting, including the sheer doctrine, which at that time, unwittingly remained "good impact of the condonation doctrine on public law," it cannot be concluded that the CA committed a accountability, calls for Pascual's judicious re- grave abuse of discretion based on its legal attribution examination. above. a. Pascual was decided within the context of the 1935 Constitution which was silent with respect to B. The Condonation Doctrine public accountability, or of the nature of public office being a public trust. 1. Condonation is defined as "a victim's express or implied forgiveness of an offense, especially by treating the 3. The concept of public office, under the 1987 offender as if there had been no offense." Constitution, AS A PUBLIC TRUST and the corollary 2. Under the Condonation Doctrine, requirement of ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PEOPLE a. First, the penalty of removal may not be extended AT ALL TIMES is PLAINLY INCONSISTENT with the beyond the term in which the public officer was idea that an elective local official's administrative elected for each term is separate and distinct. liability for a misconduct committed during a prior b. Second, an elective official's re-election serves as term can be wiped off by the fact that he was a condonation of previous misconduct, thereby elected to a second term of office, or even another cutting the right to remove him therefor. elective post. c. Third, courts may not deprive the electorate, who are assumed to have known the life and character 4. Election is not a mode of condoning an of candidates, of their right to elect officers. administrative offense. 5. There is no constitutional or statutory basis to support 3. It is not based on statutory law but a jurisprudential the notion. In fact the Local Government Code and the creation. RRACCS precludes condonation since in the first place, a. It originated from the 1959 case of Pascual v. Hon. an elective local official who is meted with the penalty of Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija. In which case, as removal could not be re-elected to an elective local there was no legal precedent on the issue at that position due to a direct disqualification from running for time, the Court, resorted to American authorities such post. and found that the weight of authorities seems to incline toward the rule denying the right to 6. If condonation of an elective official's remove one from office because of misconduct administrative liability would perhaps, be allowed during a prior term. in this jurisdiction, then the same should have been provided by law under our governing legal 4. The condonation doctrine does not apply to a criminal mechanisms. case. Also, it would not apply to appointive officials since, as to them, there is no sovereign will to 7. The proposition that the electorate, when re-electing a disenfranchise. local official, are assumed to have done so with knowledge of his life and character, and that they C. The doctrine of condonation is actually bereft of legal disregarded or forgave his faults or misconduct, if he had bases. been guilty of any, is infirm. No such presumption general rule, recognized as "good law" prior to its exists in any statute or procedural rule. abandonment. Consequently, the people's reliance thereupon a. Most corrupt acts by public officers are shrouded should be respected. in secrecy, and concealed from the public. At a conceptual level, condonation presupposes that the condoner has actual knowledge of what is to be condoned. Thus, there could be no condonation of an act that is unknown.
8. Liability arising from administrative offenses may only be Digested by:
condoned by the President in light of Section 19, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. ROLOMA, Angelie Rose F. D. The Court's abandonment of the condonation doctrine Rm. 405 should be prospective in application. It should be, as a