Discuss the civil administrative and criminal liability of Aquino
regard of masasapano 2. Liability of allanpurisima 3. Liability of general napenas 4. Explain the two concepts of suspension with respect to the suspension of Makati mayor junjun binay. a. What is the legal basis for the suspension imposed by the ombudsman b. Does the CA have the jurisdiction for review and reverse the decision of Ombudsman of the suspension of mayor Binay YES. 5. a. What is the legal basis for the suspension imposed by the SandiganBayan on Enrile, Revilla and Estrada. c. does the suspension of the sandiganbayan on this senators violates the constitutional presumption of innocence 6. two questions in admin law(surprise question) 4. Suspension may be imposed as a penalty or as a preventive measure against a public officer charged criminally or administratively charged, in the latter case it is called a preventive suspension
The latter is different and independent from the latter as it is not
a penalty and is imposed precisely during an investigation. The purpose of which is clearly to prevent the public officer from exercising the functions of his office to influence the investigation in any manner prejudice the investigation against him. If he will be allowed to stay in office pending investigation then he will have access to the necessary evidence against him, or use his office to tamper witnesses and evidence.
The suspension of Jun Jun Binay is in the nature of a preventive
suspension only, as it was imposed by the Ombudsman pursuant to its authority to investigate.
a. The legal basis of the suspension is Section 24. of R.A. 6770
or the Ombudsman Law b. It is submitted that the CA has no authority to issue a writ of injunction against the preventive suspension order issued by the Ombudsman for the following reasons:
First, All provisionary orders of the Office of the Ombudsman
are immediately effective and executory (Section 27) Therefore the suspension became effective upon notice to Jun Jun Binay (i.e. service).
Second the Ombudsman law prohibits the issuance of the writ
of injunction by any court to delay an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman. If the suspension was lifted then the very purpose of the preventive suspension (i.e. to prevent the public officer from causing prejudice to the investigation against him) will be rendered useless, thus any injunction will become cause of delay. 5. the basis of the suspension is Section. 13 R.A 3019 (Anti Graft and corrupt practices act) in conjunction with the sec. 42 of the Civil Service Decree. Under Sec 13: Qny public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery is pending in court, shall be suspended from office, or for any offense involving public funds or property or fraud on government. (Bolastig vs Sandigan G.R. No. 110503 August 4, 1994)
a. No it does not violate the presumption on innocence. In a
plethora of cases the Supreme Court ruled that it is not a penalty hence it does not impose punishment without hearing. Paragraph 3 of Article 24 of the Revised Penal Code clearly states that suspension from the employment or public office during the trial or in order to institute proceedings shall not be considered as penalty. (Bayot vs Sandigan G.R. Nos. 61776 to 61861. March 23, 1984)