FULL TITLE AS IN FULL TEXT: QUINTIN S. DOROMAL vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN,
OMBUDSMAN AND SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

G.R. No. 85468 DATE: September 7, 1989

PONENTE: GRIÑO-AQUINO, J TOPIC: SEC. 13

FACTS: Petitioner, Quintin S. Doromal, a public officer and being a Commissioner of the
Presidential Commission on Good Government, participated in a business through the Doromal
International Trading Corporation (DITC), a family corporation of which he is the President. An
information was then filed by the “Tanodbayan” against Doromal for the said violation of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), Sec. 3(h), in connection with his shareholdings
and position as president and director of the Doromal International Trading Corporation (DITC).
A preliminary investigation was conducted.

P.H.: The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition questioning the jurisdiction
of the “Tanodbayan”. The Supreme Court held that Tanodbayan is clearly without authority to
conduct preliminary investigations and subsequently annulling the filed information. Thereafter,
a new information, approved by the Ombudsman, was filed in the Sandiganbayan, alleging that
the Doromal, a public officer, being then a Commissioner of the PCGG, willfully and unlawfully,
participate in a business through the Doromal International Trading Corporation, in the public
biddings which act, or participation is prohibited by law and the constitution.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE/S: Whether or not the act of Doromal would constitute a violation of
the Constitution.

HOLDING: YES. The Sandiganbayan in its order correctly observed that "the presence of a
signed document bearing the signature of accused Doromal as part of the application to bid ... is
not a sine qua non" for, the Ombudsman indicated in his Memorandum to the Special
Prosecutor, that the petitioner "can rightfully be charged ...with having participated in a business
which act is absolutely prohibited by Section 13 of Article VII of the Constitution" because "the
DITC remained a family corporation in which Doromal has at least an indirect interest."

Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that "the President, Vice-President,
the members of the Cabinet and their deputies or assistants shall not... during (their) tenure,
...directly or indirectly... participate in any business." The constitutional ban is similar to the
prohibition in the Civil Service Law (PD No. 807, Sec. 36, subpar. 24) that "Pursuit of private
business ... without the permission required by Civil Service Rules and Regulations" shall be a
ground for disciplinary action against any officer or employee in the civil service.

INFO: BONUS LANG.

Article VII, Section 13 (1) of the Constitution provides:

“The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants
shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment
during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other
profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any
franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office. “
DECISION OF THE COURT: MARAMING ISSUE SA CASE NA TO. CONSTI ISSUE LANG
KINUHA KO.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is granted. The Sandiganbayan shall
immediately remand Criminal Case No. 12893 to the Office of the Ombudsman for preliminary
investigation and shall hold in abeyance the proceedings before it is pending the result of such
investigation. The preventive suspension of the petitioner is hereby lifted. No costs.1