LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS (deals with public office, its creation, modification and dissolution, as well as the eligibility

of public officers, the manner of their election or appointment and assumption of office, their rights, duties, powers, inhibitions and liabilities, and the modes of terminating their official relations.)

I.

General Principles 1. 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 state to be exercised by him for the benefit of the body politic. Elements: a.) It must be created by law or by authority of law. b.) It must possess a delegation of a portion of the sovereign powers of government, to be exercised for the benefit of the public. c.) The powers conferred and the duties to be discharged must be defined, directly or impliedly, by the legislature or through legislative authority. d.) The duties must be performed independently and without control of a superior power other than the law unless they be those of an inferior or subordinate office created or authorized by the legislature, and by it placed under the general control of a superior office or body. e.) It must have some permanence and continuity and not be only temporary or occasional. Creation: By the Constitutiton - Office of the President, the Legislature, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Commission. By Statute or By Authority of Law by specific mandate MMDA, NEDA, SEC and local offices such as Governors and Mayors.

Fernandez vs. Sto. Tomas 242 SCRA 192 Petitioner Fernandez was serving as Director of the Office of Personnel Inspection and Audit (OPIA) while petitioner de Lima was serving as Director of the Office of the Personnel Relations (OPR), both at the Central Office of the Civil Service Commission in Quezon City, Metropolitan Manila. While petitioners were so serving, Resolution No. 94-3710, signed by public respondents Patricia A. Sto. Tomas and Ramon Ereneta, Jr., Chairman and Commissioner, respectively, of the Commission, was issued on 7 June 1994. The resolution contained changes in the organization to streamline its operations and improve delivery of public service. Petitioners Fernandez and de Lima assail the validity of Resolution No. 94-3710 of the Civil Service Commission and the authority of the Commission to issue the same. Issue: Whether or not Resolution No. 94-3710 effected the abolition of public offices, something which may be done only by the same legislative authority which had created those public offices in the first place. Held: The term public office is frequently used to refer to 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 government, to be exercised by that individual for the benefit of the public.5 We consider that Resolution No. 94-3710 has not abolished any public office as that term is used in the law of public officers.6 It is essential to note that none of the changes in organization introduced by Resolution No. 94-3710 carried with it or necessarily involved the termination of the relationship of public employment between the Commission and any of its officers and employees.

2. Public Officer 2.1. Article 203, RPC

Art 203. Who Are Public Officers. For the purpose of applying the provisions of this and the preceding titles of this book, any person who, by direct provision of the law, 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 class, shall be deemed to be a public officer.

2.2. Sec 2b, RA 3019 Anti graft and Corrupt Practice "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 as defined in the preceding subparagraph. 2.3.Sec 2(14) EO 292 Admin Code of 1987 "Officer" as distinguished from "clerk" or "employee", refers to a person whose duties, not being of a clerical or manual nature, involves the exercise of discretion in the performance of the functions of the government. When used with reference to a person having authority to do a particular act or perform a particular function in the exercise of governmental power, "officer" includes any government employee, agent or body having authority to do the act or exercise that function. 2.4.PD 807 Civil Service Decree Preclaro vs Sandiganbayan 247 SCRA 454 On 14 June 1990, petitioner was charged before the Sandiganbayan with a violation of Sec. 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019 as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The information against him read as follows: That on or about June 8, 1990, or sometime prior thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a public officer, being then the Project Manager/Consultant of the Chemical Mineral Division, Industrial Technology Development Institute, Department of Science and Technology, a component of the Industrial Development Institute (ITDI for brevity) which is an agency of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST for brevity), wherein the Jaime Sta. Maria Construction undertook the construction of the building in Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila, with a total cost of SEVENTEEN MILLION SIX HUNDRED NINETY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P17,695,000.00) jointly funded by the Philippine and Japanese Governments, and while the said construction has not yet been finally completed, accused either directly requested and/or demanded for himself or for another, the sum of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P200,000.00), claimed as part of the expected profit of FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND PESOS (P460,000.00) in connection with the construction of that government building wherein the accused had to intervene under the law in his capacity as Project Manager/Consultant of said constructionsaid offense having been committed in relation to the performance of his official duties. The court rendered decision against petitioner finding him GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt. petitioner asserts that he is not

a public officer as defined by Sec. 2(b) of the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019 as amended), because he was neither elected nor appointed to a public office. Rather, petitioner maintains that he is merely a private individual hired by the ITDI on contractual basis for a particular project and for a specified period8 as evidenced by the contract of services9 he entered into with the ITDI. Petitioner, to further support his theory, alleged that he was not issued any appointment paper separate from the abovementioned contract. He was not required to use the bundy clock to record his hours of work and neither did he take an oath of office. Issue: WON Preclaro is a public officer. Held: Petitioner miscontrues the definition of public officer in R.A. No. 3019 which, according to Sec. 2(b) thereof 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. . . . The word includes used in defining a public officer in Sec. 2(b) indicates that the definition is not restrictive. The terms classified, unclassified or exemption service were the old categories of positions in the civil service which have been reclassified into Career Service and Non-Career Service11 by PD 807 providing for the organization of the Civil Service Commission12 and by the Administrative Code of 1987.13 Non-career service in particular is characterized by (1)entrance on bases other than those of the usual test of merit and fitness utilized for the career service; and (2) tenure which is limited to a period specified by law, or which is coterminous with that of the appointing authority or subject to his pleasure, or which is limited to the duration of a particular project for which purpose employment was made. The Non-Career Service shall include: (1) Elective officials and their personal or confidential staff; (2) Secretaries and other officials of Cabinet rank who hold their positions at the pleasure of the President and their personal or confidential staff(s); (3) Chairman and members of commissions and boards with fixed terms of office and their personal or confidential staff; (4)Contractual personnel or those whose employment in the government is in accordance with a special contract to undertake a specific work or job, requiring special or technical skills not available

in the employing agency, to be accomplished within a specific period, which in no case shall exceed one year, and performs or accomplishes the specific work or job, under his own responsibility with a minimum of direction and supervision from the hiring agency; and (5) Emergency and seasonal personnel. From the foregoing classification, it is quite evident that petitioner falls under the non-career service category (formerly termed the unclassified or exemption service) of the Civil Service and thus is a public officer as defined by Sec. 2(b) of the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019).

for malversation of public funds or property, the prosecution was in fact charging two private individuals without any public officer being similarly charged as a co-conspirator. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the controversy and therefore all the proceedings taken below as well as the Decision rendered by Respondent Sandiganbayan, are null and void for lack of jurisdiction. Laurel vs Desierto 381 SCRA 452 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. Subsequently, President Fidel V. Ramos issued Executive Order No. 128, reconstituting the Committee for the preparation of the National Centennial Celebrations in 1998. 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. Characterized as an ad-hoc body, the existence of the Commission shall terminate upon the completion of all activities related to the Centennial Celebrations. 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 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. Subsequently, a corporation named the Philippine Centennial Expo 98 Corporation (Expocorp) was created. Petitioner was among the nine (9) Expocorp incorporators, who were also its first nine (9) directors. Petitioner was elected Expocorp Chief Executive Officer. On August 5, 1998, Senator Ana Dominique Coseteng delivered a

Azarcon vs Sandiganbayan (268 SCRA 747) Petitioner Alfredo Azarcon owned and operated an earthmoving business, hauling dirt and ore.3 His services were contracted by the Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP) at its concession in Mangagoy, Surigao del Sur. Occasionally, he engaged the services of sub-contractors like Jaime Ancla whose trucks were left at the formers premises. It appears that on May 25, 1983, a Warrant of Distraint of Personal Property was issued by the Main Office of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) addressed to the Regional Director (Jose Batausa) or his authorized representative of Revenue Region 10, Butuan City commanding the latter to distraint the goods, chattels or effects and other personal property of Jaime Ancla, a subcontractor of accused Azarcon and, a delinquent taxpayer. The Warrant of Garnishment was issued to accused Alfredo Azarcon ordering him to transfer, surrender, transmit and/or remit to BIR the property in his possession owned by taxpayer Ancla. The Warrant of Garnishment was received by accused Azarcon on June 17, 1985. Petitioner Azarcon, in signing the Receipt for Goods, Articles, and Things Seized Under Authority of the National Internal Revenue, assumed the undertakings specified in the receipt. Issue: Whether petitioner can be considered a public officer by reason of his being designated by the Bureau of Internal Revenue as a depositary of distrained property. Held: From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the petitioner did not cease to be a private individual when he agreed to act as depositary of the garnished dump truck. Therefore, when the information charged him and Jaime Ancla before the Sandiganbayan

privilege speech in the Senate denouncing alleged anomalies in the construction and operation of the Centennial Exposition Project at the Clark Special Economic Zone. Upon motion of Senator Franklin Drilon, Senator Cosetengs privilege speech was referred to the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigation (The Blue Ribbon Committee) and several other Senate Committees for investigation. On February 24, 1999, President Joseph Estrada issued Administrative Order No. 35, creating an ad hoc and independent citizens committee to investigate all the facts and circumstances surrounding the Philippine centennial projects, including its component activities. Former Senator Rene A.V. Saguisag was appointed to chair the Committee. On March 23, 1999, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee filed with the Secretary of the Senate its Committee Final Report No. 30 dated February 26, 1999. Among the Committees recommendations was the prosecution by the Ombudsman/DOJ of Dr. Salvador Laurel, chair of NCC and of EXPOCORP for violating the rules on public bidding, relative to the award of centennial contracts to AK (Asia Construction & Development Corp.); for exhibiting manifest bias in the issuance of the NTP (Notice to Proceed) to AK to construct the FR (Freedom Ring) even in the absence of a valid contract that has caused material injury to government and for participating in the scheme to preclude audit by COA of the funds infused by the government for the implementation of the said contracts all in violation . . . of the anti-graft law.5 Later, on November 5, 1999, the Saguisag Committee issued its own report. It recommended the further investigation by the Ombudsman, and indictment, in proper cases of, among others, NCC Chair Salvador H. Laurel for violations of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, Section 4(a) in relation to Section 11 of R.A. No. 6713, and Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. Issue: Whether or not petitioner, both as chairman of the NCC and of EXPOCORP was a public officer as defined under the antigraft & corrupt practices act. Held: