Pubcorp Finals Notes.docx

CORPORATION  Corporation - A corporation is an artificial being created by operation of law, having the right of succession and the powers, attributes, and properties expressly authorized by law or incident to its existence. (Sec.2)  Corporators - Corporators of a corporation are those who compose the corporation, whether stockholders or members or both. Incorporations are those members or stockholders or both mentioned in the articles of incorporation as originally forming and composing the corporation. (Sec.4)  Section 5. The owners of shares in a corporation which has capital stock are called stockholders or shareholders. Corporators of a corporation which has no capital stock and corporators of a corporation who do not own capital stock are members.  Public Corporation - Public corporation" means an entity that is created by the state to carry out public missions and services. In order to carry out these public missions and services, a public corporation participates in activities or provides services that are also provided by private enterprise. A public corporation is granted increased operating flexibility in order to best ensure its success, while retaining principles of public accountability and fundamental public policy. The board of directors of a public corporation is appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate but is otherwise delegated the authority to set policy and manage the operations of the public corporation. (Sec.3) - Public corporations are those formed or organized for the government of a portion of the state.  Private Corporation - Private corporations are those formed for some private purpose, benefit, aim, or end, as distinguished from public corporations, which have for their purpose the general good and welfare. Private corporations are divided into stock corporations and

nonstock corporations. Corporations which have a capital stock divided into shares and are authorized to distribute to the holders of such shares dividends or allotments of the surplus profits on the basis of the shares held are stock corporations. All other private corporations are nonstock corporations. (Sec.3)  Public Corporation vis-à-vis Private Corporation  2 kinds of Public Corporation 1. Municipal 2. Quasi-public  Government Owned and Controlled Company (GOCC) - Definitions and functions  Municipal Corporation - How are they created (requirements) - functions DISABILITIES AND INHIBITIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICERS  Disqualifications attached to civil service employees or officials: 1. Losing candidate in any election a. Cannot be appointed to any office in the government or OCCs or their subsidiaries. b. Period of disqualification: 1 year after such election. XPN: Losing candidates in barangay elections. 2. Elective Officials: GR: Not eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during their tenure. XPN: May hold ex officio positions. E.g. The VicePresident may be appointed as a Cabinet member. 3. Appointive officials: GR: Cannot hold any other office in the government, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, including OCCs and their subsidiaries. XPN: Unless otherwise allowed by law, or by the primary functions of his position.





NOTE: The exception does not apply to Cabinet members, and those officers mentioned in Art. VII, Sec. 13. They are governed by the stricter prohibitions contained therein. Prohibitions attached to elective and appointive officials: G.R.: They cannot receive: 1. Additional compensation – An extra reward given for the same office e.g. bonus 2. Double compensation – when an officer is given two sets of compensation for two different offices held concurrently by one officer. 3. Indirect compensation. XPN: Unless specifically authorized by law. NOTE: “Specifically authorized” means a specific authority particularly directed to the officer or employee concerned. Pensions and gratuities, per diems and allowances are not considered as additional, double, or indirect compensation. (1987 Constitution, Art. IX-B, Sec. 7-8) Prohibitions imposed under the Constitution against the holding of two or more positions: A. Members of Congress shall not: 1. Appear as counsel before any court, electoral tribunal, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies; 2. Be interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including OCCs, or its subsidiary; 3. Intervene in any matter before any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office.

B. The President, Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants, unless otherwise allowed by the Constitution, shall not: 1. Directly or indirectly practice any other profession; 2. 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 GOCCs, or its subdivisions; shall avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office. C. Members of the Constitutional Commission shall not: 1. Hold any other office or employment or engage in the practice of any profession or in the active management or control of any business that may be affected by the functions of his office; 2. Be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agencies or instrumentalities including GOCCs, or their subsidiaries. These shall also apply to the Ombudsman and his deputies during his term. D. Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including GOCCs or their subsidiaries. (Art. IX-B, Sec. 7; Flores vs Drilon, G.R. No. 104732 June 22, 1993) E. No member of the armed forces in the active service shall, at any time, be appointed or designated in any capacity to a civilian position in the government including GOCCs or any of their subsidiaries. (1987 Constitution, Art. XVI, Sec. 5 par.4)





Rounds for disqualification to hold public office: 1. Mental or physical incapacity 2. Misconduct or commission of a crime 3. Impeachment 4. Removal or suspension from office NOTE: Where there is no constitutional or statutory declaration of ineligibility for suspension or removal from office, the courts may not impose the disability. 5. Consecutive terms exceeding the allowable number of terms. 6. Holding more than one office (except ex officio) 7. Relationship with the appointing power (nepotism) 8. Office newly created or the emoluments of which have been increased (forbidden office) 9. Being an elective official (Flores v. Drilon) 10. Losing candidate in the election within 1 year following the date of election (prohibitions from office, not from employment); XPN: Losing candidate in barangay elections. 11. Grounds provided for under the Local Government Code (LGC). NOTE: The Supreme Court held that while all other appointive officials in the Civil Service are allowed to hold other office or employment in the government during their tenure when such is allowed by law or by the primary functions of their positions, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants may do so only when expressly authorized by the Constitution itself. (Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary) Prohibitions under Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees: 1. Prohibition against financial and material interest – directly or indirectly having any financial or material interest in any transaction requiring the approval of their office.





2. Prohibition against outside employment and other activities related thereto – owning, controlling, managing or accepting employment as officer, employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee or nominee in any private enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by their office. 3. Engaging in the private practice of their profession. 4. Recommending any person to any position in any private enterprise which has a regular or pending official transaction with their office. NOTE: These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one year after resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, except in the case of participating in any business or having financial interest in any contract with the government, but the professional concerned cannot practice his profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with, in which case the one-year prohibition shall likewise apply. Prohibitions against the practice of other professions under the LGC: 1. Local Chief Executive (governors, city and municipal mayors) are prohibited from practicing their profession. 2. Sangguninan members may practice their profession, engage in any occupation, or teach in schools except during session hours. 3. Doctors of medicine may practice their profession even during official hours of work in cases of emergency provided that they do not derive monetary compensation therefrom. … Q: Can the members of the Sanggunian engage in the practice of law under the LGC? A: GR: Yes. XPNs:

1. Cannot appear as counsel in any civil case wherein a LGU or any office, agency or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party. 2. Cannot appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the national or local government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office; 3. Shall not collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the LGU of which he is an official; and 4. May not use property and personnel of the Government, except when defending the interest of the Government.

SUCCESSION OF ELECTIVE OFFICIALS  Vacancy – absence should be reasonably construed to mean ‘effective’ absence, that is, one that renders the officer concerned powerless, for the time being, to discharge the powers and prerogatives of his/her office. There is no vacancy whenever the office is occupied by a legally qualified incumbent. A sensu contrario, there is a vacancy when there is no person lawfully authorized to assume and exercise at present the duties of the office.  Classes of Vacancies in the elective post: Permanent Vacancy Temporary Vacancy Arises when an elected Arises when an elected local official: official is temporarily 1. Fills a higher vacant incapacitated to perform office; or his duties due to legal or 2. Refuses to assume physical reason such as: office; or 1. Physical sickness 3. Fails to qualify; or 2. Leave of absence 4. Dies; or 3. Travel abroad or 5. Removed from office; or Suspension from office. 6. Voluntarily resigns; or (LGC, Sec. 4)

7. Permanently incapacitated to discharge the functions of his office. (LGC, Sec. 44)  Filling of vacancy: 1. Permanent vacancy - Automatic succession 2. Temporary vacancy - By appointment (LGC, Sec. 45)  Rules of succession in case of permanent vacancies: A. In case of permanent vacancy in: 1. Office of the Governor a. Vice-Governor; in his absence, b. Highest ranking Sanggunian member; in case of the permanent disability of highest ranking Sanggunian member c. Second highest ranking Sanggunian member 2. Office of the Mayor a. Vice-Mayor; in his absence. b. Highest ranking Sanggunian member; in case of the permanent disability of highest ranking Sanggunian member, c. Second highest ranking Sanggunian member 3. Office of the Vice Governor or Vice-Mayor a. Highest ranking Sanggunian member; in case of the permanent disability of highest ranking Sanggunian member, NOTE: The highest ranking municipal councilor’s succession to the office of vicemayor cannot be considered a voluntary renunciation of his office as councilor, since it occurred by operation of law. (Montebon v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 180444, Aprl 8, 2008) b. Second highest ranking Sanggunian member 4. Office of the Punong Barangay

a. Highest ranking Sanggunian member; in case of the permanent disability of highest ranking Sanggunian member, b. Second highest ranking Sangguninan member NOTE: For purposes of succession, ranking in the Sanggunian shall be determined on the basis of the proportion of the votes obtained by each winning candidate to the total number of registered voters in each district in the immediately preceding local election. [LGC, Sec. 44 (d)(3)] [In SK: officer next in Rank] GR: The successor (by appointment) should come from the same political party as the sanggunian member whose position has become vacant. (Highest official of the political party) XPN: In the case of vacancy in the Sanggunian Barangay The reason for the rule is to maintain the party representation as willed by the people in the elections. B. In case automatic succession is not applicable and there is vacancy in the membership of the sanggunian, it shall be filled up by appointment in the following manner: 1. The President through the Executive Secretary, shall appoint the political nominee of the local chief executive for the sangguniang panlalawigan (Municipality/Province – Governor) and panlungsod of highly urbanized (HUC – Mayor) cities and independent component cities (ICC – Governor). [LGC, Sec. 45 (a)(1)] [Fariñas v. Barba] 2. The Governor shall appoint the political nominees for the sangguniang panlungsod of component cities and the sangguniang bayan







concerned (Municipality – Governor). [LGC, Sec. 45 (a)(2)] 3. The city or municipal mayor shall appoint the recommendee of the sangguniang barangay concerned. [LGC, Sec. 45 (a)(3)] Hold-over status: In case of failure of elections involving barangay officials, the incumbent officials shall remain in office in a hold-over capacity pursuant to RA 9164. (Adap v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 11984, Feb. 21, 2007) The “last vacancy” in the Sanggunian: It refers to the vacancy created by the elevation of the member formerly occupying the next higher in rank, which in turn also had become vacant by any of the causes enumerated. Q: In the 1997 local elections Calimlim was elected as Mayor, Aquino as Vice-Mayor and Tamayo as the highest ranking member of the Sanggunian. In 1999, Mayor Calimlim died, thus Vice-Mayor Aquino succeeded him as Mayor. Accordingly, the highestranking member of the Sanggunian, Tamayo, was elevated to the position of the Vice-Mayor. Since a vacancy occurred in the Sangguniang Bayan by the elevation of petitioner Tamayo to the office of the ViceMayor, Governor Agbayani appointed Navarro as Member of the Sangguniang Bayan. Navarro belonged to the same political party as that of Tamayo. Respondents argue that it was the former vice-mayor Aquino who created the permanent vacancy in the Sanggunian and thus, the appointee must come from the former vice mayor’s political party. Petitioners, however, contend that it was the elevation of Tamayo to the position of vice-mayor which resulted in a permanent vacancy and thus, the person to be appointed to the vacated position should come from the same political party as that of Tamayo, in this case Navarro. Are the respondents correct?

A: NO. With the elevation of Tamayo to the position of ViceMayor, a vacancy occurred in the Sanggunian that should be filled up with someone who should belong to the political party of petitioner Tamayo. Under Sec 44 of the LGC, a permanent vacancy arises when an elective official fills a higher vacant office, refuses to assume office, fails to qualify, dies, is removed from office, voluntarily resigns, or is otherwise permanently incapacitated to discharge the functions of his office. Sec 45 (b) of the same law provides that “only the nominee of the political party under which the Sanggunian member concerned has been elected and whose elevation to the position next higher in rank created the last vacancy in the Sanggunian shall be appointed in the manner herein provided. The appointee shall come from the political party as that of the Sanggunian member who caused the vacancy…”The term “last vacancy” is thus used in Sec. 45(b) to differentiate it from the other vacancy previously created. The term “by no means” refers to the vacancy in the No. 8 position which occurred with the elevation of 8th placer to the 7th position in the Sanggunian. Such construction will result in absurdity. (Navarro v. CA, G.R. No. 141307, March 28, 2001) ---

barangay shall automatically exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions of the local chief executive concerned. NOTE: GR: The acting Governor or Mayor cannot exercise the power to appoint, suspend or dismiss employees. XPN: If the period of temporary incapacity exceeds 30 working days. 2.



NOTE: In case of vacancy in the representation of the youth and the barangay in the Sanggunian, it shall be filled automatically by the official next in rank of the organization concerned. [LGC, Sec. 45(d)] [Mayor is bound by the appointment of recommendation by the Sanggunian.] 

Rules on Temporary Vacancies: 1. In case of temporary vacancy of the post of the local chief executive (leave of absence, travel abroad, and suspension): Vice- Governor, City or Municipal Vice Mayor, or the highest ranking sangguniang



If travelling within the country, outside his jurisdiction, for a period not exceeding 3 days, he may designate in writing the officer-in-charge for the same office. The OIC cannot exercise the power to appoint, suspend or dismiss employee. 3. If without said authorization, the Vice-Governor, City or Municipal Vice-Mayor or the highest ranking sangguniang barangay member shall assume the powers, duties and functions of the said office on the 4th day of absence. (LGC, Sec. 46) Termination of Temporary Incapacity: 1. Upon submission to the appropriate sanggunian of a written declaration by the local chief executive concerned that he has reported back to office, if the temporary incapacity was due to a. Leave of absence; b. Travel abroad; and c. Suspension 2. Upon submission by the local chief executive of the necessary documents showing that the legal causes no longer exist, if the temporary incapacity was due to legal reasons. [LGC, Sec. 46(b)] XPN: Sec. 4, LGC Rules on consecutiveness of terms and/or involuntary interruption: 1. When a permanent vacancy occurs in an elective position and the official merely assumed the

2.

3.

4.

5.

position pursuant to the rules on succession under the LGC, then his service for the unexpired portion of the term of the replaced official cannot be treated as one full term as contemplated under the subject constitutional and statutory provision that service cannot be counted in the application of any term limit. If the official runs again for the same position he held prior to his assumption of the higher office, then his succession to said position is by operation of law and is considered an involuntary severance or interruption. An elective official, who has served for three consecutive terms and who did not seek the elective position for what could be his fourth term, but later won in a recall election, had an interruption in the continuity of the official’s service. For, he had become in the interim, i.e., from the end of the 3rd term up to the recall election, a private citizen. [Adormeo vs. COMELEC] The abolition of an elective local office due to the conversion of a municipality to a city does not, by itself, work to interrupt the incumbent official’s continuity of service. Preventive suspension is not a term-interrupting event as the elective officer’s continued stay and entitlement to the office remain unaffected during the period of suspension, although he is barred from exercising the functions of his office during this period. When a candidate is proclaimed as winner for an elective position and assumes office, his term is interrupted when he loses in an election protest and is ousted from office, thus disenabling him from serving what would otherwise be the unexpired portion of his term of office had the protest been dismissed (Lonzanida and Dizon). The break or interruption need not be for a full term of three

years or for the major part of the 3-year term; an interruption for any length of time, provided the cause is involuntary, is sufficient to break the continuity of service. 6. When an official is defeated in an election protest and said decision becomes final after said official had served the full term for said office, then his loss in the election contest does not constitute an interruption since he has managed to serve the term from start to finish. His full service, despite the defeat, should be counted in the application of term limits because the nullification of his proclamation came after the expiration of the term. (Abundo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 201716, Jan. 8, 2013)

Before the provincial governor and board may act and proceed against the municipal official, a conviction by final judgment must precede the filing by the provincial governor of the charges and trial by the provincial board." [Mindano v. Silvosa, et al., 97 Phil. 144-145 (1955)] 4. Commission of any offense involving moral turpitude, or an offense punishable by at least prision mayor 5. Abuse of authority GR: Unauthorized absence for 15 consecutive working days XPNs: In the case of members of the Sangguniang: a. Panlalawigan b. Panlungsod c. Bayan d. Barangay

DISCIPLINE OF LOCAL OFFICIALS  ELECTIVE OFFICIALS Grounds An elective local official may be disciplined, suspended or removed from office on any of the following grounds:

6. Application for, or acquisition of, foreign citizenship or residence or the status of an immigrant of another country 7. Such other grounds as may be provided by the Code and other laws. (LGC, Sec. 60)

1. Disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines NOTE: An administrative, not criminal, case for disloyalty to the Republic only requires substantial evidence. (Aguinaldo v. Santos, G.R. No. 94115, August 21, 1992) 2. Culpable violation of the Constitution 3. Dishonesty, oppression, misconduct in office, gross negligence, or dereliction of duty NOTE: Acts of lasciviousness cannot be considered misconduct in office, and may not be the basis of an order of suspension. To constitute a ground for disciplinary action, the mayor charged with the offense must be convicted in the criminal action. (Palma v. Fortich, G.R. No. L-59679, January 29, 1987)

JURISDICTION An elective local official may be removed from office on any of the grounds enumerated above only by an order from the proper court. The Office of the President does not have any power to remove elected officials, since such power is exclusively vested in the proper courts as expressly provided for in the last paragraph of Sec. 60 of LGC. (Salalima v. Guingona, G.R. No. 117589-92, May 22, 1996) PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION  Preventive suspension may be imposed: 1. After the issues are joined; 2. When the evidence of guilt is strong; 3. Given the gravity of the offense, there is great probability that the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a

threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence. [LGC, Sec. 63(b)] NOTE: It is immaterial that no evidence has been adduced to prove that the official may influence possible witnesses or may tamper with the public records. It is sufficient that there exists such a possibility. (Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole, G.R. No. 108072, December 12, 1995) Persons who can impose preventive suspension Person authorized to Respondent Local Offcial impose suspension President Elective official of a province, highly urbanized city or independent component city Governor Elective official of component city or municipality Mayor Elective official of barangay [LGC, Sec. 3 (a)]  Rules on Preventive Suspension: 1. A single preventive suspension shall not extend beyond 60 days. (Rios v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 129913, September 26, 1997) 2. In the event that there are several administrative cases filed, the elective official cannot be preventively suspended for more than 90 days within a single year on the same ground or grounds existing and known at the time of his first suspension. [LGC, Sec. 63(b)]  Preventive suspension under RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) vs. Preventive suspension under RA 7160 (LGC) Preventive suspension under Preventive suspension RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of under RA 7160 (LGC) 1989) Requirements

1. The evidence of guilt is 1. There is reasonable strong; and ground to believe that 2. That any of the following the respondent has circumstances are committed the act or present: acts complained of; a. The charge against the 2. The evidence of guilt officer involves is strong; dishonesty, oppression 3. The gravity of the or grave misconduct or offense so warrants neglect in the 4. The continuance in performance of duty; office of the b. The charges would respondent could warrant removal from influence the office; or witnesses or pose a c. The respondent’s threat to the safety continued stay in office and integrity of the may prejudice the case records and other filed against him. evidence Maximum period 6 months 60 days (Hagad vs. Gozo-Dadole, G.R. No. 108072, Dec. 12, 1995) 





Power of the Ombudsman under RA 6770 to conduct administrative investigation: The Ombudsman and the Office of the President have concurrent jurisdiction to conduct administrative investigations over elective officials. (Hagad vs. Gozo-Dadole, G.R. No. 108072, Dec. 12, 1995) Signing of preventive suspension order: The Ombudsman, as well as his Deputy, may sign an order preventively suspending officials. Also, the length of the period of suspension within the limits provided by law and the evaluation of the strength of the evidence both lie in the discretion of the Ombudsman. (Castillo-Co v. Barbers, G.R. No. 129952, June 16, 1998) Effect of an appeal on the preventive suspension ordered by the Ombudsman: An appeal shall not stop

the decision from being executory. In case the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent wins such appeal, he shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal. A decision of the Officeof the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course. (Office of the Ombudsman v. Samaniego, G.R. No. 175573, Oct. 5, 2010) REMOVAL  Removal: Removal imports the forcible separation of the incumbent before the expiration of his term and can be done only for causes as provided by law. (Dario v. Mison, G.R. No. 81954, Aug. 8, 1989) NOTE: The unjust removal or non-compliance with the prescribed procedure constitutes reversible error and this entitles the officer or employee to reinstatement with back salaries and without loss of seniority rights.  Q: Does the Sangguniang Panlungsod and Sangguniang Bayan have the power to remove elective officials? A: NO. The pertinent legal provisions and cases decided by this Court firmly establish that the Sanggunaing Bayan is not empowered to do so. The most extreme penalty that the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan may impose on the erring elective barangay official is suspension; if it deems that the removal of the official from service is warranted, then it can resolve that the proper charges be filed in court. The courts are exclusively vested with the power to remove elective officials under Section 60 of the Local Government Code. (Sangguniang Barangay of Don Mariano Marcos v. Martinez, G.R. No. 170626, March 3, 2008)  Resignation of public elective officials

Resignation of elective officials shall be deemed effective only upon acceptance by the following authorities: 1. The President – in case of Governors, ViceGovernors, and Mayors and Vice-Mayors of highly urbanized cities and independent and component cities 2. The Governor – in the case of municipal Mayors and Vice-Mayors, city Mayors and Vice-Mayors of component cities 3. The Sanggunian concerned – in case of sanggunian members 4. The City or Municipal Mayor – in case of barangay officials (LGC, Sec. 82) NOTE: The resignation shall be deemed accepted if not acted upon by the authority concerned within 15 working days from receipt thereof. Irrevocable resignations by sanggunian members shall be deemed accepted upon representation before an open session of the sanggunian concerned and duly entered in its records, except where the sanggunian members are subject to recall elections or to cases where existing laws prescribed the manner of acting upon such resignations. [LGC, Sec. 82(c)(d)] [Because the official subject of recall is an automatic candidate.] Administrative Appeal  Rule on Administrative Appeals: Decisions in administrative cases may, within 30 days from receipt thereof, be appealed to the following: 1. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan, in the case of decisions of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of component cities and the Sangguniang Bayan; and 2. The Office of the President, in the case of decisions of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Highly Urbanized Cities and Independent Component Cities. (LGC, Sec. 67)





NOTE: Decisions of the Office of the President shall be final and executory. Persons Authorized to file administrative complaint: 1. Any private individual or any government officer or employee by filing a verified complaint; 2. Office of the President or any government agency duly authorized by law to ensure that LGUs act within their prescribed powers and functions. (Rule 3, Sec.1, AO 23, Dec. 17, 1992) A verified complaint shall be filed with the following: 1. Office of the President – Against elective official of provinces, highly urbanized cities, independent component cities, or component cities. NOTE: It may be noted that the Constitution places local governments under the supervision of the Executive. Likewise, the Constitution allows Congress to include in the LGC provisions for removal of local officials, which suggests that Congress may exercise removal powers. Note also that legally, supervision is not incompatible with disciplinary action. (Ganzon v. CA, G.R. No. 93252, Aug. 5, 1991) Under AO 23, the President has delegated the power to investigate complaints to the Secretary of Interior and Local Government. This is valid delegation because what is delegated is only the power to investigate, not the power to discipline. Besides, the power of the Secretary of Interior and Local Government is based on the “alterego” principle. (Joson v. Torres, G.R. No. 131255, May 20, 1998) 2. Sangguniang Panlalawigan – Elective officials of municipalities; NOTE: Decision may be appealed to the Office of the President

3. Sangguniang Panglungsod or Bayan – Elective barangay officials (LGC, Sec. 61) NOTE: Decision shall be final and executory. RECALL It is a mode of removal of a public officer, by the people, before the end of his term. The people’s prerogative to remove a public officer is an incident of their sovereign power, and in the absence of constitutional restraint, the power is implied in all governmental operations. (Garcia v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 111511, Oct. 5, 1993) NOTE: All expenses incident to recall elections shall be borne by the COMELEC. For this purpose, the annual General Appropriations Act shall include a contingency fund at the disposal of the COMELEC for the conduct of recall elections. (LGC, Sec. 75) Q: Goh filed before the COMELEC a recall petition against Mayor Bayron due to loss of trust and confidence. On 1 April 2014, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 9864 which found the recall petition sufficient in form and substance, but suspended the funding of any and all recall elections until the resolution of the funding issue. Petitioner submits that the same is a grave abdication and wanton betrayal of the constitutional mandate of the COMELEC and a grievous violation of the sovereign power of the people. What Resolution Nos. 9864 and 9882 have given with one hand (the affirmation of the sufficiency of the Recall Petition), they have taken away with the other (the issue of lack funding). The COMELEC suspended the holding of a recall election supposedly through lack of funding. Did the COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion when it suspended the recall election? A: YES. The COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution Nos. 9864 and 9882. The 2014 GAA provides the line item appropriation to allow the COMELEC to perform its constitutional mandate of conducting recall

elections. There is no need for supplemental legislation to authorize the COMELEC to conduct recall elections for 2014. Considering that there is an existing line item appropriation for the conduct of recall elections in the 2014 GAA, we see no reason why the COMELEC is unable to perform its constitutional mandate to “enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of x x x recall.” Should the funds appropriated in the 2014 GAA be deemed insufficient, then the COMELEC Chairman may exercise his authority to augment such line item appropriation from the COMELEC’s existing savings, as this augmentation is expressly authorized in the 2014 GAA. Resolution No. 9864 is therefor partially reverse and set aside insofar as it directed the suspension of any and all proceedings in the recall petition. (Goh v. Bayron, G.R No. 212584, Nov. 25, 2014) --



Ground for recall The only ground for recall of local government officials is loss of confidence. It is not subject to judicial inquiry. The Court ruled that ‘loss of confidence’ as a ground for recall is a political question. (Garcia v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 111511, Oct. 5, 1993) This means that the people may petition to recall any local elective officials without specifying any particular ground except loss of confidence. There is no need for them to bring up any charge of abuse or corruption against the local elective officials who are the subject of any recall petition. Recall initiation (2002 Bar) The Recall of any elective provincial, city, municipal or barangay official shall be commenced by a petition of a registered voter in the LGU concerned and supported by the registered voters in the LGU concerned during the election in which the local official sought to be recalled was elected subject to the following percentage requirements:

a.

At least twenty-five percent (25%) in the case LGUs with a voting population of not more than twenty thousand (20,000)(less than 20,000); b. At least twenty percent (20%) in the case of LGUs with a voting population of at least twenty thousand (20,000) but not more than seventyfive thousand (75,000): Provided, That in no case shall the required petitioners be less than five thousand (5,000); c. At least fifteen percent (15%) in the case of LGUs with a voting population of at least seventy-five thousand (75,000) but not more than three hundred thousand (300,000): Provided, however, That in no case shall the required number of petitioners be less than fifteen thousand (15,000); and d. At least ten percent (10%) in the case of LGUs with a voting population of over three hundred thousand (300,000): Provided, however, that in no case shall the required petitioners be less than forty-five thousand (45,000). (LGC, Sec. 70, as amended by RA 9244)

2. Within 15 days after filing, COMELEC must certify the sufficiency of the required number of signatures. NOTE: Failure to obtain required number automatically nullifies petition. 3. Within 3 days of certification of sufficiency, COMELEC shall provide the official with copy of petition and shall cause its publication for three weeks (once a week) in a national newspaper and a local newspaper of general circulation. Petition must also be posted for 10 to 20 days at conspicuous places. (LGC, Sec. 70 (b)(2), as amended by RA 9244) (Not less than 10 and not more than 20days.) NOTE: Protest should be filed at this point and ruled with finality within 15 days after filing. 4. COMELEC verifies and authenticates the signature 5. COMELEC announces acceptance of candidates. 6. COMELEC sets election within 30 days after the filing of the resolution or petition for recall in the case of barangay/city/municipality, and 45 days in the case of provincial officials. Officials sought to be recalled are automatic candidates. (LGC, Secs. 70 & 71) (Cannot resign, automatic candidates for recall)

NOTE: By virtue of RA 9244, Secs. 70 and 71 of the LGC were amended, and the Preparatory Recall Assembly has been eliminated as a mode of instituting recall of elective local government officials. All pending petitions for recall initiated through the Preparatory Recall Assembly shall be considered dismissed upon the effectivity of RA 9244. (Approved February. 19, 2004) 

Recall process 1. Petition of a registered voter in the LGU concerned, supported by percentage of registered voters during the election in which the local official sought to be recalled was elected.



NOTE: The official or officials sought to be recalled shall automatically be considered as duly registered candidate or candidates to the pertinent positions and, like other candidates, shall be entitled to be voted upon. (LGC, Sec. 71) Effectivity of Recall (2002, 2010 Bar) The recall of an elective local official shall be effective only upon the election and proclamation of a successor in the person of the candidate receiving the highest number of votes cast during the election on recall.

Should the official sought to be recalled receive the highest number of votes, confidence in him is thereby affirmed, and he shall continue in office. (LGC, Sec. 72)(Confidence is affirmed)  Prohibition from resignation (2010 Bar) The elective local official sought to be recalled shall not be allowed to resign while the recall process is in progress. (LGC, Sec. 73)  Limitations on recall (2008 Bar) 1. Any elective local official may be the subject of a recall election only once during his term of office for loss of confidence; and 2. No recall shall take place within one (1) year from the date of the official’s assumption to office or one (1) year immediately preceding a regular election. (LGC, Sec. 74) (2nd yr of term) NOTE: The one-year time bar will not apply where the local official sought to be recalled is a mayor and the approaching election is a barangay election. (Angobung v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 126576, March 5, 1997) 

Q: Sec. 74 of the LGC provides that “no recall shall take place within one year immediately preceding a regular local election.” What does the term “regular local election,” as used in this section, mean? (Socrates vs COMELEC) A: Referring to an election where the office held by the local elective official sought to be recalled is to be actually contested and filled by the electorate. (Paras v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 123169, Nov. 4, 1996)



Q: Will it be proper for the COMELEC to act on a petition for recall signed by just one person? A: NO. A petition for recall signed by just one person is in violation of the statutory 25% minimum requirement as to the number of signatures supporting any petition

for recall. (Angobung v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 126576, March 5, 1997)