1) Philippine Congress

Historical Background

Originally Philippines under the colonial rule of Spain did not have the privilege to
be represented in the Spanish Cortes. It was only in 1809 where the Philippines were given
representation in the court. The Napoleonic wars ended the Cadiz constitution which
enables Philippines to be represented, the restoration of Philippines representation to the
Cortes was attributed to the act of the Illustrados. The formal beginning of the Philippine
Congress started on the short-lived Philippine Republic (1898-1899), where President
Emilio Aguinaldo headed the Malolos Congress and established the 1899 Constitution of
the Philippines.

Philippines under the American Colonial rule established the Philippines

Commission, where the President of the United States appointed its members. The
Philippine bill of 1902 compelled the creation of a bicameral Philippine Legislature with
Philippine Commission as the Upper House and the Philippine Assembly as the Lower
House. The Legislature was inaugurated in 1907 and the rules of the United States
Congress were adopted as Rules of the Philippine Legislature. After the enactment of the
Jones law in 1916, the Philippine Commission was abolished, and a new bicameral
Philippines Legislature was established, which consisted on the House of Representatives
and the Senate. The legislative system was changed by the 1935 constitution. The change
instituted the Commonwealth which gave the Filipinos a substantial role in the
government and the establishment of a unicameral National Assembly, an amendment on
the constitution restored the bicameral Congress of the Philippines. The Japanese invaders
set up the Second Philippine Republic and convene its own unilateral National Assembly.
At the end of world war two following the Japanese defeat, the Commonwealth and its
Congress was restored and the same structural make up continued until the Philippines
gained their independence on July 4, 1946.

Upon the Proclamation of the Republic of the Philippines on July 4, 1946, the
existing Congress would be known as the First Congress of the Republic of the Philippines.
(Republic of the Philippines) Over the years Congresses were elected until President
Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law on September 23, 1972, Marcos ruled then by
decree. The abolishment of the 1935 constitution brought upon the 1973 constitution. The
new constitution discarded the bicameral Congress and created a unicameral National
Assembly (Batasang Pambansa) in a semi-presidential system of government. When
Marcos term was over, President Corazon Aquino and the appointed constitutional
commission drafted a new constitution and was approved. Restoring the presidential
system of government with a bicameral Congress of the Philippines.

Functions/Duties

The legislative power is vested in a bicameral body, the Congress of the Philippines,
which is composed of two houses -- the Senate and the House Representatives. The
Congress of the Philippines is the country's highest lawmaking body. (The Legislative
Branch).

The Senate is composed of twenty-four senators and is headed by the Senate

President. The duty of the Senate President are as follows Half of the population of the
Senate are elected every three years and each senator serves a total of six years. The
senators are elected by the whole electorate and do not represent any province in the
country.

The House of Representatives are composed of not more than 250 members, with the
Speaker as its chief officer. There are two types of Representatives, district and sectoral
representatives. District representatives or represent at least one congressional district,
while sectoral congressmen represent minority sectors of the population which enable the
minority groups to be represented in the Congress. The congressmen are elected for a term
of three years, but they cannot serve for more than three consecutive terms.

Congress passes laws that regulate the conduct of and relations between the private
citizens and the government. It defines and punishes crimes against the state and against
persons and their property. It determines the taxes people should pay for the maintenance
of the government. It appropriates the money to be spent for public purposes. It can
reorganize, create, or abolish offices under the civil service. And it can create and abolish
courts, except the Supreme Court. Finally, it is only Congress which was given by the
Philippine Constitution the sole power to declare war and to authorize the President, in
case of national emergency or war, to issue executive orders embodying rules and
regulations intended to carry out the national policy. The congress convenes in a regular
session once a year, starting on the fourth Monday of July. This session may not exceed the
prescribed 100 days, exclusive of Sundays. Special sessions may be called by the President
to consider general legislations or any subjects which he may want to designate. However,
these sessions may not exceed 30 days.

Case Study

a. Ma. Merceditas Gutierrez vs. The House of Representatives Committee on Justice,

Risa Hontiveros-Barquel, Danilo D. Lim, Felipe Pestao, Evelyn Pestao, Renato M.
Reyes, Jr., Secretary General of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan); Mother
Mary John Mananzan, Co-Chairperson of Pagbabago; Danilo Ramos, Secretary-
General of Kilusang Magbukid ng Pilipanas (KMP); Atty Edre Olalia, Acting
Secretary General of tge National Union of Peoples Lawyers (NUPL); Ferdinand R.
Gaite, Chairperson, Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of
Government Employees (COURAGE); and James Terry Ridon of the League of
Filipino Students (LFS) – This case is about an issue on the impeachment of the
ombudsman Maria Merceditas Gutierrez filed by the House of Representatives on
Comitee Justice based on betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of
Constitution. The case was a petition filed by Gutierrez to stop the House on Justice
from Proceeding with her impeachment. The ombudsman claimed that there was a
violation of the Constitution when the House committee heard two impeachment
complaints against her which violated Article XI Section 3 (5) of the 1987
Constitution which provides that” no period of one year.”
In the decision of the Court, the impeachment trial will proceed, the court
reiterated its previous ruling that what the 1987 Constitution prohibited was not
the initiation of more than one complaint in one year but the initiation of more than
one proceeding. We can see that the action of the ombudsman to stop the
impeachment process on the ground of “no period of one year” is not justifiable, the
ombudsman only wants to maintain her position and she will find all ways to do so.
Moreover the decision to dismiss the petition was only correct and constitutional, by
doing so the ombudsman’s betrayal of public trust can be punished.
b. Neri vs. Senate – This case is about the Senate investigation of anomalies
concerning the NBN-ZTE project. During the hearings, former NEDA head
Romulo Neri refused to answer certain questions involving his conversations with
President Arroyo on the ground they are covered by executive privilege. When the
Senate cited him in contempt and ordered his arrest, Neri filed a case against the
Senate with the Supreme Court. On March 25, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in
favor of Neri and upheld the claim of executive privilege.
Executive privilege is in the way of the search for truth. However, the
decision recognized Presidential communications as presumptively privileged. Thus,
the party seeking disclosure of the information has the burden of overcoming the
presumption in favor of the confidentiality of Presidential communications.
c. Pimintel vs. Senate Committee of the Whole – The case ensued when Senator
Pimentel called to attention the double insertion of 200Million appropriated
separately for the construction of Carlos P. Garcia Ave and C-5 Road which was said
to cover the same stretch. Lacson further stated that when he investigated on the
double entry, it led to Senator Villar, then Senate President. On October 8, 2008
Senator Madrigal introduce P.S. Resolution 706, which states that there was indeed
double entry of said project, with overwhelming evidence of abuse of authority of the
Senate President (Villar) to profit from such project. It also stated that the acts of
the Senate President are indeirect violation of the Constitution, the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, the Code of Conduct and Ethical standards of Public Officers.
Therefore it was resolved to direct the Committee on Ethics and Privileges to
investigate the conduct of Senate President Villar. Senator Enrile was elected
Senate President and the Ethics Committee was reorganized with the Election of
Lacson as Chairperson. Senator Lacson inquired whether the Minority was ready to
name their representatives. After consultation, Senator Pimentel informed the body
that there would be no members from the Minority in the Ethics Committee.
Senator Lacson reiterated his appeal to the Minority to nominate their
representative to the Ethics Committee. Senator Pimentel stated that it is the stand
of the Minority no to nominate any of their members to the Ethics
Committee. Thereafter, the Senate adopted the Rules of the Senate Committee on
the Ethics and Privileges. Senator Lacson moved that the responsibility of the
 Ethics Committee be undertaken by Senate, acting as a whole. The motion was
approved with ten members voting in favor, none against, and five absentees.
The transfer of the complaint against Senator Villar from the Ethics
Committee to the Senate Committee of the whole does not violate the right of the the
senator’s right to equal protection provided that The rules of the Ethics Committee
provide that all matters relating to the conduct, rights, privileges, safety, dignity,
integrity and reputation of the Senate and its Members shall be under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges. However, in this
case, the refusal of the Minority to name its members to the Ethics Committee
stalled the investigation. In short, while ordinarily an investigation about one of its
member’s alleged irregular or unethical conduct is within the jurisdiction of the
Ethics Committee, the Minority effectively prevented if from pursuing the
investigation when they refused to nominate their members to the Ethics
Committee. Given the circumstances, the referral of the investigation to the
Committee of the Whole was an extraordinary remedy undertaken by the Ethics
Committee and approved by a majority of the members of the Senate.
d. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee vs. Majaducon – The case was started when Senator
Blas F. Ople filed Senate Resolution No.157 directing the Committee on National
Defense and Security to conduct an inquiry, in aid of legislation, into the charges of
then Defense Secretary Orlando Mercado that a group of active and retired military
officers were organizing a coup detat to prevent the administration of then
President Joseph Estrada from probing alleged fund irregularities in the Armed
Forces of the Philippines. After the public hearings conducted by the Senate Blue
Ribbon Committee, the Committee thereafter caused the service of a subpoena to
respondent Atty. Flaviano, directing him to appear and testify before it. Respondent
refused to appear at the hearing. Instead, he filed a petition for prohibition and
preliminary injunction with prayer for temporary restraining order with the
Regional Trial Court of General Santos City, Branch 23. The trial court issued a
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) directing the Committee "to CEASE and
DESIST from proceeding with the inquiry in P.S. 160, pending the hearing of the
petition for prohibition and injunction.
The principle of separation of powers essentially means that legislation
belongs to Congress, execution to the Executive, and settlement of legal
 controversies to the Judiciary. Each is prevented from invading the domain of the
others. When the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee served subpoena on respondent
Flaviano to appear and testify before it in connection with its investigation of the
alleged misuse and mismanagement of the AFP-RSBS funds, it did so pursuant to
its authority to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.
e. Senate vs. Ermita – The Committee of the Senate as a whole issued invitations to
various officials of the Executive Department for them to appear as resource
speakers in a public hearing on the railway project of the North Luzon Railways
Corporation with the China National Machinery and Equipment Group. the
President then issued Executive Order 464, “Ensuring Observance of the Principle of
Separation of Powers, Adherence to the Rule on Executive Privilege and Respect for
the Rights of Public Officials Appearing in Legislative Inquiries in Aid of Legislation
Under the Constitution, and for other purposes,” which, pursuant to Section 6
thereof, took effect immediately.
The E.O 464 violates the right of the people to information on matters of
public concern, any executive issuance tending to unduly limit disclosures of
information in investigations in Congress necessarily deprives the people of
information which being to be in aid in legislation, is perceived to be a matter of
public concern. It has a direct effect on the right of the people to information on
matters of public concern. Due process requires that the people should have been
apprised of its issuance before it was implemented.

2) The Ombudsman

Historical Background

The Office of the Ombudsman exists even before the Constitution of 1987, there are
several offices established under the various presidents of Philippines whose duties and
functions are associated with the Office of the Ombudsman. President Elpidio Quirino
established the Integrity Board in 1950; President Ramon Magsaysay, the Presidential
Complaints and Action Commission in 1957; President Carlos P. Garcia, the Presidential
Committee on Administration Performance Efficiency in 1958; President Diosdado
Macapagal, the Presidential Anti-Graft Committee in 1962; and finally President
Ferdinand Marcos, the Presidential Agency on Reform and Government Operations in 1966
(Office of the Ombudsman).

The Office of the Citizens was created by R.A. No. 6028 in 1969. The office was
primarily designed to conduct investigations and make recommendations to Congress and
the President. When Marcos became the president he created the Complaints and
Investigation Office and the Presidential Administrative Assistance Committee. In the
martial law era the new Philippine Constitution created a special court called
“Sandiganbayan” and an Office of the Ombudsman called “Tanodbayan”.

When Cory took the presidential helm, she issued two Executive Orders (Nos. 243
and 244) that established a new Office of the Ombudsman and changed the Tanodbayan
into the Office of the Special Prosecutor under the Ombudsman.

Functions/Duties

The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties
(Office of the Ombudsman):

1. Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or
omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or
omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary
jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of his
primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of
Government, the investigation of such cases (Sec. 15(1) R.A. No. 6770; see also Sec.
13(1), Article XI, 1987 Constitution);
2. Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any officer or employee of the
Government, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as any
government-owned or controlled corporations with original charter, to perform and
expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse
or impropriety in the performance of duties (Sec. 15(2) R.A. No. 6770; Sec 13(2)
Article XI, 1987 Constitution);
3. Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public officer or
employee at fault or who neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty required by
 law, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or
prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith; or enforce its disciplinary authority
as provided in Section 21 or this Act: Provided, That the refusal by any officer
without just cause to comply with an order of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend,
demote, fine, censure, or prosecute an officer or employee who is at fault or who
neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty required by law shall be ground for
disciplinary action against said officer (Sec. 15(3) R.A. No. 6770; see also Sec 13(3),
Article XI, 1987 Constitution);
4. Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such limitations
as it may provide in its rules of procedure, to furnish it with copies of documents
relating to contracts or transactions entered into by his office involving the
disbursement or use of public funds or properties, and report any irregularity to the
Commission on Audit for appropriate action (Sec. 15(4) R.A. No. 6770; see also Sec.
13(4), Article XI, 1987 Constitution);
5. Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the
discharge of its responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary, pertinent records and
documents (Sec. 15(5), R.A. No.6770; see also Sec. 13(5), Article XI, 1987
Constitution);
6. Publicize matters covered by its investigation of the matters mentioned in
paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4) hereof, when circumstances so warrant and with due
determine what cases may not be made public: Provided further, That any publicity
issued by the Ombudsman shall be balanced, fair, and true (Sec 15(6) R.A. No. 6770;
see also Sec 13(6), Article XI, 1987 Constitution);
7. Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and
corruption in the Government and make recommendations for their elimination and
the observance of high standards of ethics and efficiency (Sec 15(7) R.A. No. 6770;
see also Sec 13(7), Article XI, 1987 Constitution);
8. Administer oaths, issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum, and take testimony in
any investigation or inquiry, including the power to examine and have access to
bank accounts and records (Sec 15(8), R.A. No. 6770);
9. Punish for contempt in accordance with the Rules of Court and under the same
procedure and with the same penalties provided therein (Sec 15(9), R.A. No. 6770);
 10. Delegate to the Deputies, or its investigators or representatives such authority or
duty as shall ensure the effective exercise of performance of the powers, functions,
and duties herein or hereinafter provided (Sec 15(10), R.A. No. 6770);
11. Investigate and initiate the proper action for the recovery of ill-gotten and/or
unexplained wealth amassed after February 25, 1986 and the prosecution of the
parties involved therein (Sec 15(11), R.A. No. 6770);
12. Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such
functions or duties as may be provided by law (Sec 13(7), Article XI, 1987
Constitution; see also Sec. 18, R.A. No. 6770);

Case Study

a. Office of the Ombudsman vs. Victorio N. Medrano –

b. Office of the Ombudsman vs. Dr. Nellie R. Appolonio – The case is formed through a
petition for review on certiorari, petitioner Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman)
seeks the reversal of the decision dated March 23, 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. SP No. 73357 and the resolution dated August 23, 2004, which dismissed
the Ombudsman’s Motion for Reconsideration. The assailed decision annulled and
set aside the decision of the Ombudsman dated August 16, 2002 (docketed as OMB
ADM-0-01-0405), finding Dr. Nellie R. Apolonio guilty of grave misconduct and
dishonesty.

The Ombudsman has the power to impose the penalty of removal, suspension,
demotion, fine, censure or prosecution of a public officer or employee, in the exercise of its
administrative disciplinary authority. The provisions in R.A. No. 6770 taken together
reveal the manifest intent of the lawmakers to bestow on the Office of the Ombudsman full
administrative disciplinary authority. These provisions cover the entire range of
administrative adjudication which entails the authority to, receive complaints, conduct
investigations, hold hearings in accordance with its rules of procedure, summon witnesses
and require the production of documents, place under preventive suspension public officers
and employees pending an investigation, determine the appropriate penalty imposable on
erring public officers or employees as warranted by the evidence, and, necessarily, impose
the said penalty. The action of Dr. Apolonio was indeed an act of grave misconduct and the
decision of the ombudsman to suspend her as NBDB executive officer for six months was
justified and constitutional.

c. Posadas, Yu, and Lambino vs. The Office of the Ombudsman – Dennis Venturina, a
member of Sigma Rho at the University of the Philippines, was killed in a rumble
between his fraternity and another fraternity on December 8, 1994. Petitioner
Posadas, then Chancellor of U.P. Diliman, asked the Director of the NBI for
assistance in determining the persons responsible for the crime. With that,
respondent Dizon, Chief of the Special Operations Group of the NBI, and his men
went to U.P. and, on the basis of the supposed positive identification of two alleged
eyewitnesses, they attempted to arrest Francis Carlo Taparan and Raymundo
Narag, officers/members of the Scintilla Juris Fraternity, as suspects in the killing
of Venturina. It appears that the two suspects had come that day to the U.P. Police
Station for a peace talk between their fraternity and the Sigma Rho Fraternity.
Petitioners Posadas, Lambino, and Torres-Yu, also of U.P., and a certain Atty.
Villamor, counsel for the suspects, objected on the ground that the NBI did not have
warrants of arrest with them. As a result of their intervention, Taparan and Narag
were not arrested by the NBI agents on that day. However, criminal charges were
filed later against the two student suspects. Dizon then filed a complaint in the
Office of the Special Prosecutor, charging petitioners Posadas, Torres-Yu, Lambino,
Col. Eduardo Bentain, Chief of the Security Force of the U.P. Police, and Atty.
Villamor with violation of P.D. 1829, which makes it unlawful for anyone to
obstruct the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders. On motion of
petitioners, the Special Prosecutor's Office recommended the dismissal of the case.
But such was disapproved. The Office of the Ombudsman directed the Special
Prosecutor to proceed with the prosecution of petitioners in the Sandiganbayan.
Hence this petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside there solution of the
Ombudsman's office ordering the prosecution of petitioners.
The validity of the arrest of the student suspects by the NBI could not be
valid because the arresting officers did not witness the crime being committed.
Neither are the student fugitives from justice nor prisoners who had escaped from
confinement.
 d. Acop vs The Office of the Ombusman – in this case, government agencies, NCR
Command, Traffic Management Command (TMC), Presidential Anti-Crime
Commission (PACC), Presidential Central Police District Command (CDPC) and
Criminal Investigation Command (CIC) were accused of summary killing 11
members of the “Kuratong Baleleng” gang by S/PO de los Reyes of Central
Intelligence Commission. The complaint went up to the Office of the Ombudsman of
the Military. A panel recommended for a preliminary investigation on a list of
officers presented by the PNP. In turn, the Ombudsman ordered the officers listed to
submit their counter affidavit. However, the petitioners questioned the conduct of
the Ombudsman, stating that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to take
preliminary investigation.
The Ombudsman has jurisdiction as stated in Sec. 31 of R.A. 6770, where it
states that the word “cases” includes “non-military” cases. The Ombudsman also has
jurisdiction on the Preliminary Investigation as state in A.O. no.7 Sec. 2. Hence,
there is no abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman.
e. Leyson vs The Office of the Ombudsman –

3) The Sandiganbayan

Historical Background

Sandiganbayan was created by the Article XII of the 1973 Constitution. In obedience
to this mandate, the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos, exercising the emergency
legislative power granted him under Amendment No. 6 of the 1976 Amendments to the
1973 Constitution. The P.D. No. 1486 putted the Sandiganbayan on the same level as
what were then known as the Courts of First Instance, now the Regional Trial Courts.
Shortly thereafter, however, the Sandiganbayan was elevated to the level of the Court of
Appeals by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1606.

EDSA revolution signaled the beginning of a new rule and caused substantial
changes in the entire government machinery, including the judiciary. However, both the
'Freedom Constitution' and the new Constitution have seen fit to maintain the
Sandiganbayan as one of the principal instruments of public accountability. In furtherance
of this, its jurisdiction has been broadened to include the so-called 'ill-gotten wealth' cases
investigated by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) through
Executive Orders No. 14 and No. 14-A. In the reorganization program of the new
government, the resignation of some of the members of the Court was accepted leading to
the appointment of a new Presiding Justice in the person of Hon. Francis E. Garchitorena.
To further strengthen the functional and structural organization of the Sandiganbayan,
several amendments have been introduced to the original law creating it, the latest of
which are Republic Acts No. 7975 and No. 8249. Under these new laws, the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan is now confined to cases involving public officials occupying positions
classified as salary grade 27 and higher. As restructured, the Sandiganbayan is presently
composed of a Presiding Justice and fourteen Associate Justices who sit in five Divisions of
three Justices each in the trial and determination of cases.

Functions/Duties

The Batasang Pambansa shall create a special court, to be known as Sandiganbayan,

which shall have jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt
practices and such other offenses committed by public officers and employees, including
those in government-owned or controlled corporations, in relation to their office as may be
determined by law. (Art. XIII, Sec. 5, 1973 Constitution)

The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function
and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law. (Art. XI, Sec.4,
1987 Constitution)
Case Study

a. Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan – the issue emanated from when President Joseph
Ejercito Estrada was forced to vacate his office at the call of People Power II, on
January 20, 2001, and then Vice-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo succeeded
him in office. The Sandiganbayan, from its preliminary investigations, ruled
that from June 1998 to January 2001, the accused former President Estrada,
by himself and/or in connivance or conspiracy with his co-accused (Jinggoy
Estrada, Charlie ‘Atong’ Ang, Edward Serapio, Alma Alfaro, et cetera, who are
either members of his extended family or business partners), by taking undue
advantage of his official position, authority, connection and influence, willfully,
 unlawfully and criminally amass, accumulate and acquire by himself ill-gotten
wealth totaling P4.1B (P4,097,804,173.17), more or less, thereby unjustly
enriching himself to the damage of the Filipino people and the Republic of the
Philippines. He was issued a warrant of arrest. A motion for reconsideration
was denied by the Sandiganbayan. The guilt of Estrada is not in question at
this point, but rather the constitutionality of the law aiming to penalize his acts,
RA 7080.
In the session of the Congress, what apparently needs to be proven is
the element of the offense. To find the totality of the amount, ‘we will sum up
the amounts involved in those transactions which were proved.’ The burden
still remains with the prosecution to prove beyond any iota of doubt every fact
or element necessary to constitute the crime. Sec. 4 is merely a procedural
measure, meaning even without invoking it there could still be a conviction for
plunder. In conclusion, the R.A. 7080 did not violate any due process, even by
dispensing with the reasonable doubt standard in criminal prosecution.
b. Duncano vs. Sandiganbayan – Petitioner Danilo A. Duncano is, at the time material
to the case, the Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) with
Salary Grade 26 as classified under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6758.3 On March 24,
2009,4 the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), Office of the Ombudsman, filed a
criminal case against him for violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 11 of R.A.
No. 6713. Duncano wilfully, unlawfully and criminally fail to disclose in his Sworn
Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Networth (SALN) for the year 2002. Prior to
his arraignment, petitioner, Duncano filed a Motion to Dismiss With Prayer to Defer
the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest7 before respondent Sandiganbayan Second
Division. He asserted that under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1606, as amended
by Section 4 (A) (1) of R.A No. 8249,10 the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction to try
and hear the case because he is an official of the executive branch occupying the
position of a Regional Director but with a compensation that is classified as below
Salary Grade 27. The OSP argued that the position of Regional Director was
specifically mentioned without indication as to its salary grade signifies the
lawmakers’ intention that officials occupying such position, regardless of salary
grade, fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. This
issue, it is claimed, was already resolved in Inding. Finally, the OSP contended that
the filing of the motion to dismiss is premature considering that the Sandiganbayan
has yet to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused. On August 18, 2009,
the Sandiganbayan Second Division promulgated its Resolution denying the instant
Motion to Dismiss for being devoid of merit. It ruled that the position of Regional
Director is one of those exceptions where the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction even if
such position is not Salary Grade 27. Petitioner insists that respondent court lacks
jurisdiction over him, who is merely a Regional Director with Salary Grade 26. On
the contrary, the OSP maintains that a Regional Director, irrespective of salary
grade, falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Petitioner, Duncano is not an executive official with Salary Grade 27 or higher.
Neither does he hold any position. The Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over
violations of Section 3(a) and (e), Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, unless
committed by public officials and employees occupying positions of regional director
and higher with Salary Grade "27" or higher, under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758) in relation to their office. In ruling
in favor of its jurisdiction, even though petitioner admittedly occupied the position of
Director II with Salary Grade "26" under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), the Sandiganbayan incurred in
serious error of jurisdiction, and acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction in suspending petitioner from office, entitling petitioner to the
reliefs prayed for. Assistant Chief, Personnel Division of the BIR shows that,
although petitioner is a Regional Director of the BIR, his position is classified as
Director II with Salary Grade 26. There is no merit in the OSP’s allegation that the
petition was prematurely filed on the ground that respondent court has not yet
acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner.
Duncano is not an executive official with Salary Grade 27 or higher. Neither
does he hold any position. The Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over violations of
Section 3(a) and (e), Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, unless committed by public
officials and employees occupying positions of regional director and higher with
Salary Grade "27" or higher, under the Compensation and Position Classification
Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758) in relation to their office. In ruling in favor of its
jurisdiction, even though petitioner admittedly occupied the position of Director II
with Salary Grade "26" under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of
 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), the Sandiganbayan incurred in serious error of
jurisdiction, and acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction in suspending petitioner from office, entitling petitioner to the reliefs
prayed for.Assistant Chief, Personnel Division of the BIR shows that, although
petitioner is a Regional Director of the BIR, his position is classified as Director II
with Salary Grade 26. There is no merit in the OSP’s allegation that the petition
was prematurely filed on the ground that respondent court has not yet acquired
jurisdiction over the person of petitioner.
c. Uy vs. Sandiganbayan – Petitioner George Uy was the deputy comptroller of the
Philippine Navy designated to act on behalf of Captain Fernandez, the latter’s
supervisor, on matters relating the activities of the Fiscal Control Branch. Six
information for Estafa through falsification of official documents and one
information for violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 (anti-graft and corrupt practices
act) were filed with the Sandiganbayan against petitioner Uy and 19 other accused.
The petitioner was said to have signed a P.O. stating that the unit received 1,000
pieces of seal rings when in fact, only 100 were ordered. The Sandiganbayan
recommended that the information be withdrawn against some of the accused after a
comprehensive investigation. Petitioner filed a motion to quash contending that it is
the Court Martial and not the Sandiganbayan which has jurisdiction over the
offense charged or the person of the accused. Petitioner further contends that RA
1850 which provides for the jurisdiction of court martial should govern in this case
The court ruled that: It is the court-martial, not the Sandiganbayan, which has
jurisdiction to try petitioner since he was a regular officer of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, and fell squarely under Article 2 of the Articles of War mentioned in
Section 1(b) of P.D.1850, “Providing for the trial by courts-martial of members of the
Integrated National Police and further defining the jurisdiction of courts-martial
over members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.”
As per the violations of Republic Act No. 3019, the petitioner does not fall
within the “rank” requirement stated in Section 4 of the Sandiganbayan Law, thus,
exclusive jurisdiction over petitioner is vested in the regular courts ,as amended by
R.A. No. 8249, which states that “In cases where none of the accused are occupying
positions corresponding to Salary Grade 27” or higher, as prescribed in the said
Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive
 original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court,
metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as
the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.
d. Deloso vs. Sandiganbayan – This petition seeks to annul and set aside the resolution
of the Sandiganbayan which preventively suspended petitioner Amor D.
Deloso(accused in the criminal cases) from his position as provincial governor
of Zambales and from any office that he may be holding. Deloso was the duly elected
mayor of Botolan, Zambales in the localelections of November 1971. While he
occupied the position of mayor, acertain Juan Villanueva filed a complaint with the
Tanodbayan accusing him of having committed acts in violation of the Anti-Graft
Law (Republic Act3019) for issuing to certain Daniel Ferrer a tractor purchased by
the Municipality of Botolan through a loan financed by the Land Bank of the
Philippines for lease to local farmers at reasonable cost, without any agreement as
to the payment of rentals for the use of tractor by the latter, thereby, causing undue
injury to the Municipality of Botolan.Deloso was, then, elected governor of the
Province of Zambales in the January 18, 1988 local elections.
It would be unfair to the people of Zambales who elected the petitioner to the
highest provincial office in their command if they are deprived of his services for an
indefinite period with the termination of his case possibly extending beyond his
entire term. The Court rules that a preventive suspension of an elective public
officer under Section 13 of Republic Act 3019 should be limited to the ninety days
under Section 42 of Presidential Decree No. 807, the Civil Service Decree, which
period also appears reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances of this
case. The petitioner may still be suspended but for specifically expressed reasons
and not from an automatic application of Section 13 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.
e. People vs. Sandiganbayan –
4) The Civil Service Institution

Historical Background

Functions/Duties
Case Study

a. GSIS vs. Civil Service Commission –

b. Legaspi vs. Civil Service Commission –
c. Civil Service Commission vs Lucas –
d. Civil Service Commission vs. Pililla Water District CD –
e. Ombudsman vs. CSC –