Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 175 views

    Pablico Vs Villapando

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Tan
    1) An administrative complaint was filed against the Mayor of San Vicente, Palawan for appointing a defeated mayoral candidate as a consultant within one year of the election, which was argued to violate the Constitution. 2) The Sangguniang Panlalawigan found the Mayor guilty and imposed the penalty of dismissal. The Office of the President affirmed this decision. 3) The Court of Appeals declared these decisions void and ordered the Vice Mayor to vacate office. 4) The Supreme Court held that only a court, not local legislative bodies or the Office of the President, has the power to remove elected local officials from office.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pablico Vs Villapando

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Tan
    175 views2 pages
    1) An administrative complaint was filed against the Mayor of San Vicente, Palawan for appointing a defeated mayoral candidate as a consultant within one year of the election, which was argued to violate the Constitution. 2) The Sangguniang Panlalawigan found the Mayor guilty and imposed the penalty of dismissal. The Office of the President affirmed this decision. 3) The Court of Appeals declared these decisions void and ordered the Vice Mayor to vacate office. 4) The Supreme Court held that only a court, not local legislative bodies or the Office of the President, has the power to remove elected local officials from office.

    Original Description:

    Consti case

    Original Title

    Pablico vs Villapando

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) An administrative complaint was filed against the Mayor of San Vicente, Palawan for appointing a defeated mayoral candidate as a consultant within one year of the election, which was argued to violate the Constitution. 2) The Sangguniang Panlalawigan found the Mayor guilty and imposed the penalty of dismissal. The Office of the President affirmed this decision. 3) The Court of Appeals declared these decisions void and ordered the Vice Mayor to vacate office. 4) The Supreme Court held that only a court, not local legislative bodies or the Office of the President, has the power to remove elected local officials from office.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    175 views2 pages

    Pablico Vs Villapando

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Tan
    1) An administrative complaint was filed against the Mayor of San Vicente, Palawan for appointing a defeated mayoral candidate as a consultant within one year of the election, which was argued to violate the Constitution. 2) The Sangguniang Panlalawigan found the Mayor guilty and imposed the penalty of dismissal. The Office of the President affirmed this decision. 3) The Court of Appeals declared these decisions void and ordered the Vice Mayor to vacate office. 4) The Supreme Court held that only a court, not local legislative bodies or the Office of the President, has the power to remove elected local officials from office.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Pablico vs.

    Villapando

    Local Elective Officials maybe removed from office by order of the preoper
    court and not by the order of the President or sanguniang concerned.

    Facts: 

    An administrative complaint was filed with the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of


    Palawan against then Mayor Alejandro Villapando of San Vicente, Palawan for
    abuse of authority and culpable violation of the Constitution for entering into a
    consultancy agreement with Orlando Tiape, a defeated mayoralty candidate.
    Complainants argue that this amounted to appointment to a government position
    within the prohibited one-year period under Article IX-B, Sec. 6 of the 1987
    Constitution.

    In his answer, Villapando invoked Opinion No. 106, s. 1992, of the Department of


    Justice dated August 21, 1992, stating that the appointment of a defeated
    candidate within one year from the election as a consultant does not constitute
    an appointment to a government office or position as prohibited by the
    Constitution.

    The Sangguniang Panlalawigan found respondent guilty and imposed on him the
    penalty of dismissal from service. The Office of the President affirmed the
    decision. Vice-mayor Pablico took his oath as municipal mayor in place of
    Villapando.

    The Court of Appeals declared the decisions of the SP and OP void, and ordered
    Pablico to vacate the office.

    Issue: 

    May local legislative bodies and/or the Office of the President validly impose the
    penalty of dismissal from service on erring elective local officials?

    Held: 

    Section 60 of the Local Government Code of 1991 provides:

    Section 60. Grounds for Disciplinary Actions. – An elective local official may be
    disciplined, suspended, or removed from office on any of the following grounds:
                                                                   x x x     x x x
    An elective local official may be removed from office on the grounds enumerated
    above by order of the proper court.
    It is clear from the last paragraph of the aforecited provision that the penalty of
    dismissal from service upon an erring elective local official may be decreed only
    by a court of law.  Thus, in Salalima, et al. v. Guingona, et al., we held that “[t]he
    Office of the President is without 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 the aforequoted Section 60.”

    Article 124 (b), Rule XIX of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local
    Government Code, however, adds that – “(b) An elective local official may be
    removed from office on the grounds enumerated in paragraph (a) of this Article
    [The grounds enumerated in Section 60, Local Government Code of 1991] by
    order of the proper court or the disciplining authority whichever first acquires
    jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other.”  The disciplining authority referred to
    pertains to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan/Panlungsod/Bayan and the Office of
    the President.

    As held in Salalima, this grant to the “disciplining authority” of the power to


    remove elective local officials is clearly beyond the authority of the Oversight
    Committee that prepared the Rules and Regulations.  No rule or regulation may
    alter, amend, or contravene a provision of law, such as the Local Government
    Code.  Implementing rules should conform, not clash, with the law that they
    implement, for a regulation which operates to create a rule out of harmony with
    the statute is a nullity. (Pablico vs. Villapando, G.R. No. 147870.  July 31, 2002)

    You might also like