CASIANO V. CA WILLS AND SUCCESSION FULL TEXT REVOCATION
commercial law
Leonor v. CAFull description
06 - RODOLFO T. GANZON vs. COURT OF APPEALS | G.R. No. 93252 August 5, 1991
FACTS Rodolfo Ganzon was the then mayor of Iloilo City. 10 complaints were led against him on various charges among them a!use of authority oppression grave misconduct disgraceful and immoral conduct intimidation culpa!le violation of the Constitution and ar!itrary detention. "he #ecretary of $ocal Government Government issued several several suspension orders orders against Ganzon !ased on the merits of the complaints led against him hence Ganzon was facing a!out %00 days of suspension. Ganzon G anzon o!tained a preliminary in&unction vs the #ecretary. #ecretary. Ganzon then appealed the issue to the C' and the C' a(rmed the suspension order !y the #ecretary. #C issued a "R) v the #ecretary and the C'.
Petitioner's Arguments (Ganzon): "he 1*+, Constitution does not authorize authorize the -resident -resident nor any of his alter ego to suspend suspend and remove local o(cials this is !ecause the 1*+, Constitution supports local autonomy and strengthens the same. /hat was given !y the present Constitution was mere supervisory power enial of due process of the law #ecretary had !een !iased pre&udicial and hostile towards Ganzon which arose from his alleged refusal to &oin the $a!an ng emo2rati2ong -ilipino -ilipino party and the running political rivalry they maintained in the last congressional congressional and local elections and his alleged refusal to operate a lottery in Iloilo City. City. Ganzon also re3uested the #ecretary to lift his suspension since it had come ninety days prior to an election 4the !arangay elections of 5ovem!er 16 1*++7 to no avail. Ganzon re3uested postponement on valid and &ustia!le grounds which was unduly denied8 9e was su:ering from a heart ailment which re3uired connement ' vitalwitness was also hospitalized another lac2ed transportation
!ssu" /hether or not the #ecretary of $ocal Government as the -resident;s alter ego can suspend and or remove local o(cials. 4
Ganzon is under the impression that the Constitution has left the -resident mere supervisory powers which supposedly e=cludes the power of investigation and denied her control which allegedly em!races disciplinary authority. It is a mista2en impression !ecause legally &su'"()*s*o+ *s +ot *+o'/t*$" *t %*s*'$*+/( /uto(*t . "he #C had occasion to discuss the scope and e=tent of the power of supervision !y the -resident over local government o(cials in contrast to the power of control given to him over e=ecutive o(cials of our government wherein it was emphasized that the two terms control and supervision are two di:erent things which di:er one from the ot her in meaning and e=tent. >In administration law supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an o(cer to see that su!ordinate o(cers perform their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulll them the former may ta2e such action or step as prescri!ed !y law to ma2e them perform their duties. Control on the other hand means the power of an o(cer to alter or modify or nullify of set asid aside e what what a su!o su!ord rdin inat ate e o(ce o(cerr had had done done in the the perf perfor orma manc nce e of his his duti duties es and and to su!stitute the &udgment of the former for that of the latter.? @ut from this pronouncement pronouncement it cannot !e reasona!ly inferred that the power of supervision of the -resident over local government o(cials does not include the power of investigation when in his opinion the good of the pu!lic service so re3uires. re3uires.
"he #ecretary of $ocal Government as the alter ego of the president in suspending Ganzon is e=ercising a valid power. 9e however overstepped !y imposing a %00 day suspension.
"he #C is ill at ease with suspensions in&ustice inAicted to the accused if ac3uitted since right to o(ce will have !een nullied and to the people who are deprived of the services of the man they elected. "he sole o!&ective of a suspension8to prevent the accused from hampering the normal cause of the investigation with his inAuence and authority over possi!le witnesses or to 2eep him o: the records and other evidence. ' preventive suspension may !e &ustied. @B" its continuance however for an unreasona!le length of time raises a due process 3uestion #uspension is temporary and $ocal Government Code provides8it may !e imposed for no more than si=ty days. ' longer suspension is un&ust and unreasona!le nothing less than tyranny. Ganzons guilt has not !een proven the length of his suspension would have !y the time he is reinstated wiped out his tenure considera!lyDthis cannot !e allowed.
Cou(t $/*% %o+ t" 4o$$o*+g (u$"s
1. $ocal autonomy under the Constitution involves a mere decentralization of administration not of power in which local o(cials remain accounta!le to the central government in the manner the law may provide E. "he new Constitution does not prescri!e federalism F. "he change in constitutional language 4with respect to the supervision clause7 was meant !ut to deny legislative control over local governments it did not e=empt the latter from legislative regulations provided regulation is consistent with the fundamental premise of autonomy 6. #ince local governments remain accounta!le to the national authority the latter may !y law and in the manner set forth therein impose disciplinary action against local o(cials . #upervision and investigation are not inconsistent terms investigation does not signify control 4which the -resident does not have7 %. "he petitioner Hayor Rodolfo Ganzon. may serve the suspension so far ordered !ut may no longer !e suspended for the o:enses he was charged originally provided8
a7 that delays in the investigation of those charges due to his fault neglect or re3uest 4the time of the delay7 shall not !e counted in computing the time of suspension. !7 that if during or after the e=piration of his preventive suspension the petitioner commits another or other crimes and a!uses for which proper charges are led against him !y the aggrieved party or parties his previous suspension shall not !e a !ar to his !eing preventively suspended again if warranted under su!par. 4E7 #ection %F $GC
