a.
a. Ad interim appointments are permanent. b. By accepting an ad interim appointment, the appointee waives his right to hold his old position. a. An acting appointment is merely temporary. a. A temporary appointment cannot become a permanent appointment, unless a new appointment, which is permanent, is made. This holds true unless the acting appointment was made because of a temporary vacancy. In such a case, the temporary appointee holds office until the assumption of office by the permanent appointee
The prohibition against the holding of multiple positions by Cabinet Members in Article VII, Section 13 of the Constitution does not apply to positions occupied in an ex officio capacity as provided by law and as required by the primary functions of their office. b. A Cabinet Member holding an exex officio position has no right to receive additional compensation, for his services in that position are already paid for by the compensation attached to his principal office.
b.
c.
Under Section 52 of the Civil Service Law, the provision for payment of salaries during the period of preventive suspension during the pendency of the investigation has been deleted. The preventive suspension was not a penalty. Its imposition was lawful, since it was authorized by law. If the penalty was modified because he was exonerated of the charge that was the basis for the decision ordering his dismissal, he is entitled to back wages, otherwise, this would be tantamount to punishing him after exoneration from the charge which caused his dismissal. He is entitled to back wages from the time of his dismissal until his reinstatement. The enforcement of the dismissal pending appeal was punitive, and he was exonerated.
a.
a.
Under the Local Government Code, the Vice-Municipal Mayor was deprived of the power to preside over the Sangguniang Bayan and is no longer a member of it. The temporary vacancy in the office of the Municipal Mayor creates a corresponding temporary vacancy in the Office of the Municipal Vice-Mayor when he acts as Municipal Mayor. This constitutes inability on his part to preside over the sessions of the Sangguniang Bayan.
a.
If he was reprimanded for the same charge, which was the basis of the decision ordering his dismissal, the public officer is not entitled to back wages, because he was found guilty, and the penalty was merely commuted.
a.
The suspension contemplated in Article VI, Section 16(3) of the Constitution is a punishment that is imposed by the Senate or House of Representatives upon an erring member, it is distinct from the suspension under Section 13 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which is not a penalty but a preventive measure. Since Section 13 of the Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act does not state that the public officer must be suspended only in the office where he is alleged to have committed the acts, which he has been charged, it applies to any office, which he may be holding.
a.
a.
a.
a.
The Disciplining Authority is not the proper party to seek a review of the decision of the Court of Appeals, because he is the one who heard the case and imposed the penalty. Being the disciplinary authority, the Secretary of Education should be impartial and should not actively participate in prosecuting Maximino.
Pursuant to the principle of separation of powers, the correctness of the decisions of the Supreme Court as final arbiter of all justiciable disputes is conclusive upon all other departments of the government; the Ombudsman has no power to review the decisions of the Supreme Court by entertaining a complaint against the Justices of the Supreme Court for knowingly rendering an unjust decision. Section 21 of the Ombudsman Act vests the Office of the Ombudsman with disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the government, except officials who may be removed only by impeachment, Members of Congress and the Judiciary. While a Commissioner of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) has the rank of a Justice of the Court of Appeals, he does not belong to the Judiciary but to the Executive Department. This simply means that he has the same compensation and privileges as a Justice of the Court of Appeals. If the Supreme Court were to investigate a Commissioner of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), it would be performing a non-judicial function. This will violate the principle of separation of powers. Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6770 grants the Ombudsman the power to impose preventive suspension up to six months. Preventive
suspension maybe imposed without any notice or hearing. It is merely a preliminary step in an administrative investigation and is not the final determination of the guilt of the officer concerned. The suspension is preventive and not punitive.
Irreparable injury due to immediately executory suspension order.
b.
The question involved is purely legal.
a.
When the complaint refers to the performance of the duties of Judge, Ombudsman should not act on it and should refer it to the Supreme Court. His investigation will encroach upon the exclusive power of administrative supervision of the Supreme Court over all courts.
a.
The Ombudsman can investigate crimes or offenses committed by public officers which are not connected with the performance of their duties. Under Section 13(1), Article XI of the Constitution, the Ombudsman can investigate any act or omission of a public official which is illegal.
a. A violation of Section 3(b) and (c) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act prescribes. Article XI, Section 15 of the Constitution does not apply to criminal cases for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Article XI, Section 15 of the Constitution provides that the right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees, or from them or from their nominees or transferees, shall not be barred by prescription.
a.
The assistance of counsel is not indispensable to due process in forfeiture proceedings since such proceedings are not criminal in nature. Moreover, the strict rules of evidence and procedure will not apply in administrative proceedings like seizure and forfeiture proceedings. What is important is that the parties are afforded the opportunity to be heard and the decision of the administrative authority is based on substantial evidence.
a. Administrative due process does not require that the actual taking of testimony or the presentation of evidence before the same officer who will decide the case. a.
discretion to accept or reject them. What is important is that Stevie was not deprived of his right to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof, the decision is supported by substantial evidence, and the commissioners acted on their own independent consideration of the law and facts of the case, and did not simply accept the views of their subordinates in arriving at a decision.
a.
candidate who receives the highest number of votes is a wrongful winner. By express legal mandate, he could not even have been a candidate in the first place, but by virtue of the lack of material time or any other intervening circumstances, his ineligibility might not have been passed upon prior to election date. Consequently, he may have had the opportunity to hold himself out to the electorate as a legitimate and duly qualified candidate. However, notwithstanding the outcome of the elections, his ineligibility as a candidate remains unchanged. Ineligibility does not only pertain to his qualifications as a candidate but necessarily affects his right to hold public office. The number of ballots cast in his favor cannot cure the defect of failure to qualify with the substantive legal requirements of
The Supreme Court has ruled that so long as the actual decision on the merits of the cases is made by the officer authorized by law to decide, the power to hold a hearing on the basis of which his decision will be made can be delegated and is not offensive to due process. The Court noted that: “As long as a
party is not deprived of his right to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof, and the decision is supported by the evidence in the record, there is no question that the requirements of due process and fair trial are fully met. In short, there is no abrogation of responsibility on the part of the officer concerned as the actual decision remains with and is made by said officer. It is, however, required that to give the substance of a hearing, which is for the purpose of making determinations upon evidence the officer who makes the determinations must consider and appraise the evidence which justifies them."
The rule is that “an ineligible
eligibility to run for public office.” b. Accordingly, “being anon-
candidate, the votes cast in his favor should not have been counted.” This leaves the second placer as “the qualified candidate who obtained the highest number of votes. Therefore, the rule on succession under the Local Government Code will not apply.”
a.
The findings of the subordinates are not conclusive upon the Commissioners, who have the
a.
Under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 7166, as amended by Republic Act No. 9369, no pre-proclamation
controversies regarding the appreciation of election returns and certificates of canvass maybe entertained in elections for members of the House of Representatives. The canvassing body may correct manifest errors in the certificate of canvass. His recourse is to file a regular election protest before the HRET.
