1_Ganzon_v_CA

7/26/2019 1_Ganzon_v_CA

1/16

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 93252. August 5, 1991.]

RODOLFO T.GANZON,petitioner, vs.THE

HONORABLECOURT OFAPPEALS, and LUIS T.SANTOS,respondents.

[G.R. No. 93746. August 5, 1991.]

MARY ANN RIVERA ARTIEDA,petitioner, vs.HON. LUIS SANTOS, inhis capacity as Secretaryof the Department ofLocal Government,NICANOR M. PATRICIO, in his capacity as Chief, Legal Serviceof theDepartment ofLocal Government, and SALVADOR CABALUNA,

JR.,respondents.

[G.R. No. 95245. August 5, 1991.]

RODOLFO T.GANZON,petitioner, vs.THEHONORABLECOURT OFAPPEALS, and LUIS T. SANTOS, in hiscapacity as the Secretary ofthe Department ofLocalGovernment,respondents.

Nicolas P.Sonalanfor petitioner in 93252.

Romeo A.Gerochifor petitioner in 93746.

Eugenio Originalfor petitioner in 95245.

SYLLABUS

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1987 CONSTITUTION LOCAL AUTONOMY

NATURE OF LOCAL OFFICIALS REMAIN ACCOUNTABLE TO CENTRALGOVERNMENT. Local autonomy, under theConstitution, involves a meredecentralization ofadministration, not of power, in which local officials remainaccountable to the central government in the manner the law may provide. Autonomydoes not contemplate making mini-states out of local government units. Autonomy, inthe constitutional sense, is subject to the guiding star, though not control, of thelegislature, albeit the legislative responsibility under the Constitution and as the"supervision clause" itself suggests is to wean local government units fromoverdependence on the central government. It is noteworthy that under the Charter"local autonomy" is not instantly self executing, but subject to, among other things, the

7/26/2019 1_Ganzon_v_CA

2/16

passage of a local government code, a local tax law, income distribution legislation, anda national representation law, and measures designed to realize autonomy at the localevel. It is also noteworthy that in spite of autonomy, theConstitution places the locagovernments under the general supervision of the Executive. It is noteworthy finally, thatthe Charter allows Congress to include in the local government code provisions forremoval oflocal officials, which suggests that Congress may exercise removal powersand as the existing Local Government Code has done, delegate its exercise to the

President.2. ID. ID. ID. NEWCONSTITUTION DOES NOT PRESCRIBE FEDERALISM.

As the Constitution itself declares, local autonomy means "a more responsive andaccountable local government structure instituted through a system ofdecentralization."TheConstitution, as we observed, does nothing more than to break up themonopoly of the national government over the affairs of local governments and as putby political adherents, to "liberate the local governments from the imperialism of Manila."

Autonomy, however, is not meant to end the relation ofpartnership and interdependencebetween the central administration and local government units, or otherwise, to usher in

a regime of federalism. The Charter has not taken such a radical step. Locagovernments, under theConstitution, are subject to regulation, however limited, and fono other purpose than precisely, albeit paradoxically, to enhance self-government.

3. ID. ID. ID. CHANGED SUPERVISION CLAUSE DOES NOT EXEMPT LOCALGOVERNMENTS FROM LEGISLATIVE REGULATION. The1987Constitution provides in Art. X, Sec. 4 that "[T]he President of the Philippines shalexercise general supervision over local governments." It modifies a counterpartprovision appearing in the 1935Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 10(1), stating that "[T]hePresident shall . . . exercise general supervision over all local governments as may be

provided by law." It is the considered opinion of theCourt that notwithstanding thechange in the constitutional language, the Charter did not intend to divest thelegislature of its right or the President ofher prerogative as conferred by existinglegislation to provide administrative sanctions against local officials. It is our opinionthat the omission (of "as may be provided by law") signifies nothing more than tounderscore local governments' autonomy from Congress and to break Congress"control" over local government affairs. TheConstitution did not, however, intend, for thesakeof local autonomy, to deprive the legislature of all authority over municipacorporations, in particular, concerning discipline. The change in constitutional languagedid not exempt local governments from legislative regulation provided regulation is

consistent with the fundamental premise ofautonomy.

4. ID. ID. ID. NATIONAL AUTHORITY CAN DISCIPLINE LOCAL OFFICIALS. Since local governments remain accountable to the national authority, the latter may, bylaw, and in the manner set forth therein, impose disciplinary action against local officialsIn the case at bar, the Secretary of Local Government, the President's alter ego, inconsonance with the specific legal provisionsof Batas Blg. 337, the existing LocaGovernment Code, can suspend petitioner Mayor of Iloilo City (G.R. Nos. 93252 and95245) and petitioner member of the Sangguniang Panglunsod (G.R. No. 93746).

7/26/2019 1_Ganzon_v_CA

3/16

5. ID. ID. ID. ID. "SUPERVISION" NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH DISCIPLINARYAUTHORITY. "Supervision" is not incompatible with disciplinary authority. Asthis Court held in Ganzon vs. Cayanan, 104 Phil. 484, "in administration law supervisionmeans overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers

perform their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them the former may take suchaction or step as prescribed by law to make them perform their duties."

6. ID. ID. ID. ID. POWER TO SUSPEND LOCAL OFFICIALS MUST NOT BE

EXERCISED OPPRESSIVELY. While the respondent Secretary ofInterior, as alterego of the President, under the existing Local Government Code, has the Power tosuspend the petitioner Iloilo City Mayor, such power cannot be exercised oppressivelyTen administrative cases have been successively filed against the City Mayor. TheMayor has been made to serve a total of 120 days ofsuspension for the first two casesand the respondent Secretary has issued another order preventively suspending theformer for another 60 days, the third time in twenty months. We are allowing the Mayoto suffer the duration of his third suspension. Insofar as the seven remaining chargesare concerned, we are urging the Department of Local Government, upon finality ofthis

decision, to undertake steps to expedite the same, subject to the Mayor's usuaremedies of appeal, judicial or administrative, or certiorari, if warranted, and meanwhilewe are precluding the Secretary from meting out further suspensions based on thoseremaining complaints, notwithstanding findings ofprimafacieevidence.

D E C I S I O N

SARMIENTO, J p:

The petitioners take common issue on the power of the President (acting through theSecretary of Local Government), to suspend and/or remove local officials.

The petitioners are the Mayorof Iloilo City (G.R. Nos. 93252 and 95245) and amember of the Sangguniang Panglunsod thereof (G.R. No. 93746), respectively. cdasia

The petitions ofMayor Ganzon originated from a series ofadministrativecomplaints, ten in number, filed against him by various city officials sometime in1988, on various charges, among them, abuse ofauthority, oppression, grave

misconduct, disgraceful and immoral conduct, intimidation, culpableviolation of theConstitution, and arbitrary detention. 1 The personalities involved areJoceleehn Cabaluna, a clerk at the city health office Salvador Cabaluna, herhusband Dr. Felicidad Ortigoza, Assistant City Health Officer Mansueto Malabor,Vice-Mayor Rolando Dabao, Dan Dalido, German Gonzales, Larry Ong, andEduardo Pea Redondo, members of the Sangguniang Panglunsod and PanchoErbite, a barangay tanod. The complaints against the Mayor are set forth in the

opinion of the respondentCourt of Appeals. 2We quote:

xxx xxx xxx
http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote2_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote1_0

7/26/2019 1_Ganzon_v_CA

4/16

In her verified complaint (Annex A), Mrs. Cabaluna, a clerk assigned to the City

Health, Office ofIloilo City charged that due to political reasons, having

supported the rival candidate, Mrs. Rosa O. Caram, the petitioner City Mayor,

using as an excuse the exigency of the service and the interest of the public,

pulled her out from rightful office where her qualification are best suited and

assigned her to a work that should be the function of a non-career service

employee. To make matters worse, a utility worker in the office of the Public

Services, whose duties are alien to the complainant's duties and functions, hasbeen detailed to take her place. The petitioner's act are pure harassments

aimed at luring her away from her permanent position or force her to resign.

In the case ofDra. Felicidad Ortigoza, she claims that the petitioner handpicked

her to perform task not befitting her position as Assistant City Health

Officer ofIloilo City that her office was padlocked without any explanation or

justification that her salary was withheld without cause since April 1, 1988 that

when she filed her vacation leave, she was given the run-around treatment in

the approval of her leave in connivance with Dr. Rodolfo Villegas and that she

was the object of a well-engineered trumped-up charge in an administrativecomplaint filed by Dr. Rodolfo Villegas (Annex B).

On the other hand, Mansuelo Malabor is the duty elected Vice Mayor ofIloilo

City and complainants Rolando Dabao, Dan Dalido, German Gonzales, Larry

Ong and Eduardo Pea Redondo are members of the Sangguniang

Panglunsod ofthe City of Iloilo. Their complaint arose out from the case where

Councilor Larry Ong, whose key to his office was unceremoniously and without

previous notice, taken by petitioner. Without an office, Councilor Ong had to

hold office at Plaza Libertad. The Vice-Mayor and the other complainants

sympathized with him and decided to do the same. However, the petitioner,together with his fully-armed security men, forcefully drove them away from

Plaza Libertad. Councilor Ong denounced the petitioner's actuations the

following day in the radio station and decided to hold office at the Freedom

Grandstand at Iloilo City and there were so many people who gathered to

witness the incident. However, before the group could reach the area, the

petitioner, together with his security men, led the firemen using a firetruck in

dozing water to the people and the bystanders.

Another administrative case was filed by Pancho Erbite, a barangay tanod,appointed by former mayor Rosa O. Caram. On March 13, 1988, without the

benefit ofcharges filed against him and no warrant ofarrest was issued, Erbite

was arrested and detained at the City Jail ofIloilo City upon orders ofpetitioner.

In jail, he was allegedly mauled by other detainees thereby causing injuries. He

was released only the following day.3

The Mayor thereafter answered, 4 and the cases were set for hearing. Theopinion of the Court ofAppeals also set forth the succeeding events:

7/26/2019 1_Ganzon_v_CA

5/16

xxx xxx xxx

The initial hearing in the Cabaluna and Ortigoza cases were set for hearing on

June 20-21, 1988 at the Regional Office of the Department ofLocal Government

in Iloilo City. Notices, through telegrams, were sent to the parties (Annex L) and

the parties received them, including the petitioner. The petitioner asked for a

postponement before the scheduled dateof hearing and was represented by

counsel, Atty. Samuel Castro. The hearing officers, Atty. Salvador Quebral and

Atty. Marino Bermudez had to come all the way from Manila for the two-dayhearings but was actually held only on June 20, 1988 in view of the inability and

unpreparednessof petitioner's counsel.

The next hearings were re-set to July 25, 26, 27, 1988 in the same venue

Iloilo City. Again, the petitioner attempted to delay the proceedings and moved

for a postponement under the excuse that he had just hired his counsel.

Nonetheless, the hearing officers denied the motion to postpone, in view of the

fact that the parties were notified by telegrams of the scheduled hearings

(Annex M).

In the said hearings, petitioner's counsel cross-examined the complainants and

their witnesses.

Finding probable grounds and reasons, the respondent issued a preventive

suspension order on August 11, 1988 to last until October 11, 1988 for a

period of sixty (60) days.

Then the next investigation was set on September 21, 1988 and the petitioner

again asked for a postponement to September 26, 1988. On September 26,

1988, the complainants and petitioner were present, together with their

respective counsel. The petitioner sought for a postponement which wasdenied. In these hearings which were held in Manila, the petitioner testified in

Adm. Case No. C-10298 and 10299.

The investigation was continued regarding the Malabor case and the

complainants testified including their witnesses.

On October 10, 1988, petitioner's counsel, Atty. Onginal moved for a

postponement ofthe October 24, 1988 hearing to November 7 to 11, 1988 which

was granted. However, the motion for change of venue was denied due to

lack of funds. At the hearing on November 7, 1988, the parties and counselwere present. Petitioner reiterated his motion to change venue and moved for

postponement anew. The counsel discussed a proposal to take the

deposition ofwitnesses in Iloilo City so the hearing was indefinitely postponed.

However, the parties failed to come to terms and after the parties were

notified of the hearing, the investigation was set to December 13 to 15, 1988.

The petitioner sought for another postponement on the ground that his

witnesses were sick or cannot attend the investigation due to

lack oftransportation. The motion was denied and the petitioner was given up to

7/26/2019 1_Ganzon_v_CA

6/16

December 14, 1988 to present his evidence. LexLib

On December 14, 1988, petitioner's counsel insisted on his motion for

postponement and the hearing officers gave petitioner up to December 15, 1988

to present his evidence. On December 15, 1988, the petitioner failed to present

evidence and the cases were considered submitted for resolution.

In the meantime, a prima facie evidence was found to exist in the arbitrary

detention case filed by Pancho Erbite so the respondent ordered the petitioner'ssecond preventive suspension dated October 11, 1988 for another sixty (60)

days. The petitioner was able to obtain a restraining order and a

writ ofpreliminary injunction in the Regional TrialCourt, Branch 33 of Iloilo City.

The second preventive suspension was not enforced.5

Amidst the two successive suspensions, Mayor Ganzoninstituted an action foprohibition against the respondent Secretary ofLocal Government (now, Interior) in theRegional TrialCourt, Iloilo City, where he succeeded in obtaining a writof preliminaryinjunction. Presently, he instituted CA-G.R. SP No. 16417, an action for prohibition, in

the respondent Court of Appeals.

Meanwhile, on May 3, 1990, the respondent Secretary issued another orderpreventively suspending Mayor Ganzon for another sixty days, the third time in twentymonths, and designating meantime Vice-Mayor Mansueto Malabor as acting mayorUndaunted, Mayor Ganzon commenced CA-G.R. SP No. 20736 of theCourt of Appeals

a petition for prohibition, 6 (Malabor, it is to be noted, is one of the complainants, andhence, he is interested in seeing MayorGanzon ousted.)

On September 7, 1989, theCourt of Appeals rendered judgment, dismissing CA-G.R

SP No. 16417. On July 5, 1990, it likewise promulgated a decision, dismissing CA-G.RSP No. 20736. In a Resolution dated January 24, 1990, it issued a Resolution certifyingthe petition of Mary Ann Artieda, who had been similarly charged by the respondentSecretary, to this Court.

On June 26, 1990, we issued a Temporary Restraining Order, barring the respondentSecretary from implementing the suspension orders, and restraining theenforcement of the Court ofAppeals' two decisions.

In our Resolution ofNovember 29, 1990, we consolidated all three cases. In ouResolutions of January 15, 1991, we gave due course thereto.

Mayor Ganzon claims as a preliminary (G.R. No. 93252), that the Department of LocaGovernment in hearing the ten cases against him, had denied him due process oflawand that the respondent Secretary had been "biased, prejudicial and hostile" towards

him 7 arising from his (Mayor Ganzon's) alleged refusal to join the Laban ng

Demokratikong Pilipino party8 and the running political rivalry they maintained in the las

congressional and local elections 9 and his alleged refusal to operate a lottery in Iloilo

City. 10 He also alleges that he requested the Secretary to lift his suspension since ihad come ninety days prior to an election (the barangay elections of November 14
http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote9_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote6_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote10_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote5_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote7_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote8_0

7/26/2019 1_Ganzon_v_CA

7/16

1988), 11 notwithstanding which, the latter proceeded with the hearing and meted ou

two more suspension orders of the aforementioned cases. 12 He likewise contendsthat he sought to bring the cases to Iloilo City (they were held in Manila) in order to

reduce the costs of proceeding, but the Secretary rejected his request. 13 He states thahe asked for postponement on 'valid and justifiable" 14 grounds, among them, that he

was suffering from a heart ailment which required confinement that his "vital" 15witness

was also hospitalized16but that the latter unduly denied his request. 17

Mayor Ganzon's primary argument (G.R. Nos. 93252 and 95245) is that theSecretary of Local Government is devoid, in any event, of any authority to suspend andremove local officials, an argument reiterated by the petitioner Mary Ann Rivera Artieda(G.R. No. 93746).

As to Mayor Ganzon's charges of denial of due process, the records do not show veryclearly in what manner the Mayor might have been deprived of his rights by therespondent Secretary. His claims that he and Secretary Luis Santos were (are) politicarivals and that his "persecution" was politically motivated are pure speculation and

although the latter does not appear to have denied these contentions (as heMayorGanzon, claims), we can not take his word for it the way we would have undeless political circumstances, considering furthermore that "political feud" has often beena good excuse in contesting complaints.

The Mayor has failed furthermore to substantiate his say-so's that Secretary Santos hadattempted to seduce him to join the administration party and to operate a lottery in IloiloCity. Again, although the Secretary failed to rebut his allegations, we can not acceptthem at face value, much more, as judicial admissions as he would have us accept

them, 18for the same reasons above-stated and furthermore, because his say-so's were

never corroborated by independent testimonies. As a responsible public officialSecretary Santos, in pursuing an official function, is presumed to be performing hisduties regularly and in the absenceof contrary evidence, no ill motive can be ascribed tohim.

As to Mayor Ganzon's contention that he had requested the respondent Secretary todefer the hearing on account of the ninety-day ban prescribed by Section 62 of BatasBlg. 337, the Court finds the question to be moot and academic since we have in fact

restrained the Secretary from further hearing the complaints against the petitioners. 19

As to his request, finally, for postponements, the Court is afraid that he has not givenany compelling reason why we should overturn the Courtof Appeals, which found noconvincing reason to overrule Secretary Santos in denying his requests. Besidespostponements are a matterof discretion on the part ofthe hearing officer, and based onMayor Ganzon's above story, we are not convinced that the Secretary has beenguilty of a grave abuse of discretion.

The Court can not say, under these circumstances, that Secretary Santos' actuationsdeprived Mayor Ganzon ofdue process of law.

We come to the core question: Whether or not the Secretary of Local Government, as
http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote17_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote19_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote18_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote13_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote16_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote15_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote11_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote12_0

7/26/2019 1_Ganzon_v_CA

8/16

the President's alter ego, can suspend and or remove local officials.

It is the petitioners' argument that the 1987 Constitution 20no longer allows thePresident, as the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions did, to exercise the power ofsuspensionand/or removal over local officials. According to both petitioners, theConstitution ismeant, first, to strengthen self-rule by local government units and second, by deleting

the phrase "as may be provided by law," 21 to strip the President of the power ofcontroover local governments. It is a view, so they contend, that finds support in thedebates of the Constitutional Commission.

The provision in question reads as follows:

SECTION 4. The President of the Philippines shall exercise general

supervision over local governments. Provinces with respect to component cities

and municipalities, and cities and municipalities with respect to component

barangays shall ensure that the acts of their component units are within the

scope of their prescribed powers and functions.22

It modifies a counterpart provision appearing in the 1935 Constitution, which we quote:

SECTION 10. The President shall have control ofall the executive

departments, bureaus, or offices, exercise general supervision over all local

governments as may be provided by law, and take care that the laws be

faithfully executed. 23

The petitioners submit that the deletion (of "as may be provided by law") is significantas their argument goes, since: (1) the power ofthe President is "provided by law" and (2)

hence, no law may provide for it any longer.LLphil

It is to be noted that in meting out the suspensions under question, theSecretary ofLocal Government acted in consonance with the specific legaprovisions of Batas Blg. 337, the Local Government Code, we quote:

SECTION 62. Notice ofHearing. Within seven days after the complaint is

filed, the Minister of Local Government, or the sanggunianconcerned, as the

case may be, shall require the respondent to submit his verified answer within

seven days from receipt of said complaint, and commence the hearing and

investigation ofthe case within ten days after receipt of such answer of the

respondent. No investigation shall be held within ninety days immediately prior

to an election, and no preventive suspension shall be imposed within the said

period. If preventive suspension has been imposed prior to the aforesaid period,

the preventive suspension shall be lifted. 24

SECTION 63. Preventive Suspension. (1) Preventive suspension may be

imposed by the Minister ofLocal Government if the respondent is a provincial or

city official, by the provincial governor if the respondent is an elective municipal

official, or by the city or municipal mayor if the respondent is an elective

barangay official.
http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote24_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote21_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote22_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote20_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote23_0

7/26/2019 1_Ganzon_v_CA

9/16

(2) Preventive suspension may be imposed at any time after the issues are

joined, when there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent has

committed the act or acts complained of, when the evidence ofculpability is

strong, when the gravity of the offense so warrants, or when 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. In all cases, preventive

suspension shall not extend beyond sixty days after the start of said

suspension.

(3) At the expiration ofsixty days, the suspended official shall be deemed

reinstated in office without prejudice to the continuation ofthe proceedings

against him until its termination. However, if the delay in the proceedings ofthe

case is due to his fault, neglect or request, the timeof the delay shall not be

counted in computing the time ofsuspension. 25

The issue, as the Courtunderstands it, consists ofthree questions: (1) Did the1987 Constitution, in deleting the phrase "as may be provided by law" intend to dives

the President of the power to investigate, suspend, discipline, and or remove locaofficials? (2) Has the Constitutionrepealed Sections 62 and 63of the Local GovernmentCode? (3) What is the significance of the change in the constitutional language?

It is the considered opinion ofthe Court that notwithstanding the change in theconstitutional language, the charter did not intend to divest the legislature of its right or the President of her prerogative as conferred by existing legislation to provideadministrative sanctions against local officials. It is our opinion that the omission (of"asmay be provided by law") signifies nothing more than to underscore local governmentsautonomy from congress and to break Congress' "control" over local government affairs

TheConstitution did not, however, intend, for the sakeof local autonomy, to deprive thelegislature of all authority over municipal corporations, in particular, concerningdiscipline.

Autonomy does not, after all, contemplate making mini-states out of local governmenunits, as in the federal governments of the United States of America (or Brazil orGermany), although Jefferson is said to have compared municipal corporationseuphemistically to "small republics". 26 Autonomy, in the constitutional sense, is subjectto the guiding star, though not control, of the legislature, albeit the legislativeresponsibility under the Constitution and as the "supervision clause" itself suggest

is to wean local government units from over dependence on the central government.It is noteworthy that under the Charter, "local autonomy" is not instantly self-executing

but subject to, among other things, the passage of a local government code, 27 a loca

tax law, 28 income distribution legislation, 29 and a national representation law, 30 and

measures 31 designed to realize autonomy at the local level. It is also noteworthy that inspite of autonomy, theConstitution places the local government under the generasupervision of the Executive. It is noteworthy finally, that the Charter allows Congress toinclude in the local government code provisions for removal oflocal officials, whichsuggest that Congress may exercise removal powers, and as the existing Loca
http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote29_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote31_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote25_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote28_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote27_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote30_0

7/26/2019 1_Ganzon_v_CA

10/16

Government Code has done, delegate its exercise to the President. Thus:

SECTION 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall

provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure

instituted through a system ofdecentralization with effective

mechanisms ofrecall, initiative, and referendum, allocate among the different

local government units their powers, responsibilities and resources, and provide

for the qualifications, election, appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers

and functions and duties oflocal officials, and all other matters relating to the

organization and operation of the local units. 32

As hereinabove indicated, the deletion of "as may be provided by law" was meant tostress, sub silencio, the objective of the framers to strengthen local autonomy bysevering congressional control of its affairs, as observed by the Court ofAppeals, like

the power oflocal legislation. 33 TheConstitution did nothing more, however, and insofaas existing legislation authorizes the President (through the Secretary ofLocaGovernment) to proceed against local officials administratively, theConstitution containsno prohibition.

The petitioners are under the impression that theConstitution has left the Presidenmere supervisory powers, which supposedly excludes the power ofinvestigation, anddenied her control, which allegedly embraces disciplinary authority. It is a mistakenimpression because legally, "supervision" is not incompatible with disciplinary authority

as this Court has held, 34thus:

xxx xxx xxx

It is true that in the case ofMondano vs. Silvosa, 51 Off. Gaz., No. 6 p. 2884,

this Courthad occasion to discuss this scope and extent of the

power ofsupervision by the President over local government officials in contrast

to the power of control given to him over executive officials of our government

wherein it was emphasized that the two terms, control and supervision, are two

different things which differ one from the other in meaning and extent. Thus in

that case theCourt has made the following digression: "In administration law

supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that

subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them

the former may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them

perform their duties. Control, on the other hand, means the power of an officer

to alter or modify or nullifyof set aside what a subordinate officer had done in theperformance ofhis duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for

that ofthe latter." But from this pronouncement it cannot be reasonably inferred

that the power ofsupervision ofthe President over local government officials

does not include the power ofinvestigation when in his opinion the goodof the

public service so requires, as postulated in Section 64(c) ofthe Revised

Administrative Code. . . . 35

xxx xxx xxx
http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote33_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote35_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote32_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote34_0

7/26/2019 1_Ganzon_v_CA

11/16

"Control" has been defined as "the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or seaside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and tosubstitute the judgment of the former for test of the latter." 36 "Supervision" on the otherhand means "overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate

officers perform their duties." 37 As we held, 38however, "investigating" is noinconsistent with "overseeing", although it is a lesser power than "altering".

The impression is apparently exacerbated by the Court's pronouncements in at leas

three cases, Lacson v.Roque, 39 Hebron v. Reyes,40 and Mondano v. Silvosa, 41and

possibly, a fourth one, Pelaez v. Auditor General. 42In Lacson, this Court said that thePresident enjoyed no control powers but only supervision "as may be provided by

law," 43 a rule we reiterated in Hebron, andMondano. In Pelaez, we stated that thePresident "may not . . . suspend an elective official of a regular municipality or take anydisciplinary action against him, except on appeal from a decision of the corresponding

provincial board." 44However, neither Lacson norHebron nor Mondanocategoricallybanned the Chief Executive from exercising acts of disciplinary authority because shedid not exercise control powers, but because no law allowed her to exercise disciplinary

authority. Thus, according toLacson:

The contention that the President has inherent power to remove or suspend

municipal officers is without doubt not well taken. Removal and

suspension ofpublic officers are always controlled by the particular law

applicable and its proper construction subject to constitutional limitations. 45

In Hebron, we stated:

Accordingly, when the procedure for the suspensionof an officer is specified bylaw, the same must be deemed mandatory and adhered to strictly, in the

absence ofexpress or clear provision to the contrary which does not exist

with respect to municipal officers. . . . 46

In Mondano, the Court held:

. . . The Congress has expressly and specifically lodged the provincial

supervision over municipal officials in the provincial governor who is authorized

to "receive and investigate complaints made under oath against municipal

officers for neglect of duty, oppression, corruption or other

form ofmaladministrationof office, and conviction by final judgment ofany crime

involving moral turpitude." And if the charges are serious, "he shall submit

written charges touching the matter to the provincial board, furnishing a

copy of such charges to the accused either personally or by registered mail, and

he may in such case suspend the officer (not being the municipal treasurer)

pending action by the board, if in his opinion the charge by one effecting the

official integrityof the officer in question." Section 86 ofthe Revised

Administration Code adds nothing to the power ofsupervision to be exercised by

the Department Head over the administration of. . . municipalities. . . . If it be
http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote44_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote39_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote46_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote42_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote43_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote40_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote45_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote38_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote37_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote41_0

7/26/2019 1_Ganzon_v_CA

12/16

construed that it does and such additional power is the same authority as that

vested in the Department Head by section 79(c) of the Revised Administrative

Code, then such additional power must be deemed to have been abrogated by

Section 110(1), Article VII, of theConstitution." 47

xxx xxx xxx

In Pelaez, we stated that the President can not impose disciplinary measures on loca

officials except on appeal from the provincial board pursuant to the AdministrativeCode. 48

Thus, in those case that thisCourt denied the President the power (to suspend removeit was not because we did not think that the President can not exercise it onaccount of his limited power, but because the law lodged the power elsewhere. But inthose cases in which the law gave him the power, the Court, as in Ganzon v.Kayanan

found little difficulty in sustaining him. 49

The Court does not believe that the petitioners can rightfully point to the debatesof the

Constitutional Commission to defeat the President's powers. TheCourt believes that thedeliberations are by themselves inconclusive, because although Commissioner Jose

Nolledo would exclude the power ofremoval from the President,50 Commissioner Blas

Ople would not. 51

The Court is consequently reluctant to say that the newConstitution has repealed theLocal Government Code, Batas Blg. 37. As we said, "supervision" and "removal" are noincompatible terms and one may stand with the other notwithstanding the strongerexpression of local autonomy under the new Charter. We have indeed held that in

spite of the approval of the Charter, Batas Blg. 337 is still in force and effect. 52

As the Constitution itself declares, local autonomy means "a more responsive andaccountable local government structure instituted through a

system ofdecentralization." 53TheConstitution, as we observed, does nothing more thanto break up the monopoly of the national government over the affairs of locagovernments and as put by political adherents, to "liberate the local governments fromthe imperialism of Manila." Autonomy, however, is not meant to end therelation ofpartnership and interdependence between the central administration and locagovernment units, or otherwise, to usher in a regime of federalism. The Charter has nottaken such a radical step. Local governments, under theConstitution, are subject to

regulation, however limited, and for no other purpose than precisely, albeitparadoxically, to enhance self-government.

As we observed in one case,54 decentralization means devolution of nationaadministration but not power to the local levels. Thus:

Now, autonomy is either decentralizationof administration or

decentralizationof power. There is decentralizationof administration when the

central government delegates administrative powers to political subdivisions in

order to broaden the base ofgovernment power and in the process to make local

governments "more responsive and accountable," and "ensure their fullest
http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote51_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote53_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote47_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote49_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote52_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote50_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote48_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote54_0

7/26/2019 1_Ganzon_v_CA

13/16

development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners

in the pursuit ofnational development and social progress." At the same time, it

relieves the central government ofthe burden ofmanaging local affairs and

enables it to concentrate on national concerns. The President exercises

"general supervision" over them, but only to "ensure that local affairs are

administered according to law." He has no control over their acts in the sense

that he can substitute their judgments with his own.

Decentralizationof power, on the other hand, involves an abdication ofpolitical

power in the favor of local governments units declared to be autonomous, In

that case, the autonomous government is free to chart its own destiny and

shape its future with minimum intervention from central authorities. According to

a constitutional author, decentralizationof power amounts to "self-immolation,"

since in that event, the autonomous government becomes accountable not to

the central authorities but to its contituency.55

The successive sixty-day suspensions imposed on Mayor Rodolfo Ganzon is albeianother matter. What bothers the Court, and what indeed looms very large, is the facthat since the Mayor is facing ten administrative charges, the Mayor is in fact facing thepossibility of 600 days of suspension, in the event that all ten cases yieldprimafacie findings. TheCourt is not of course tolerating misfeasance in public office(assuming that Mayor Ganzon is guilty ofmisfeasance) but it is certainly anothequestion to make him serve 600 days ofsuspension, which is effectively, to suspend him

out of office. As we held: 5 6

2. Petitioner is a duly elected municipal mayorof Lianga, Surigao del Sur.

His term ofoffice does not expire until 1986. Were it not for this information and

the suspension decreed by the Sandiganbayan according to the Anti-Graft and

Corrupt Practices Act, he would have been all this while in the full

discharge of his functions as such municipal mayor. He was elected precisely to

do so. As ofOctober 26, 1983, he has been unable to. It is a basic

assumption ofthe electoral process implicit in the right ofsuffrage that the people

are entitled to the services ofelective officialsof their choice. For misfeasance or

malfeasance, any of them could, of course, be proceeded against

administratively or, as in this instance, criminally. In either case, his culpability

must be established. Moreover, if there be a criminal action, he is entitled to the

constitutional presumption ofinnocence. A preventive suspension may be

justified. Its continuance, however, for an unreasonable length of time raises adue process question. For even if thereafter he were acquitted, in the

meanwhile his right to hold office had been nullified. Clearly, there would be in

such a case an injustice suffered by him. Nor is he the only victim. There is

injustice inflicted likewise on the people ofLianga. They were deprived ofthe

services ofthe man they had elected to serve as mayor. In that sense, to

paraphrase Justice Cardozo, the protracted continuance ofthis preventive

suspension had outrun the bonds of reason and resulted in sheer oppression. A

denial of due process is thus quite manifest. It is to avoid such an

7/26/2019 1_Ganzon_v_CA

14/16

unconstitutional application that the order ofsuspension should be lifted.57

The plain truth is that thisCourt has been ill at ease with suspensions, for the above

reasons, 58 and so also, because it is out of the ordinary to have a vacancy in loca

government. The sole objective of a suspension, as we have held, 59 is simply "toprevent the accused from hampering the normal causeof the investigation with his

influence and authority over possible witnesses" 60 or to keep him off "the records and

other evidence." 61 It is a means, and no more, to assist prosecutors in firming up acase, if any, against an erring local official. Under the Local Government Code, it can

not exceed sixty days, 62which is to say that it need not be exactly sixty days long if ashorter period is otherwise sufficient, and which is also to say that it ought to be lifted ifprosecutors have achieved their purpose in a shorter span.

Suspension is not a penalty and is not unlike preventive imprisonment in which theaccused is held to insure his presence at the trial. In both cases, the accused (therespondent) enjoys a presumption of innocence unless and until found guilty. cdphil

Suspension finally is temporary, and as the Local Government Code provides, it may beimposed for no more than sixty days. As we held, 63 a longer suspension is unjust andunreasonable, and we might add, nothing less than tyranny.

As we observed earlier, imposing 600 days ofsuspension which is not a remotepossibility on Mayor Ganzon is to all intents and purposes, to make him spend therest ofhis term in inactivity. It is also to make, to all intents and purposes, his suspensionpermanent.

It is also, in fact, to mete out punishment in spite of the fact that the Mayor's guilt has nobeen proven. Worse, any absolution will be for naught because needless to say, the

length of his suspension would have, by the time he is reinstated, wiped out his tenureconsiderably.

The Court is not to be mistaken for obstructing the efforts of the respondent Secretary tosee that justice is done in Iloilo City, yet it is hardly any argument to inflict onMayor Ganzon successive suspensions when apparently, the respondent Secretary hashad sufficient time to gather the necessary evidence to build a case against the Mayo without suspending him a day longer. What is intriguing is that the respondent

Secretary has been cracking down, so to speak, on the Mayor piecemeal apparently,to pin him down ten times the pain, when he, the respondent Secretary, could havepursued a consolidated effort.

We reiterate that we are not precluding the President, through the Secretary ofInteriofrom exercising a legal power, yet we are of the opinion that the Secretary ofInterior isexercising that power oppressively, and needless to say, with a graveabuse of discretion.

The Court is aware that only the third suspension is under question, and that anytalk offuture suspensions is in fact premature. The fact remains, however, tha
http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=1488&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21857&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18800&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18849&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=35383&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=18322&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=26153&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=51147&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=ganzon+v.+Court+of+Appeals&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote60_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/18800?hi

Documents

1_Ganzon_v_CA