2. INVENTARIO
2.2. ESTADO NATURAL
2.2.8. ESTADO FITOSANITARIO
2.2.8.3. Enfermedades
1.
Nature. Preventive suspension ismerely a preventive measure, a preliminary step in an administrative investigation.
Purpose. The purpose of the suspension
order is to prevent the accused from using his position and the powers and prerogatives of his office to influence potential witnesses or tamper with records which may be vital in the prosecution of the case against him.If after such investigation, the charge is established and the person investigated is found guilty of acts warranting his suspension or removal, then he is suspended, removed or dismissed. This is the penalty. Not being a penalty, the period within which one is under preventive suspension is not considered part of the actual penalty of suspension. Thus, service of the preventive suspension cannot be credited as service of penalty. (Quimbo v. Gervacio,
GR 155620,08.09.2005)
2.
Pre-requisites. A preventivesuspension may be imposed by the Disciplinary Authority at any time (a) after the issues are joined i.e. respondent has filed an answer; (b) when the evidence of guilt is
strong; and (c) given the gravity of the offenses, there is great probability that the respondent, who continues to hold office, could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence. These are the pre-requisites. However, the failure of respondent to file his/ her answer despite several opportunities given him/ her is construed as a waiver of his/ her right to present evidence in his/ her behalf. In this situation, a preventive suspension may be imposed even if an answer has not been filed. (Joson v. Torres,
GR 131255, 05.20.98)
3.
Section 63 of the Local Government Code which provides for a 60 day maximum period for preventive suspension for a single office does not govern preventive suspensions imposed by the Ombudsman, which is a constitutionally created office and independent from the Executive branch of government. The Ombudsman’s power of preventive suspension is governed by Republic Act No. 6770otherwise known as “The Ombudsman Act of 1989”. Under the Act, the preventive suspension shall continue until the case is terminated by the Office of the Ombudsman but not more than six months. (Miranda v. Sandiganbayan, GR154098, 07.27.2005)
4.
Under the 1991 Local Government Code, a single preventive suspension of local elective officials should not go beyond 60 days. Thus, the Sandiganbayan cannot preventively suspend a mayor for 90 days. (Rios v. Sandiganbayan, GR 129913,09.26.97)
5.
A municipal official placed under preventive suspension by a sangguniang panlalawigan must file a motion for reconsideration before the said sanggunian before filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. Such motion is a conditionsine qua non before filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, as amended. (Flores v.
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga, GR 159022, 02.23.2005)
6.
There is nothing improper in placing an officer in preventive suspension before charges against him/ her are heard and before he/she is given an opportunity to prove his/her innocence. This is allowed so that such officer may not hamper the normal course of the investigation through the use of his/ her influence and authority. (Espiritu v.Melgar, GR 100874, 02.13.92)
7.
The Ombudsman pursuant to Republic Act No. 6770 and the President are both authorized to place under preventive suspension erring local officials of highly- urbanized cities, independent cities and provinces. The Ombudsman may impose a longer period of preventive suspension than the President may. In order to justify the preventive suspension of a public official under Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6770, the evidence of guilt should be strong, and (a) the charge against the officer or employee should involve dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the charges should warrant removal from the service; or (c) the respondent’s continued stay in office would prejudice the case filed against him/her. The Ombudsman can impose the 6-month preventive suspension on all public officials, whether elective or appointive, who are under investigation. On the other hand, in imposing the shorter period of sixty (60) days of preventive suspension under the 1991 Local Government Code on an elective local official (at any time after the issues are joined), it would be enough that (a) there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent has committed that act or acts complained of, (b) the evidence of culpability is strong, (c) the gravity of the offense so warrants, or (d) 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. (Hagad v. Gozo-dadole, GR108072, 12.12.95)
Who may impose preventive suspension.
Preventive suspension may be imposed by the President, the governor, or the mayor [as the case may be] at any tome after the issues are joined, when the evidence of guilt is strong, and given the gravity of the offense, there is great probability that 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; provided that any single preventive suspension shall not extend beyond 60 days, and in the event several administrative cases are filed against the respondent, he cannot be suspended for more than 90 days within a single year on the same ground or grounds existing and known at the time of the first suspension.
1. The authority to preventively suspend is exercised concurrently by the Ombudsman, pursuant to RA 6770; the same law authorizes a preventive suspension of six months. (Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole, 1995)
The preventive suspension of an elective local official (in this case the Mayor of San Fernando, Romblon) by the Sandignabayan
on a charge of violation of RA 3019, shall likewise be only for a period of 60 days, not 90 days, consistent with Section 63, RA 7160, which provides that “any single preventive suspension of local elective officials shall not extend beyond 60 days.” (Rios v. Sandiganbayan, 1997)
2. Upon expiration of the preventive suspension, the respondent shall be deemed reinstated in office without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings against him, which shall be terminated within 120 days from the time he was formally notified of the case against him.
3. Any abuse of the exercise of the power of preventive suspension shall be penalized as abuse of authority.
16. Penalty (Agra Notes)
1.
Under Section 60 of the 1991 Local Government Code, the penalty of dismissal from service upon an erring local official may be declared only by a court of law. Thus, Article 124(b), Rule XIX of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code, which grants the disciplinary authority the power to remove elective local officials, is a nullity. (Pablico v.Villapando, GR 147870, 07.31.2002)
2.
A sanggunian panlalawigan may cause the removal of a municipal mayor who did not appeal to the Office of the President within the reglemantary period the decision removal him/ her from office. If a public official is not removed before his/ her term of office expires, he/ she can no longer be removed if he/she thereafter re-elected for another term. Therefore, a decision removing an elective local official, which has become final before the election, constitutes a disqualification. (Reyes v. Comelec, GR120905, 03.07.96)
3.
The President may suspend an erring provincial elected official who committed several administrative offenses for an aggregate period exceeding 6 months provided that each administrative offense, the period of suspension does not exceed the 6- month limit. (Salalima v. Guingona, GR117589-92, 05.22.96)
4.
Dishonesty , oppression, misconduct in office, gross negligence, or an offense punishable by at least prison mayor constitute grounds for removal upon order of the proper court. (Castillo-Co v. Barbers GR 129952,06.16.98)
The penalty of suspension imposed upon the respondent shall not exceed his unexpired term, or a period of 6 months for every administrative
offense, nor shall said penalty be a bar to the candidacy of the respondent as long as he meets the qualifications required for the office.
1.
In Pablico v. Villapando, 2002, it was held that by virtue of Section 60 of the LGC, which provides that “an elective local official may be removed from office on grounds enumerated above by order of the proper court,” the penalty of dismissal form the service may be imposed upon an erring local elective official only by a court of law. The provision of the Implementing Rules and Regulations granting the disciplining authority the power to remove an elective local official administratively are invalid.2. Note that under Section 40 of the Local Government Code, the penalty of removal form office as a result of an administrative case shall be a bar to the candidacy of the respondent for any elective local office.
3.
In Salalima v. Guingona, 257 SCRA55, the SC upheld the imposition of the
administrative penalty of suspension of not more than 6 months for each offense, provided that the successive serves of the sentence should not exceed the unexpired portion of the term of the petitioners. The suspension did not amount to removal from office.