2. INVENTARIO
2.2. ESTADO NATURAL
2.2.8. ESTADO FITOSANITARIO
2.2.8.2. Plagas
1.
An erring elective local officials has rights akin to the constitutional rights of an accused. These are essentially part of procedural due process. The local elective official has the (1) right to appear and defend himself/ herself in person or by counsel; (2) the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him/ her; and (3) the right to compulsory attendance of witness and the production of documentary evidence. Thus, the official’s right to a formal investigation was not satisfied when the complaint against him/ her decided on the basis of position papers. The provisions for administrative disciplinary actions elective local officials are markedly different from appointive officials. The rules on the removal and suspension of elective local officials are more stringent. The procedure of requiring position papers in lieu of a hearing in administrative cases is expressly allowed with respect to appointive officials but not to those elected. An elective official, elected by popular vote, is directly responsible to the community that elected him/ her. The official has a definite term of office fixed by law which is relatively of short duration. Suspension and removal from officedefinitely affects and shortens this term of office. When an elective official is suspended or removed, the people are deprived of the services of the official they had elected. (Joson v. Torres, GR 131255, 05.20.98)
2.
The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic requirement of notice and a real opportunity to be heard. In administrative proceedings, procedural due process simply means the opportunity to explain one’s side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Procedural due process has been recognized to include the following: (1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a respondent’s legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in one’s favor, and to defend one’s rights; (3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made known to the parties affected. Kinship alone does not establish bias and partiality. Bias and partiality cannot be presumed. In administrative proceedings, no less than substantial proof is required. Mere allegation is not equivalent to proof. Mere suspicion of partiality is not enough. There should be hard evidence to prove it, as well as manifest showing of bias and partiality stemming from an extrajudicial source or some other basis.(Casimiro v. Tandog, GR 146137, 06.08.2005)
3.
An administrative complaint against an erring elective official must be verified and filed with the proper government office. A complaint against an elective provincial or city must be filed with the Office of the President. A complaint against an elective municipal official must be filed with the Sangguniang Panlalawigan while that of a barangay official must be filed before the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan.(Mendoza v. Laxina, GR 146875, 07.14.2003)
4.
The lack of verification in a letter- complaint may be waived, the defect being not fatal. Verification is a formal, not jurisdictional requites. (Joson v. Torres GR131255, 05.20.98)
5.
Decisions of the Office of the President are final and executory. No motion for reconsideration is allowed by law but theparties may appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals. The appeal, however, does not stay the execution of the decision. The Secretary of the Interior and Local Government may validly move for its immediate execution. (Calingin v. Court of
Appeals, GR 154616, 07.12.2004)
6.
Direct recourse to the courts without exhausting administrative remedies is not permitted. Thus, a mayor who claims that the imposition of preventive suspension by the governor was unjustified and politically motivated, should seek relief first from the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government, not from the courts. (Espiritu v.Melgar, GR 100874, 02.13.92)
7.
The 1991 Local Government Code does not preclude the filing of an appeal of a decision of a sangguniang panlungsod involving an elective barangay official. Section 68 of the Code specifically allows a party to appeal to the Office of the President. The decision is immediately executory but the respondent may nevertheless appeal the adverse decision to the Office of the President or to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, as the case may be. (Mendozav. Laxina, GR 146875, 07.14.2003)
8.
Under Section 61 of the 1991 Local Government Code, a complaint against any elective official of a municipality shall be filed before the sangguniang panlalawigan whose decision may be appealed to the Office of the President. When appeal to the Office of the President is available, resort to filing a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with the Court of Appeals under Rule 65, 14 was inapt. The availability of the right of appeal precludes recourse to the special civil action for certiorari. (Balindong v.Dacalos, GR 158874, 11.10. 2004)
9.
No notice of the session where a decision of the sanggunian is to be promulgated on the administrative case is required to be given to the petitioner. The deliberation of the sanggunian is an internal matter. In order to render a decision in administrative cases involving elective local officials, the decision of the sanggunian must be writing stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the reasons for the decision. Thus, the voting following the deliberation of the members of the sanggunian did not constitute the decision unless this was embodied in an opinion prepared by one of them and concurred in by the others. Until the members have signed the opinion and the decision is promulgated, they are free to change their votes. (Malinao v. Reyes, GR 117618,10.
The filing of motion for reconsideration before the supervising local government concerning a disciplinary case involving an elective official of the supervised unit prevents the decision of the former from becoming final. Thus, there is thus no decision finding the official guilty to speak of which would disqualify said official. (Lingatingv. Comelec, GR 153475, 11.13.2002)
11.
Under the 1991 Local Government Code, an elective local official must be citizen of the Philippines. One who claims that a local official is not has the burden of proving his/ her claim. In administrative cases and petitions for disqualification, the quantum of proof required is substantial evidence.(Matugas v. Comelec, GR 151944, 01.20.2004)
12.
The Office of the President is authorized to stay the execution of a decision against a municipal mayor issued by the Sangguniang Panalawigan pending appeal. Reviewing officials are not deprived of their authority to order a stay an appealed decision. Supervising officials are given such discretion. (Berces v. Guingona, 241 SCRA539) 14. Complaints
1.
A verified complaint against provincial, highly urbanized city or independent component city elective official, shall be filed before the Office of the President.a)
It may be noted that the Constitution places local governments under the supervision of the Executive. Likewise, the Constitution allows Congress to include in the Local Government Code provisions for removal of local officials, which suggest that Congress may exercise removal powers. So, the Local Government Code has done and delegated its exercise to the President. Note also that legally, supervision is not incompatible with disciplinary authority. (Ganzon v. CA, 200 SCRA 271)b)
Under Administrative Order No. 23, the President has delegated the power to investigate complaints to the Secretary of Interior and Local Government. This is valid delegation because what is delegated is only the power to investigate, not the power to discipline. Besides, the power of the Secretary of Interior and Local Government to investigare is based on the alter ego principle. (Joson v. Torres, 290 SCRA 279)c)
The respondent has the right to formal investigation under Administrative Order No. 23 which includes the right to appear and defend himself in person or by counsel, the right right to confront the witnesses against him and the right to compulsory process for the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents. Thus, in this case, where the Secretary deniedthe petitioners motion for a formal investigation and decided the case on the basis of position papers, the right f the petitioner was violated (Joson v. Torres) In Salalima v. Guingona, 257 SCRA 55, the SC said that the administrative investigation can proceed even during the pendency of an appeal of audit findings to the Commission on Audit.