View full case

SALVADOR H. LAUREL v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO

FACTS:

In this case, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Administrative Order No. 223 in 1991, establishing a Committee for the preparation of the National Centennial Celebration in 1998. President Fidel V. Ramos reconstituted the Committee and renamed it the National Centennial Commission (NCC) through Executive Order No. 128. The NCC, chaired by Vice-President Salvador H. Laurel, was responsible for the preparations for the Centennial Celebration.

The NCC was tasked with preparing a Comprehensive Plan for the Centennial Celebrations and was provided with staff support and funding from the Department of Tourism and the President's Contingent Fund. Additionally, a corporation called the Philippine Centennial Expo '98 Corporation (Expocorp) was created, and the petitioner was elected as its Chief Executive Officer.

An investigation was initiated by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee following a privilege speech by Senator Ana Dominique Coseteng, who denounced alleged anomalies in the construction and operation of the Centennial Exposition Project. President Joseph Estrada also created an independent citizens' committee chaired by former Senator Rene A.V. Saguisag to investigate the Centennial projects.

Both the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and the Saguisag Committee issued reports recommending the prosecution of NCC Chair Salvador H. Laurel for violations of anti-graft laws. These reports were then referred to the Fact-finding and Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman, which recommended filing a formal complaint and conducting a preliminary investigation against the petitioner and others.

The petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss with the Office of the Ombudsman, challenging its jurisdiction. However, the Ombudsman denied the motion and subsequent motion for reconsideration. As a result, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari challenging the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

The petitioner argued that the corporation chaired by the petitioner was a private corporation, the NCC was not a public office, and the petitioner himself, as chairman of both the NCC and the corporation, was not a "public officer" as defined under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The petitioner also invoked a previous Supreme Court decision to support the contention that the Ombudsman's jurisdiction is limited to cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

The Court dismissed the petitioner's arguments, affirming that the Ombudsman's jurisdiction is not confined to the limited authority of the Special Prosecutor and that the Ombudsman has broad powers to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of any public officer or employee. The Court further clarified that the position of NCC Chair qualifies as a public office and falls within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

ISSUES:

  1. Did Executive Order (E.O.) 128 delegate the National Centennial Commission (NCC) with some of the sovereign functions of government?

  2. Is the function of the NCC considered executive in nature?

  3. Whether the holding of a nationwide celebration, such as the Centennial Exposition, is a proprietary or governmental function.

  4. Whether the Torio ruling, which classified holding a town fiesta as a proprietary function, applies to the case at hand.

  5. Whether the National Centennial Commission (NCC) is a public office.

  6. Whether the petitioner, as the Chair of NCC, is a public officer.

  7. Whether the members of the National Centennial Commission (NCC) are considered officers or employees.

  8. Whether the petitioner, as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Expocorp, is considered a public officer.

  9. Whether or not the definition of "public officer" in R.A. No. 3019 is exclusive and should apply in determining the status of the petitioner as a public officer.

  10. How should the term "compensation" be interpreted as used in Section 2 (b) of R.A. No. 3019?

  11. Whether or not the petitioner received any form of compensation as NCC Chair, such as allowance, fee, or honorarium.

  12. Whether or not the fact that the CEO of Expocorp is entitled to per diems and compensation is significant in determining the petitioner's status as a public officer.

RULING:

  1. Yes, E.O. 128 delegated some of the sovereign functions of government to the NCC. While it did not delegate legislative or judicial functions, the NCC performs executive functions, which involve the implementation of policies set forth by law.

  2. Yes, the function of the NCC is considered executive in nature. The executive power is defined as the power to enforce and administer laws, carrying them into practical operation and enforcing their due observance.

  3. The holding of a nationwide celebration, like the Centennial Exposition, is a proprietary function of the government.

  4. The Torio ruling, which classified holding a town fiesta as a proprietary function, does not apply to the case at hand because the surrounding circumstances, political, social, and cultural backgrounds are different.

  5. Yes, the NCC is a public office. The court held that the NCC performs sovereign functions and is created to coordinate, plan, and organize the National Centennial Celebrations. It is a vehicle for fostering nationhood and a strong sense of Filipino identity. The Celebrations is an occasion to reflect upon the country's history and reinvigorate patriotism. Therefore, the NCC is a public office.

  6. Yes, the petitioner, as the Chair of NCC, is a public officer. The court emphasized that a salary is not necessary for determining the nature of a public position. In this case, although the petitioner did not receive any compensation, his position as NCC Chair is still considered a public office. The fact that NCC was characterized as an "ad-hoc body" does not make it less of a public office. The court also cited a case from the United States, where the Supreme Court ruled that the office of Commissioner of the United States Centennial Commission is an "office of trust." Therefore, the petitioner is a public officer.

  7. The members of the NCC are considered officers. The duties and functions of the NCC were authoritative, discretionary, and final in character. They were appointed by Congress and the act under which they were appointed referred to them as officers. Therefore, they are not mere employees, agents, or committee men.

  8. The petitioner, as CEO of Expocorp, is considered a public officer. His position as CEO arose from his Chairmanship of the NCC, which performed executive functions and is considered a public office. Even assuming that Expocorp is a private corporation, the petitioner's acts or omissions as CEO must be viewed in the light of his powers and functions as NCC Chair.

  9. The issues raised in this case involve the interpretation of the definition of "public officer" in R.A. No. 3019 and the term "compensation" as used in Section 2 (b) of the same law. The Court, however, dismissed the petition and lifted the preliminary injunction, stating that this proceeding is not the proper forum to settle these issues. The Court rules that the trial court should be allowed to resolve these matters.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The creation and conferring of an office involves a delegation to the individual of some of the sovereign functions of government for the benefit of the public.

  • The executive power involves the enforcement and administration of laws.

  • Executive Orders are acts of the President that provide rules of a general or permanent character in implementation or execution of constitutional or statutory powers.

  • The true nature of an undertaking or function of a municipality is determined based on the surrounding circumstances and will be decisive.

  • Holding a fiesta, whether for religious or historical purposes, is considered an act for the special benefit of the community and not for the general welfare of the public performed in pursuance of a policy of the state.

  • There can be no hard and fast rule for determining the true nature of an undertaking or function of a municipality.

  • The political, social, and cultural backgrounds can have a bearing on determining the nature of an undertaking or function.

  • Sovereign functions performed by a body can characterize it as a public office.

  • The presence of a salary or compensation is not decisive in determining the nature of a public position.

  • An office can still be considered a public office even if it is temporary or characterized as an "ad-hoc body."

  • Persons performing authoritative, discretionary, and final duties and functions, in pursuance of statutory direction and authority, are considered officers and not mere employees, agents, or committee men.

  • The position of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) can be considered a public office if it arises from a public office or if the corporation in which the CEO is serving performs executive functions.

  • The definition of "public officer" in R.A. No. 3019 may be exclusive, but the term "compensation" used in the same law can have various meanings depending on the circumstances.

  • The Court will not preempt the trial court from resolving issues concerning the interpretation of the law and determining whether or not an individual received compensation as a public officer.