Ganzon v CA
GR No. 93252; 93746; 95245; Aug. 5, 1991; Sarmiento
Digest prepared by Mara Recto
FACTS
10 Administrative complaints were filed against Mayor of Iloilo Rodolfo Ganzon and Mary Ann Rivera
Artieda, member of the Sangguniang Panglunsod on various charges
o Mrs. Joceleehn Cabaluna (clerk at the city health office of Iloilo) charged that Mayor Ganzon
pulled her out of office for supporting the rival candidate, Mrs. Rosa Caram
o Dra. Felicidad Ortigoza (Assistant City Health Officer) claims tht her office was padlocked
without explanation and salary withheld without just cause
o Mansuelo Malabor (Vice Mayor) and members of the Sangguniang Panglunsad decided to
hold office at Plaza Libertad when Councilor Larry Ong’s office key was taken by Mayor Ganzon
without notice. Security men forcefully drove them away from Plaza Libertad. They decided to
hold office at Freedom Grandstand but again security men of Ganzon led the firemen using a
fire truck in dozing water to the people
o Pancho Erbite (barangay tanod appointed by former mayor Rosa Caram) was arrested and
detained in the City Jail upon order of Mayor Ganzon
After 2 successive suspensions, Mayor Ganzon instituted an action for prohibition against Secretary of
the Department of Local Government Luis Santos in the RTC of Iloilo. He obtained a writ of preliminary
injunction.
Secretary Santos issued an order preventively suspending Mayor Ganzon for another sixty days (3 rd
suspension in 20 months) and designated Vice Mayor Mansuelo Malabor as acting mayor.
Mayor Ganzon comes to court to question the 3 successive 60 day suspension orders of Secretary
Santos.
SC issued a TRO barring Secretary Santos from implementing the suspension orders and restraining the
enforcement of the 2 CA decisions denying Ganzon’s petitions.
Mayor Ganzon’s Arguments SC
Department of Local Government in hearing the 10 Records do not show clearly in what manner the
cases denied him of due process of law and Secretary Mayor has been deprived of his rights. His claims that
Santos was biased, prejudicial and hostile arising his “persecution” was politically motivated is pure
because they are political rivals speculation.
Secretary Santos attempted to seduce him to join the His say-so’s were never corroborated by independent
administration party and to operate a lottery in Iloilo testimonies. Secretary Santos is presumed to be
performing his duties regularly in the absence of
contrary evidence
He requested Secretary Santos to defer the hearing on Moot and academic since the Secretary was
account of the 90 day ban prescribed in BP 337 Sec. restrained from further hearing by virtue of the TRO
621 issued by the SC
[MAIN ISSUE] W/N the Secretary of the Local Government, as the alter ego of the President, can suspend
and/or remove local officials – YES, notwithstanding the change in the constitutional language, the charter did
1
Section 62. Notice of hearing. - Within seven days after the complaint is filed, the minister of Local Government, or
the sanggunian concerned, 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 of the 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.
not intend to divest the legislature of its right or the President of her prerogative as conferred by existing
legislation to provide administrative sanctions against local officials.
Petitioners: 1987 Constitution no longer allows the President to exercise the power of suspension and/or
removal because of the deletion of “as may be provided by law”
1935 Constitution, Art. X, Sec. 10 1987 Constitution, Art. X. Sec. 4
Sec. 10. The President shall have control of all the Sec. 4. The President of the Philippines shall exercise
executive departments, bureaus, or offices, exercise general supervision over local governments. Provinces
general supervision over all local governments as may with respect to component cities and municipalities,
be provided by law, and take care that the laws be and cities and municipalities with respect to
faithfully executed. component barangays shall ensure that the acts of
their component units are within the scope of their
prescribed powers and functions.
The omission of “as may be provided by law” signifies nothing more than to underscore local government’s
autonomy from Congress and to break Congress’ control over local government affairs. The deletion of “as may
be provided by law” was meant to stress the objective of the framers to strengthen local autonomy by severing
congressional control of its affairs.
AUTONOMY does not contemplate the making of mini-states as in federal governments. AUTONOMY is subject
to the guiding star, though not control, of the legislature to wean local government from overdependence on
the central government.
Local Autonomy is not self-executing. Local government is under the general supervision of the Executive.
Control is defined as the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer
had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for test of the latter.
Supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform
their duties. Investigating is not inconsistent with overseeing, although it is a lesser power than altering.
Since Mayor Ganzon is facing 10 administrative charges, he is facing the possibility of 600 days of suspension,
in the event that all 10 cases yield prima facie findings. There is a possibility that he will spend the rest of his
term in inactivity and make is suspension permanent. Secretary Santos exercised the power with grave
abuse of discretion.
The sole objective of a suspension is to prevent the accused from hampering the normal cause of the
investigation with his influence and authority over possible witness or to keep him off the records and other
evidence. Suspension is a means to assist prosecutors. Under the LGC, it cannot exceed 60 days. Suspension is
not a penalty.
The court laid down the ff. rules:
1. Local autonomy, under the Constitution, involves a mere decentralization of administration, not of
power, in which local officials remain accountable to the central government in the manner the law
may provide;
2. The new Constitution does not prescribe federalism;
3. The change in constitutional language (with respect to the supervision clause) was meant but to deny
legislative control over local governments; it did not exempt the latter from legislative regulations
provided regulation is consistent with the fundamental premise of autonomy;
4. Since local governments remain accountable to the national authority, the latter may, by law, and in
the manner set forth therein, impose disciplinary action against local officials;
5. "Supervision" and "investigation" are not inconsistent terms; "investigation" does not signify "control"
(which the President does not have);
6. The petitioner, Mayor Rodolfo Ganzon. may serve the suspension so far ordered, but may no longer be
suspended for the offenses he was charged originally; provided:
a. that delays in the investigation of those charges "due to his fault, neglect or request, (the time
of the delay) shall not be counted in computing the time of suspension.
b. that if during, or after the expiration of, his preventive suspension, the petitioner commits
another or other crimes and abuses for which proper charges are filed against him by the
aggrieved party or parties, his previous suspension shall not be a bar to his being preventively
suspended again, if warranted under subpar. (2), Section 63 of the Local Government Code.
