So let us now discuss the law on nepotism. So who is guilty of nepotism?

The Supreme Court was time in a gangue. Under the definition of nepotism, one is
guilty of it if an appointment is issued in favor of a relative within the third, civil
degree of consent, or affinity of any of the following, of the appointing authority, of the
recommending authority, chief of the bureau or office, and those persons exercising
immediate supervision over the appointee.
So from that enumeration, you will see there are four situations covering these in the
law on nepotism. So in the last two situations mentioned, the one where you are
related in the second degree of consent, or affinity to the chief of the bureau or office,
or to the person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee, it is
immaterial who the appointing or recommending authority is. In material, we
have seen another point or who recommended it. To constitute a violation of the law
on nepotism, it suffices that an appointment is extended or issued in favor of a
relative within the third, in the second degree of consent, or affinity of the chief of the
bureau or office, or the person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee.
So it's the prohibition absent. Again, this type of rule admits certain exemptions.
Exemptions from the operation on the rules on nepotism. So the following are
exempted from the operation of the rules on nepotism.
One of those persons employed in a confidential capacity, two teachers, three
physicians, and lastly, members of the armed forces of the Philippines. In fact, in
addition to those exempted sections 59, chapter seven of executive order 292, the
administrative force of the Philippines, provides that the ruling nepotism shall
likewise not be applicable to the case of a member of any family who, after his order,
appointment to any position in an office or a bureau contracts marriage with
someone in the same office or bureau, in which the employment or retention of
both husband and wife may be allowed.
So do not forget that. It is now go to the doctrine of forgiveness for your condenation
doctrine. So is a rule as a ruling class.
A public official cannot be removed for at least a misconduct, but not an
administrative misconduct committed during a prior term, since his re-election to
office operates as a condemnation of the officers abuse misconduct. The extent of
cutting off the right to remove him from that office. So the prego you will have a final
application to criminal justice against the public official. That's why very clear in the
man as a rule. It cannot be removed for administrative misconduct.
So it necessarily follows that this condemnation doctrine will find no application in
criminal cases against public officials. That is the very case of Aguinaldo v Santos.
Just be very, very particular on the date, no? Of the permission or, yeah, of the
administrative charge or administrative misconduct committed not for to know
whether to apply the Aguinaldo of the doctrine or the condemnation doctrine or not.
So in one case, the case of Mayor Alvin Garcia s here was just honorable Judge
Mojica without a term mayor against office in the city.
So according to the court, every elected local official may not be held, but the court is
not eligible for his conduct committed during his prior term of office. And the rationale
behind this holding is when the electorate put him back. He was reelected to one in
the election into office. It is presumed that it is so with full knowledge of his life and
character, including his past misconduct.
So if armed with such knowledge, and the electorate still reelected him, then such re-
election is considered a condonation of his past, his deeds, or his conduct.
So this case involves Mayor Alvin Garcia of Sibu City, entering into a contract with
F.E. F.E. Zwilling for the supply of asphalt. So the contract was signed a few days, I
think, four days before the date of the election. Election during his prior term.
It was to commence or be effective only on September of 1998. So I have this term
from 1995 to 1998.The contract was entered four days before the election, May 1998
election, or during his current term. And then it will be effective September of 1998
So according to the response petitioner went beyond the protective confines of
George's students when he agreed to extend his act to his current term of office.
They also claimed that Aguinaldo the rule cannot apply because what is involved in
this case is a misconduct committed during a previous term, but to be effective
during the current term. Of course, petitioner contended otherwise and claimed that
the Aguinaldo doctrine rule apply to him.
So in sustaining petitioners contention that the only composing determining factor as
regards to the people thinking on the matter is that election. So the people voted for
him that the people voted for an official with knowledge of his character is presumed
precisely to eliminate the need to determine factual terms, the extent of this
knowledge. So with that knowledge and still the electorate voted in your favor that
naturally follows that your being forgiven of any previous misconduct. So such an
undertaking will obviously be impossible. Our rulings and the method of doing a
distinguished the precise timing or period when the misconduct was committed.
Recon from the date of the official three election except that it must be prior to said
date.
So the court in ruling cited the case of Sala Nina versus the Donald. The rule
adopted the same group that was adopted in Pascal case. Qualified in the Aguinaldo
and so far as criminal cases are concerned is still a good law. It's a bit still a good
law. You still have to hear to that doctor.
Such a rule is not only founded until series and an official selection expresses the
sovereign will of the electorate to forgive or condone any act or emission constituting
a ground for administrative disciplinary or. Yeah, I'm just a bit decently which was
committed during this previous term that in fact sound policy dictates that. It takes it
otherwise or to rule otherwise we open the flood gates to endless partisan between.
The elected official and his political enemies or opponent who may not stop the harm
of former during this new term with administrative cases or acts alleged to have been
committed or yeah, they've been committed during this previous term. Second term
may thus be devoted to defending himself in the said case as to the debt and
medical of public service.
So looking at the contract now and for this report the election to be affected only on
September or several months after the election. The court noted that that agreement
between Mayor Garcia representing of course the city and is willing was perfected on
the date the contract was signed. Okay.
During the titioners prior to the moment petitioners already exceeded to the terms of
the contract, including stipulations. Now alleged to be prejudicial to the city
government so any culpability that is generally have inside in that country already
became extent on the date the contract was signed. I'm going to work when he
signed up for this before the election. It is already a perfect contract.
It hardly matters that the deliveries under the contract are supposed to be made
much after. So when he can all over be held administrative liable, I'm just letting me
liable for signing the contract. This should not however prejudice the filing of any
case other than administrative against petitioners. This ruling cannot be taken to
meet the total exoneration of the public official or the petitioner in this case or
whatever wrong doing it. If any by the being committed in signing the some day
contract.
So the ruling now the ruling now in the advocacy occasion is limited to the question
of whether or not he may be held administrative liable. Therefore, and it is the court's
view the conditioner may not help. Now comes the June June mayor June June be
nice. The former mayor of the cabinet. Where the Supreme Court abandoned the
Aguinaldo the doctrine for the condemnation. Dr. G. R numbers two one seven one
two six two seven November ten twenty fifteen. If you remember me or June June
being I was ordered to spend it by the ombudsman in connection with a ledge
anonymous. My cat is sitting on building to the man in a fish. You build young my
attitude on it.
So he was suspended. Of course, you went to the court of appeals to question the
suspension. He found the hero and a rate of preliminary injunction. That after the
borders of appeals issues that he are all in the wrong preliminary. In junction and
stop being nice first preventive suspension. And so. The Supreme Court said that the
not complete drug abuse of discretion in issue in the restraining as well as the
injunctive borders because it merely used as basis what is commonly known as the
Agonal or Condor.
I can also condemnation doctor which is one is an elected official officials
administrative liability once he he or she gets to be elected to office. Nothing wrong
with that. They are all down in the injunction order. I say card of appeals relied on
this Agonal the condemnation doctor. So panel may in abandon a Supreme Court in
the Agonal the doctor. The court says that be night. However, be night.
Ginger be night will no longer benefit from this decision over the ombudsman
preventive suspension order because he was already ordered dismissed by the anti-
graft office on the merits of the case. The other is the Agonal the doctrine to be
reinstated in the court. So in abandoning the doctrine. The court elucidated in this
wise note.
The begin with the concept of public office is public trust in the court and the court
allowed in the requirement of accountability to the people at all times. In the end of
the day, under the 1987 constitution, public office is public trust. You are at all times
accountable to the people you serve. This is plainly inconsistent with the idea that an
elective officials administrative liability for a misconduct committed during a prior
term can be wiped off by the fact that he was elected to a second term of office or
even another elected post. Election according to the court is not a mode of
belonging and administrative offense. And there is simply no constitutional or
statutory basis arising from an offense than during a prior term. In addition, the High
Court also jamped the condemnation doctrine which will take effect prospectively.
The Supreme Court is stressed that it has no basis in the constitution and other laws.
So when you say the Supreme Court also jamped the condemnation doctrine which
will take effect prospectively. This means that all elected officials charge for
administrative offenses prior to promulgation of its decision on November 10,
2015 may still invoke the condemnation doctrine.
So if you were charged administratively charged prior to November 10, 2015, when
the decision on the next case was rendered, it was still or can still invoke the
condonation doctrine. But those charge administratively after November 10, 2015
can no longer benefit from this doctrine. Please do not forget that.
What is our rule and abandonment of office and what are the essential
elements to constitute abandonment of office. When you say abandonment of
office, it's the first law of voluntary relinquishment of an office by the holder with the
intention of terminating his possession and control thereof.
So every time you relinquish your post, will it constitute abandonment of office? So in
order to constitute abandonment of an office, it must be total in under such
circumstances as clearly to indicate an absolute relinquishment. Meaning there
must be complete abandonment of duties of such continuance that the law will inherit
relinquishment.
Another point to remember the abandonment of duties must be a voluntary act. In
these, the voluntary act, it springs from and is accompanied by deliberation and
freedom of choice. So the prestigious abandonment, do not forget there must be an
intention to abandon. There is one and second, there must be a overt or external
act that reached the intention is carried into effect. Have you encountered the
term non-user or aquacence? Okay.
Especially for those who are holding public office, non-user or aquacence. So a
person holding a public office may abandon such office by non-user or aquacence.
When you say non-user, it refers to a neglect, to use a right or privilege or to
exercise an office. However, your mere non-performance of the duties of an office,
this non-constitute abandonment, where such non-performance results from
temporary, that the disability or from involuntary failure to perform. Okay.
Abandonment may also result from an aquacence by the officer in his wrongful
removal error discharged. For instance, after a temporary removal, an unreasonable
delay by an officer illegally removed in taking steps to vindicate his rights, may
constitute abandonment of the office. However, I think I assigned to, I give you the
case of Condemu Sado versus the Guire. The court said that while declaring or while
desiring and intending to hold the office and with no willful desire or intention to
abandon the public officer vacation, in deference to the requirements of a statute
which is afterwards declared unconstitutional, such surrender will not be deemed
abandonment and the officer may recover the check.
So, in this case of Condemu Sado, as this is how the was a commissioner of the
National Police Commission, it did not voluntarily be disposed as commissioner, but
was compelled to do so on the strength of Section 8 of RA 851, which Condemu
Sado and other petitioners perceived to be an illegal removal and instituted the
current action assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of law and claim for
reinstatement.
By the way, Section 8 of RA 8551 provides that upon the activity of the act, the terms
of office of the cabinet commissioners are deemed expired, constituting a bad to
their reappointment or an extension of the terms in the commission except for the
commissioner who have served for less than two years. So during the dependency
of the case, he was appointed and assumed the office of inspector general. That was
his alleged party was appointed to another position by any accepted the position. So,
by accepting another position in the government, may he be deemed to have
abandoned this claim for reinstatement in the P.A.
He is now the inspector in general. So rule that acceptance of the position constitute
abandonment? Or did he abandon his claim for reinstatement? The court answered
in the negative. He cannot be faulted for seeking gainful employment during
dependency of the case. In fact, from the time he assumed office as inspector
general, he never received the salary pertaining to such position.
Second, he cannot be deemed to have abandoned his claim for reinstatement as
commissioner because, first of all, he did not voluntarily leave his post as
commissioner.
But they were compelled to do so on the strength of that Section 8 of RA 851 where
the term of office were considered term were considered are considered expired.
Third, Section 8551 is the relative of the constitutionally guaranteed right to security
of tenure. Petitioner can decide a hard word, no willful desire or intention to abandon
his official duties. He and the other petitioners lost no time disputing what they
perceived to be an illegal removal. That's why they found the case.
So that means meaning the removal of petitioners from the positions by virtue of the
constitutionally informed act necessarily negates a finding of voluntary
relinquishment.