G.R. No.

166715

August 14, 2008

ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST (formerly AASJS)1 OFFICERS/MEMBERS SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, ED VINCENT S. ALBANO, ROMEO R. ROBISO, RENE B. GOROSPE and EDWIN R. SANDOVAL, petitioners, vs. HON. CESAR V. PURISIMA, in his capacity as Secretary of Finance, HON. GUILLERMO L. PARAYNO, JR., in his capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and HON. ALBERTO D. LINA, in his Capacity as Commissioner of Bureau of Customs, respondents. Facts: Sometime in 2005 RA 9335, also known as the attrition act, was instituted. This law imposed a system of rewards and punishment upon government officials who belonged to the BOC and the BIR. The main gist of the law was that officials belonging to these departments would be rewarded for collections in excess of the set quotas, and punished by dismissal if unable to reach the same quotas. AGPL contests the constitutionality of the law, claiming among many other alleged negative effects, that it will encourage the public officials of both these departments to become mercenaries and lead them away from the proper performance of their duties. Issue: Will the regularity of the performance of the duties of the officials of the BIR and BOC be cast into doubt as a result of this law? Held: Public officers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. This presumption necessarily obtains in favor of BIR and BOC officials and employees. RA 9335 operates on the basis thereof and reinforces it by providing a system of rewards and sanctions for the purpose of encouraging the officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC to exceed their revenue targets and optimize their revenue-generation capability and collection.15 The presumption is disputable but proof to the contrary is required to rebut it. It cannot be overturned by mere conjecture or denied in advance (as petitioners would have the Court do) specially in this case where it is an underlying principle to advance a declared public policy. Petitioners claim that the implementation of RA 9335 will turn BIR and BOC officials and employees into "bounty hunters and mercenaries" is not only without any factual and legal basis; it is also purely speculative. A law enacted by Congress enjoys the strong presumption of constitutionality. To justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and equivocal one.16 To invalidate RA 9335 based on petitioners baseless supposition is an affront to the wisdom not only of the legislature that passed it but also of the executive which approved it. Public service is its own reward. Nevertheless, public officers may by law be rewarded for exemplary and exceptional performance. A system of incentives for exceeding the set expectations of a public office is not anathema to the concept of public accountability. In fact, it recognizes and reinforces dedication to duty, industry, efficiency and loyalty to public service of deserving government personnel. x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Javier vs Sandiganbayan Facts: The president forms a committee composed of representatives from both the private sector and the public sector to enhance the local book publishing industry. Javier, a representative from the private sector, received a sum of roughly 139,000 as allowances for travel to Spain to attend a book fair. Unfortunately, Javier doesn't attend the book fair. A few months later, an auditor learns about this fact and demands the immediate return of the funds. Javier doesn't pay up. A complaint for malversation is subsequently filed against her. The ombudsman files a 3019 against Javier. The case ends up in the Sandiganbayan. Among the defenses raised by Javier is that she cannot be charged with a 3019 since she is merely a representative from the private sector and not a public official whom 3019 can be applied against. Issue: Is she a public officer or not? Held: The fact that the accused does not receive any compensation in terms of salaries and allowances, if that indeed be the case, is not the sole qualification for being in the government service or a public official. The National Book Development Board is a statutory government agency and the persons who participated therein even if they are from the private sector, are public officers to the extent that they are performing their duty therein as such. Insofar as the accusation is concerned herein, it would appear that monies were advanced to the accused in her capacity as Director of the National Book Development Board for purposes of official travel. While indeed under ordinary circumstances a member of the board remains a private individual, still when that individual is performing her functions as a member of the board or when that person receives benefits or when the person is supposed to travel abroad and is given government money to effect that travel, to that extent the private sector representative is a public official performing public functions; if only for that reason, and not even considering situation of her being in possession of public funds even as a private individual for which she would also covered by provisions of the Revised Penal Code, she is properly charged before this Court. (Added material: Definition of public office: A public office is the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public. The individual so invested is a public officer.) x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Laurel vs Desierto Facts: This controversy involves the committee for the centennial celebration. Mr. Laurel, one of the main actors in this drama, was an incorporator for the committee that headed the preparation for the 1998 celebration, a celebration that was marred by allegations of corruption and other shady deals. An investigation was conducted by a senate investigative committee which recommended the filing of 3019 charges against Laurel. Petitioner assails the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman on the ground that he is not a public officer because these characteristics are not present in the position of NCC Chair, namely: (1) the delegation of sovereign functions; (2) salary, since he purportedly did not receive any compensation; and (3) continuance, the tenure of the NCC being temporary. Issue: Is Laurel not in fact a public officer, because of the above reasons and is he outside the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan since he does not receive a salary grade 27? Held: The chairmanship of the NCC was a weighty executive post invested with the development of the national industry. Being such a position, it is clear that the holder of the chairmanship is a public official. That Laurel did not receive any salary does not make it any less of a public office, as there are such things as honorary public offices whereby the officer placed in charge receives no compensation other than the golden opportunity to serve the interest of the country and the welfare of the general public. x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Figueroa vs RP Facts: Figueroa, a column writer for the People's daly forum has just written an inflammatory article against a certain Mr. Rivera of the Bangkerohan Market Committee. Unable to defend the blatantly malicious nature of the article, Figueroa instead tries to claim that the same was privileged communication as it was directed at a public official Mr. Rivera, since the same was a member of the market committee. Issue: Does membership in the Public Market Committee make one a public officer? Held: No. Clearly, Rivera cannot be considered a public officer. Being a member of the market committee did not vest upon him any sovereign function of the government, be it legislative, executive or judicial. As reasoned out by the CA, the operation of a public market is not a governmental function but merely an activity undertaken by the city in its private proprietary capacity. Furthermore, Rivera's membership in the market committee was in representation of the association of market vendors, a non-governmental organization belonging to the private sector.