Case Digest (G.R. No. 154616)
Facts:
The case involves Governor Antonio Calingin as the petitioner against the Court of Appeals and several government officials, including Executive Secretary Renato S. de Villa and various members of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG). The case was presented to the Supreme Court on July 12, 2004, following earlier proceedings that began when the Office of the President issued a resolution on March 22, 2001, which suspended Governor Calingin for ninety days. This suspension stemmed from a case entitled "Vice Governor Danilo P. Lagbas, et al. versus Governor Antonio P. Calingin (Misamis Oriental)," under OP Case No. 00-1-9220. Subsequently, on April 30, 2001, DILG Undersecretary Eduardo R. Soliman, authorized by DILG Secretary Jose D. Lina, Jr., issued a memorandum to implement the suspension order.
On May 3, 2001, Calingin filed a motion for reconsideration before the Office of the President. The suspension order was contentious due to the context
Case Digest (G.R. No. 154616)
Facts:
- Background of the Suspension Order
- The Office of the President issued a Resolution dated March 22, 2001, in OP Case No. 00-1-9220 (DILG ADM. Case No. P-16-99) suspending Governor Antonio Calingin for 90 days.
- This resolution was addressed in a case titled Vice Governor Danilo P. Lagbas, et al. versus Gov. Calingin (Misamis Oriental).
- Implementation of the Suspension Order
- On April 30, 2001, Undersecretary Eduardo R. Soliman of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), under the authority of Secretary Jose D. Lina, Jr., issued a Memorandum implementing the suspension order.
- The DILG Memorandum was bolstered by the authority of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) through Resolution No. 3992, which granted an exemption to the election ban affecting the movement of public officers.
- Actions Taken by Governor Calingin
- On May 3, 2001, Governor Calingin filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the Office of the President regarding the suspension order.
- On May 7, 2001, he filed a petition for prohibition with the Court of Appeals aimed at preventing the execution of the suspension order.
- The petition was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on May 11, 2001, and his subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied in a July 1, 2002, resolution.
- Points of Contention by the Petitioner
- Governor Calingin argued that the decisions of the Office of the President on cases within its original jurisdiction (i.e., disciplinary cases involving elective local officials) should not be considered final and executory immediately but only after 15 days from receipt, especially when a Motion for Reconsideration is filed.
- He contended that Section 67 of the Local Government Code, which mandates that the decisions of the Office of the President are final and executory, should only apply to cases appealed from specific local legislative bodies and not to cases where the Office of the President exercises original jurisdiction.
- Additionally, he challenged the validity of the COMELEC exemption, asserting that the exemption was improperly based on a draft resolution rather than a duly signed and promulgated final resolution.
- Supporting Evidence and Legal Frameworks
- The records indicated that the Resolution in the Office of the President was approved and signed by Executive Secretary Renato de Villa, confirming its finality before the subsequent COMELEC Resolution No. 3992 was promulgated on April 24, 2001.
- The submission of requisite documents—including a formal complaint, affidavits, and the draft resolution—supported the DILG’s implementation of the suspension order and the COMELEC’s issuance of the exemption.
Issues:
- Finality and Executory Nature of the Office of the President’s Decision
- Whether the decision rendered by the Office of the President—suspending Governor Calingin—was already final and executory, particularly in light of the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration which purportedly should suspend the running of the 15-day period for finality.
- Validity of the COMELEC Granting an Exemption
- Whether the exemption from the election ban on the movement of public officers, granted pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 3992, was valid despite the petitioner’s contention that it was based solely on a draft resolution.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)