Case Digest (G.R. No. 145368)
Facts:
In Salvador H. Laurel v. Hon. Aniano A. Desierto, G.R. No. 145368, decided April 12, 2002, petitioner Salvador H. Laurel was appointed Chairman of the National Centennial Commission (NCC) by Executive Order No. 128 (1993), succeeding Administrative Order No. 223 (1991), to oversee nationwide preparations for the Philippine Centennial Celebration of Independence in 1998. The EO defined the Commission as an ad hoc body whose existence would cease upon completion of activities, and it vested the NCC with executive powers, including planning, coordination, and reporting functions, and provided staff support and funding under the Office of the President. Petitioner also served as one of nine incorporators, first directors, and Chief Executive Officer of the Philippine Centennial Expo ’98 Corporation (Expocorp), a private corporation created to implement the Expo within Clark Special Economic Zone. Following allegations of anomalies in granting contracts to Asia Construction & DevelopCase Digest (G.R. No. 145368)
Facts:
- Creation of National Centennial Committee/Commission and Expocorp
- On June 13, 1991, President Aquino issued A.O. No. 223 constituting a Committee to prepare the 1998 Centennial Celebrations; on December 16, 1993, President Ramos reconstituted it by E.O. No. 128 as the ad hoc National Centennial Commission (NCC), appointing Laurel as Chair. The NCC was to prepare a comprehensive plan, coordinate nationwide Centennial activities, refurbish historical sites, and report to the President; staff support and funding were provided by existing agencies.
- The Philippine Centennial Expo ’98 Corporation (Expocorp) was later created under the aegis of the NCC to implement the Philippine National Exposition ’98 in Clark; Laurel was among its nine incorporators and first directors, and was elected Chief Executive Officer.
- Senate and Executive branch investigations
- August 5, 1998: Senator Coseteng’s privilege speech in the Senate alleged anomalies in the Centennial Exposition at Clark; referred to the Blue Ribbon Committee and other Senate panels.
- February 24, 1999: President Estrada issued A.O. No. 35 creating an independent citizens’ committee chaired by Saguisag to investigate Centennial projects.
- February 26, 1999: Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Final Report No. 30 recommended prosecution of Laurel for violating rules on public bidding, manifest bias in contract awards, and preclusion of COA audit, in violation of the Anti-Graft Law.
- November 5, 1999: Saguisag Committee Report recommended further Ombudsman investigation and indictment of Laurel for violations of R.A. 3019 § 3(e), R.A. 6713 § 4(a) in relation to § 11, and Article 217 RPC.
- January 27, 2000: Ombudsman Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau Evaluation Report recommended formal complaint and preliminary investigation before the EPIB of the Ombudsman against Laurel for violations of R.A. 3019 §§ 3(e) & (g).
- April 10, 2000: EPIB directed Laurel to submit counter-affidavit; April 24, 2000: Laurel moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; June 13, 2000: Ombudsman denied motion; October 5, 2000: reconsideration denied.
- November 14, 2000: EPIB found probable cause to indict Laurel and Peñaa for conspiring to violate R.A. 3019 § 3(e); Ombudsman approved charges against Laurel and dismissed them as to Peñaa.
- Supreme Court proceedings
- October 25, 2000: Laurel filed a petition for certiorari against Ombudsman Desierto before the Supreme Court.
- September 24, 2001: SC issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Ombudsman from filing any information against Laurel.
- November 14, 2001: SC heard oral arguments on the petition.
Issues:
- Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman over Laurel
- Is Laurel a “public officer” as Chair of the NCC, an ad hoc, unpaid position?
- Is Laurel a public officer as CEO of a private corporation (Expocorp)?
- Does lack of compensation exclude Laurel from the definition of public officer under R.A. 3019?
- Scope of the Ombudsman’s prosecutorial powers
- Are the Ombudsman’s powers limited to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, per Uy v. Sandiganbayan?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)