Case Summary (G.R. No. 16887)
Statutory Framework: Article IV, Chapter 57, Administrative Code
Section 2188 authorizes the provincial governor to:
• Receive and investigate complaints against municipal officers for negligence or corruption.
• Reprimand for minor infractions.
• File written charges with the board and, if charges affect integrity, suspend the officer (except the treasurer) pending board action.
Board proceedings:
• Must furnish charges and hearing notice.
• Must conclude hearing within fifteen days (unless extended).
• May dismiss, reprimand, or recommend more severe discipline to the Executive Bureau.
Scope of Provincial Governor’s Powers
The Court held that the governor’s power to suspend is executive and disciplinary, not final removal. The law prescribes no formal hearing at the suspension stage; full procedural safeguards occur before the board and, on appeal, with the Executive Bureau.
Due Process Analysis in Administrative Proceedings
The majority concluded that administrative suspensions pending investigation do not implicate the judicial-model due process requirements of notice and hearing. Drawing on analogous summary actions (arrests, ex parte injunctions, higher‐level suspensions), the Court found no constitutional violation under the Philippine Bill of Rights or U.S. due process precedents.
Precedents Supporting Summary Suspension
Cited authorities include U.S. and state supreme court cases affirming:
• Suspension without notice is permissible where statute so provides (Florida v. Johnson).
• Suspension pending misconduct trial is compatible with due process (Minnesota cases, Ruling Case Law).
• Immediate action by executive protects public interests and does not breach constitutional guarantees (Wilson v. North Carolina).
Application of Law and Decision
The Court ruled that the governor properly exercised his statutory suspension power without prior hearing. It refused mandamus relief, emphasizing the detailed remedial process before the provincial board and Executive Bureau as constitutionally adequate. Petition denied with costs.
Dissenting Opinion (Johnson, J.): Due Process Requirements
• Public office is “property” under due process; suspension without formal charges, notice, or hearing violates Jones Law’s constitutional guarantees.
• In absence of express statuto
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 16887)
Facts of the Case
- Miguel R. Cornejo was duly elected municipal president of Pasay for a three-year term beginning October 16, 1919.
- On September 13, 1920, Governor Andres Gabriel suspended him from office without notice, hearing, or opportunity to defend.
- Numerous complaints against Cornejo’s conduct had been received and informally investigated by the governor, who deemed the allegations serious enough to warrant suspension.
- The governor’s suspension was to remain in effect pending a formal trial by the provincial board, before which written charges were to be filed within ten days.
Procedural History
- Cornejo filed an original petition for mandamus in the Supreme Court to:
- Restrain the provincial governor and board from proceeding with their investigation.
- Command the governor to reinstate him as municipal president.
- The provincial board demurred, challenging the Court’s power to stay their lawful proceedings.
- The governor answered, defending his suspension power under the Administrative Code.
Issues Presented
- Does Section 2188 of the Administrative Code authorize the provincial governor to suspend a municipal officer without prior hearing?
- Does such temporary suspension, without notice or opportunity to be heard, violate the due process guarantee of the Philippine Bill of Rights?
- May the courts enjoin an ongoing administrative investigation by the provincial board?
Relevant Statutory Provisions
- Administrative Code, Chapter 57, Art. IV (“Provincial supervision over municipal officers”):
- Governor may receive and investigate complaints of maladministration.
- For “minor delinquency,” he may reprimand; for more serious charges affecting official integrity, he may suspend (non-treasurer) pending board action.
- Written charges must be filed with the board within ten days of suspension.
- Trial by Provincial Board:
- Board must furnish copy of charges and hearing notice; hearing within 15 days (or on extension).
- If charges not sustained, officer reinstated; if misconduct warrants reprimand only, reinstatement with reprimand.
- For severe discipline, record forwarded to Executive Bureau for final action.
- Executive Bureau Authority:
- Chief reviews record and orders reinstatement, suspension (max two months without pay), or dismissal (subject to higher approval).
Parties’ Contentions
- Petitioner’s Argument:
- Suspension without hearing deprives an elected official of his