Title
Ganzon vs. Kaya
Case
G.R. No. L-11336
Decision Date
Aug 30, 1958
Mayor Ganzon accused of suppressing free speech, assault, and misconduct; Supreme Court upheld President's authority to investigate and discipline local officials for such acts.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-11336)

Administrative Charges

On August 25, 1956, Ernesto V. Rosales filed a verified complaint against Rodolfo Ganzon alleging three counts of administrative misconduct. The first count accused Ganzon of using his public position to unlawfully interrupt a radio program at DYRI, thereby violating the rights to free speech and broadcast. The second count detailed an incident where Ganzon physically confronted Rosales, pushing away microphones and hitting him, which also constituted an act of oppression. The third count described verbal attacks made by Ganzon against Rosales during the incident, which were deemed unbecoming behavior for a public official.

Investigation Order and Procedural History

Following the complaint, on September 13, 1956, the Executive Secretary, by authority of the President, designated a respondent to investigate the allegations against Ganzon, citing Section 64(c) of the Revised Administrative Code. The investigation was initially set for September 20 but was postponed to September 25 and 26. On September 24, Ganzon filed an action for prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, questioning the authority of the President to investigate him and seeking a preliminary injunction against the investigation. On September 26, the court denied his motion for a preliminary injunction and moved the case forward for a hearing on the merits.

Court Proceedings and Ruling

During the hearing held on September 28, 1956, both parties admitted the facts set forth in the complaint. On October 2, 1956, the court ruled against Ganzon, upholding the authority of the President to investigate the administrative charges. Following the denial of his motion for reconsideration, Ganzon appealed the decision, raising four key issues related to the scope of the President's authority under the Constitution and the grounds for removal of an elective city mayor.

Authority of the President in Investigations

The core issue of the appeal revolved around whether the President had the authority under the operative constitutional and statutory provisions to order an investigation into the actions of a city mayor. The decision referenced the Iloilo City charter and relevant sections of the Revised Administrative Code, particularly Sections 64(6) and 10, which affirm the President's supervisory role over local governments and the ability to conduct investigations when deemed necessary for the public service.

Legal Interpretation of Tenure and Grounds for Removal

The court emphasized that the Iloilo City charter stipulated that the mayor holds office for a fixed term of six years unless removed for cause. It declined the argument that the President could remove the mayor "at pleasure," instead asserting that the defined term implies removal only for just cause. The investigation's legality hinged on whether the charges constituted pe

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.