Title
Supreme Court
Laurel vs. Desierto
Case
G.R. No. 145368
Decision Date
Apr 12, 2002
Salvador H. Laurel, as NCC Chairman and Expocorp CEO, deemed a public officer under R.A. No. 3019; Ombudsman's jurisdiction upheld for graft investigation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 145368)

Factual and Procedural Background

Senators Coseteng and Drilon triggered investigations into alleged anomalies in centennial projects in August 1998. The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee issued its final report in February 1999 recommending prosecution of Laurel for graft and corruption. President Estrada’s Administrative Order No. 35 (February 1999) created a citizens’ committee chaired by former Senator Saguisag, whose November 1999 report likewise urged further investigation of Laurel for violating anti-graft statutes. In January 2000, the Ombudsman’s Fact-finding Bureau recommended a formal complaint and preliminary investigation against Laurel for infractions of R.A. 3019. After Laurel’s motions to dismiss and for reconsideration were denied, he filed a petition for certiorari (October 2000). The Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau found probable cause to indict Laurel (November 2000), prompting him to secure a temporary restraining order from the Supreme Court (September 2001). Oral arguments were heard in November 2001.

Constitutional and Statutory Framework

Under the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman “shall act promptly on complaints … against public officials or employees” and “investigate any act or omission of any public official or employee … when such act … appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.” Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) mirrors these mandates, granting the Ombudsman plenary power to investigate and prosecute public officers for malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance. Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) defines corrupt practices of public officers and separately defines “public officer” for purposes of that Act as one “receiving compensation, even nominal, from the government.”

Scope of the Ombudsman’s Jurisdiction

Earlier decisions (Uy v. Sandiganbayan) appeared to limit the Ombudsman’s prosecutorial power to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. This interpretation was clarified and reversed: the Ombudsman’s authority is plenary and unqualified, covering any illegal act or omission of public officers or employees, without distinction as to the forum where charges may be lodged. The Special Prosecutor’s powers remain confined to the Sandiganbayan, but the Ombudsman may designate or deputize personnel to assist in investigating and prosecuting cases beyond that tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Nature of the National Centennial Commission and Exposition Corporation

A “public office” is defined as a delegation by law of sovereign functions—legislative, executive, or judicial—endowed upon an individual to be exercised for public benefit. The NCC was created by executive order under the President’s constitutional and statutory powers to implement state policies for the centennial celebrations, including cultural promotion, coordination of government agencies, refurbishment of historic sites, and economic development initiatives. These are quintessential executive functions, as they involve enforcing and administering governmental policies. Expocorp’s role derived from the NCC’s mandate, but even assuming it was a private corporation, Laurel’s authority in Expocorp flowed directly from his public functions.

Classification of Laurel as a Public Officer

Laurel’s chairmanship of the NCC involved exercise of executive powers for public purposes—planning and coordinating nationwide celebrations and socio

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.