CARPIO-MORALES VS. CA [GR No. 217126-27, November 10, 2015]

 CASE DIGEST

CARPIO-MORALES VS. CA

GR No. 217126-27, November 10, 2015

EN BANC, PERLAS-BERNABE

 

Re-election is not a mode of condoning an administrative offense.

The condonation doctrine is ABANDONED, but the abandonment is PROSPECTIVE in effect. There is no basis for saying that the election of an official to a new term fully absolves the official of any administrative liability arising from an offense committed during a prior term, since public office is a public trust and that public officials shall be accountable to the people at all times.

 

Ombudsman ordered the preventive suspension of Binay, Jr, Mayor of Makati, pending investigation as to his involvement in the alleged corruption in the Makati Parking Building Project. Binay, Jr. argued that he could not be held administratively liable since Phases I and II were undertaken before he was elected Mayor of Makati and Phases III to V transpired during his first term. His re-election as mayor for a second term effectively condoned his administrative liability therefor, if any, thus rendering the administrative cases against him moot and academic. Binay invokes condonation doctrine that all administrative irregularities committed during his previous term were already condoned by the fact of his re-election.

 

Does condonation through re-election operate to absolve an elective official from administrative liability arising from a previous term? 

PARTLY GRANTED. The condonation doctrine is ABANDONED but the abandonment is PROSPECTIVE in effect starting April 12, 2016 (Carpio Morales v. Court of Appeals attained finality). The condonation doctrine should be abandoned. There is no constitutional or statutory basis to support it. It would be a violation of the Court's own duty to uphold and defend the Constitution if it were not to abandon the condonation doctrine now that its infirmities have become apparent. As extensively discussed, the continued application of the condonation doctrine is simply impermissible under the auspices of the present Constitution which explicitly mandates that public office is a public trust and that public officials shall be accountable to the people at all times. 

In fact the LGC precludes condonation since in the first place, an elective local official who is meted with the penalty of removal could not be re-elected to an elective local position due to a direct disqualification from running for such post. 

However, the Court's abandonment of the condonation doctrine should be prospective in application. It should be, as a general rule, recognized as "good law" prior to its abandonment. Consequently, the people's reliance thereupon should be respected.

 

Condonation Doctrine Concept

Condonation Doctrine, which applies only to administrative cases, (1) the penalty of removal may not be extended beyond the term in which the public officer was elected for each term is separate and distinct; (2) an elective official's re-election serves as a condonation of previous misconduct, thereby cutting the right to remove him therefor; and (3) courts may not deprive the electorate, who are assumed to have known the life and character of candidates, of their right to elect officers. 

Applicability: the condonation doctrine can still apply to pending administrative cases provided that the re-election is also before the abandonment.

CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT