Public Corporations Digest
Joson v Torres
I. Facts of the case
Pangilinan and other private respondents are members of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan. They filed a letter-complaint against Nueva
Ecija Governor Joson with the OP for grave misconduct and abuse of
authority, asking for his suspension. The letter-complaint was forwarded to
DILG Secretary Barbers, who paved the way for the parties to reach a peace
agreement. When the peace agreement was not respected, the private
respondents reiterated the case. The DILG asked Joson for an answer but he
failed to respond. After three months of waiting, the DILG Secretary
declared petitioner in default.
Upon recommendation of DILG Secretary Barbers, Executive
Secretary Torres issued an order, by authority of the President, placing
Joson under preventive suspension, pending the investigation. The
proceedings continued and eventually he was found guilty of the offenses
charged. Executive Secretary Torres, by authority of the President, adopted
the findings and recommendation of the DILG Secretary and suspended
Joson from office for 6 months, without pay.
Joson now comes to Court, questioning the jurisdiction and authority
of the DILG Secretary over the matter, contending that only the President
has jurisdiction over the complaint and the power to discipline elective
officials lies with the President alone, not the DILG Secretary.
II. Issue/s
W/N the DILG Secretary has the authority to investigate and rule over
administrative disciplinary actions against local officials? Yes
III. Held
Administrative disciplinary proceedings against elective local officials
Administrative disciplinary proceedings against elective local officials
are governed by the LGC, the LGC-IRR, and AO 23, Prescribing the Rules
and Procedures on the Investigation of Administrative Disciplinary Cases
against Elective Local Officials of Provinces, Highly Urbanized Cities,
Independent Component Cities, and Cities and Municipalities in Metro
Manila.”
G.R. NO: 131255
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: intergovernment relations
VOL [May 20, 1998]
Joson v Torres
Jurisdiction of the DILG Secretary
Petitioner questions the jurisdiction and authority of the DILG
Secretary over the case. He contends that under the law, it is the Office of
the President that has jurisdiction over the letter-complaint and that the CA
erred in applying the alter-ego principle because the power to discipline
elective local officials lies with the President, not with the DLIG Secretary.
Based on AO 23, jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary actions
against local elective officials is lodged into two authorities: the
Disciplining Authority and the Investigating Authority. The Disciplining
Authority is the President, whether acting by himself or through the
Executive Secretary, while the Secretary of the DILG is the Investigating
Authority, who may act by himself or constitute an Investigating
Committee.
Power of general supervision
The power of the President over administrative disciplinary cases
against elective local officials is derived from his power of general
supervision over local governments (Section 4, Article X of the 1987
Constitution). The power of supervision means “overseeing or the authority
of an officer to see that the subordinate officers perform their duties. If the
subordinate officers fail or neglect to fulfill their duties, the official may
take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform their
duties. The President’s power of general supervision means no more than
the power of ensuring that laws are faithfully executed, or that subordinate
officers act within the law. Supervision is not incompatible with discipline.
And the power to discipline and ensure that the laws be faithfully executed
must be construed to authorize the President to order an investigation of the
act or conduct of local officials when in his opinion the good of the public
so requires.
Power to investigate
The power to discipline evidently includes the power to investigate. AO
23 delegates the power to investigate to the DILG or a Special Investigating
Committee. It is not undue delegation because the President remains the
Disciplining Authority and only the power to investigate is delegated.
Furthermore, the power of the DILG to investigate administrative
complaints is based on the alter-ego principle of the doctrine of qualified
PONENTE: Puno, J.
DIGEST MAKER: Lim, Josiah
 Public Corporations Digest VOL [May 20, 1998]
Joson v Torres Joson v Torres

political agency, which is in line with the power of control under

Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution.
As head of the Executive Department, the President may delegate
some of his powers to the Cabinet members except when he is required by
the Constitution or law to act in person, or the exigencies of the situation
demand that he acts personally. The members of Cabinet may act for and in
behalf of the President in certain matters because the President cannot be
expected to exercise his control (and supervisory) powers personally all the
time. Each head of a department is, and must be, the President's alter ego in
the matters of that department where the President is required by law to
exercise authority.

Case resolution

Although, indeed, the investigation was within the DILG Secretary’s

authority, in the end, the suspension could not be upheld because Joson was
denied of procedural due process. His right to a formal investigation was
not satisfied when the complaint against him was decided on the basis of
position papers.

Petition granted.

IV. Notes/Provisions cited

G.R. NO: 131255 PONENTE: Puno, J.

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: intergovernment relations DIGEST MAKER: Lim, Josiah