Aguinaldo Doctrine - unsa man ni?
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Aguinaldo Doctrine - unsa man ni?

This is a discussion on Aguinaldo Doctrine - unsa man ni? within the Politics & Current Events forums, part of the Lounge category;

  1. #1
    Junior Member gamhanan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007

    Default Aguinaldo Doctrine - unsa man ni?

    Unsa man jd ni cya? Ngano naa pa man ni nga balaod kung usa ni ka balaod? Kung nagprotekta ni sa mga politiko sa ilang mga sayop sa ilang previous term, unsa man pd lain nga naka-advantage ani sa mga katawhan? Dili ba ni cya puyd walaon? Maau unta katong mga suweto ani maka-ambit gamay sa ilang nahibaw-an.. --salamat..

  2.    Advertisement

  3. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Aguinaldo Doctrine - unsa man ni?

    Unsa man diay ni?

  4. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005

    Default Re: Aguinaldo Doctrine - unsa man ni?

    Quote Originally Posted by gamhanan
    Unsa man jd ni cya? Ngano naa pa man ni nga balaod kung usa ni ka balaod? Kung nagprotekta ni sa mga politiko sa ilang mga sayop sa ilang previous term, unsa man pd lain nga naka-advantage ani sa mga katawhan? Dili ba ni cya puyd walaon? Maau unta katong mga suweto ani maka-ambit gamay sa ilang nahibaw-an.. --salamat..
    I'm not a lawyer but this old article might give some insights what is this Aguinaldo doctrine all about. Note the word doctrine. So this is not a law by the way.

    Criminal liability

    July 05, 2007 18:50:00
    Malou Guanzon-Apalisok
    Cebu Daily News

    CEBU, Philippines—It must have been a struggle for reelected Mayor Arturo “Boy” Radaza to return to Lapu-Lapu City Hall last Monday to assume his duties amid legal doubts over his suspension from office for his alleged participation in the ASEAN Summit lamppost controversy. As I write, there’s no word yet from Tanodbayan Merceditas Guttierez, who is set to act on the recommendations of the Visayas Ombudsman.

    I am always attentive to what acting Deputy Ombudsman Virginia Palanca Santiago would have to say on this matter, but she has been consistent in refusing to issue any comments on Radaza’s suspension, knowing as she does that this is the call of the Tanodbayan.

    However, it is common knowledge that Radaza’s lawyers filed a motion to lift the suspension to clear the way for his assumption. I agree with observations that by filing such motion, the mayor recognized the suspension order is still in effect, which is why I find his decision to preside over the council session last Monday unseemly even as it showed bad faith.

    A young lawyer in the household recently walked me through the purpose of the unique power of the Ombudsman to suspend government officials accused of graft. When it issues a preventive suspension order, the Ombudsman is duty bound to begin investigation of the case and to conclude it within the most reasonable time. The intention is to preclude the respondent from unduly influencing possible witnesses to his case.

    One need not be a lawyer to understand the possibility that a state official could exert influence over his subordinates, deliberately or otherwise. Removing him from the scene would enable investigators to have a clearer understanding of the case and gain access to impartial witnesses.

    Government officials in hot water will not readily admit to this, but since their temporary removal has the effect of compelling the Office of the Ombudsman to process the case, i.e. find facts and gather evidence, it may well be said that the ovet all impact of the suspension is beneficial to respondents – it speeds up the process and allows the anti-graft body to move on to the next task, which is the determination of whether or not the facts are sufficient for the filing of charges against the officials. Unless they have reasons to be afraid, they should welcome a full-blown investigation and exert all efforts in bringing the case to a just resolution.

    If there’s no prima facie evidence, the respondent is cleared and the elected official goes back to work vindicated. The difference lies when evidence is found against the respondent, but then again there’s a lot of legroom to maneuver in a system that guarantees due process.

    Some quarters are saying the odds are that a criminal case could still be filed against Radaza on the lamppost controversy, even if his reelection extinguished the administrative liability of the case.

    In Garcia vs. Mojica (GR No. 139043 September 10, 1999), the Supreme Court held that while petitioner, then Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia, can no longer be held administratively liable for signing the contract with F. E. Zuellig, this should not prejudice the filing of any case outside of the administrative suit previously filed against Garcia.

    The Court used the Aguinaldo Doctrine, which states, “a reelected local official may not be held administratively accountable for misconduct committed during his prior term of office. The rationale being that when the electorate put him back into office, it is presumed that it did so with full knowledge of his life and character, including his past misconduct. If, armed with such knowledge, it still reelects him, then such reelection is considered a condonation of his past misdeeds.”

    In Aguinaldo vs. Santos, the Court made clear the rule that a public official cannot be removed from administrative misconduct committed during a prior term, since his reelection to office operates as a condoning of the officer’s previous misconduct, thereby cutting off the right to remove him.

    Fortunately or unfortunately, the Aguinaldo doctrine does not apply to criminal cases pending or which may be filed against the official.

    So ug duna pa gani mga criminal cases nga ipasaka kana dili na mo apply ang Aguinaldo doctrine. Kanang kang nahitabo ron ni Radaza ug ganahan kang manubag sya ana, sala na sa mga electorate kay kahibalo gud sila nya nganong ila pa man gyud nga giboto?

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2005

    Default Re: Aguinaldo Doctrine - unsa man ni?

    ok, now that Radaza is back on his 2nd term...nya gipasakaan na man sab cya ug criminal ug admin charges by the ombud, dili man na matawag ug double jeopardy or application sa aguinaldo doctrine, di ba? ky bag-o na man nga kaso...

    as for ex-mayor Ouano, ang criminal cases nlng ang ngpabilin kng naa man gani, di ba? ky wa na man cya sa admin...

  6. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010

    Default Re: Aguinaldo Doctrine - unsa man ni?

    Aguinaldo doctrine spares Ouano from disqualification’ 11/22/2011

    With one criminal case dismised, and one left to answer for the 2007 lamppost scandal, former Mandaue City Mayor Thadeo Ouano faces a lingering question about his status to occupy public office.
    What happens to the penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office after the Ombudsman found him guilty of grave misconduct for the deal in its Oct. 1, 2010 decision?
    “That’s the issue we will look into,” said Assistant Ombudsman Virginia Palanca- Santiago when asked yesterday by a reporter.
    “Let it be. Just read the decision. I won’t comment about issues as this may be raised in court,” she said.
    In the Oct. 1, 2010 decision, the anti-graft office dismissed the administrative charge against Ouano, saying his re-election as Provincial Board member in the 2010 polls was “condonation of his previous msiconduct,” leaving the case “moot and academc.”
    Ouano was a Mandaue City mayor at the time the lamposts purchase was made in 2007.
    Ouano's lawyer Victor Maambong Jr. in a separate interview said the issue was moot with the administrative case dismissed by operation of the Aguinaldo Doctrine.
    “It shoud not be reopened,” said Maamong, a former PB member representing Cebu’s 6th district, whose seat Ouano now occupies.
    Under the Aguinaldo Doctrine, a re-elected public official is spared the administrative liability for misconduct done during his prior term . Reelection in effect condones the past lapses.
    The lawyer reminded Santiago about the Ombudsman’s own ruling which declared the administrative penalties against Ouano “moot”.
    “The Aguinaldo Doctrine has not been ameded to Mabini or Rizal,” he pointed out.
    “To be fair to a public servant, she should be precise in her pronouncements,” he said.
    Maambong said the defense lawyers are focusing on one remaining criminal case against Ouano.
    A second one was earlier dismissed by the Sandiganbayan.
    The Aguinaldo Doctrine was the same principle cited in absolving administrative charges against rep. Arturo Radaza, former mayor of Lapu-Lapu City over the lamppost scam.
    Nevertheless, Asssitant Ombudsman Santiago said the office was wiling to conduct a fact-finding inquiry into whether the penalty still applies to Ouano.
    In 2008, Ouano was ordered dismissed from public service, disqualified from holding government position, and his benefits forfeited for grave misconduct in the purchase of the lampposts.
    The decorative lampposts were used in the 2007 Association of Southeast Nations (Asean) summit in Cebu.
    In 2008, when the ruling for dismissal was issued, Ouano was no longerin public office as his term as mayor was over.
    Ouano served a preventive suspension order and left his post as city mayor of Mandaue City before the May 2007 elections.
    Still the Ombudsman-Visayas said “the penalty imposed upon him be deemed implemented and accordingly reflected in his record of public service.”
    “His subsequent re-election to office during the May 2010 elections operates as a condonation of his previous misconduct and has rendered the administrative charges against him moot and academic,” the anti-graft office said.
    Santiago reaffirmed the Oct. 1 ruling yesterday when reporters sought a clarification on the verdict against Ouano.
    But the possibility of re-evaluating whether Ouano is banned from holding public office is there, she said.
    The Ombudsman has furnished copies of their decisions to the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Audit, and the Commission on Elections (Comelec).
    Santiago said the Comelec wasn't given a copy of their rulings before.
    She said only the court can remove a public official who was earlier ordered perpetually disqualified from public office.
    Usually, Santiago said parties who wanted to question the official's stint in government have seven days since the public officer took his oath of office despite being disqualified from public service.
    Last August, the Court of Appeals (CA) 19th division in Cebu City rejected the petition filed by 14 officials of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) who sought the reversal of the Ombudsman order dismissing them from service.
    All were found guilty of grave misconduct by the Ombudsman-Visayas for the acquisition of lampposts.
    The anti-graft office said the cost of each lamppost was expanded to nearly 10 times its actual cost. /Ador Vincent Mayol, Reporter

    (unsa man jud gamit aning doctine? pwede ireview ni sa Congress..mao nang mangawat ra ang mga politiko kay magsalig sila naa na ang doctrine unsa ma TY ra after sila mareelect!!)

  7. #6
    C.I.A. salbahis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Blog Entries

    Default Re: Aguinaldo Doctrine - unsa man ni?

    Quote Originally Posted by cebuiluv View Post
    unsa man jud gamit aning doctine? pwede ireview ni sa Congress..mao nang mangawat ra ang mga politiko kay magsalig sila naa na ang doctrine unsa ma TY ra after sila mareelect!!
    AFAIK congress had nothing to do with this, since this is not a LAW...

    here's what ive understand on this so far:

    The centro de argumento about this doctrine is that when erring public official is Officially Re-Elected by his constituents, it will MOOTS all administrative cases filed againts him during previous term.

    the problem is not on the doctrine its on the constituents that re-elected the official, i never voted for radaza not in my lifetime even if relative rami

    im no lawyer but aspiring to be (someday if naa pay time)
    Last edited by salbahis; 11-22-2011 at 12:46 PM.

  8. #7
    C.I.A. peewee_toot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008

    Default Re: Aguinaldo Doctrine - unsa man ni?

    karon pa ko nka dungog ani dah. at least i learned something...

  9. #8
    C.I.A. samsungster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005

    Default Re: Aguinaldo Doctrine - unsa man ni?

    thanks for refreshing our mind regarding this...

  10. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009

    Default Re: Aguinaldo Doctrine - unsa man ni?

    yeah... new legal term learned... pero kinsa diay ning aguinaldo-ha...

  11. #10
    RLO is offline
    подстрекатель Platinum Member RLO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Default Re: Aguinaldo Doctrine - unsa man ni?

    Quote Originally Posted by nihao View Post
    yeah... new legal term learned... pero kinsa diay ning aguinaldo-ha...
    The Aguinaldo Doctrine a re-elected public official is spared the administrative liability for misconduct done during his prior term.

    It's SC precedence in 1992, not a law from the legislature.

    Supreme Court Case
    Rodofo Aguinaldo v. Luis Santos

    it is an offshoot of a 1992 Supreme Court ruling in the certiorari and prohibition case Rodofo Aguinaldo filed against Luis Santos, then Secretary of the Department of Local Government, and Melvin Vargas, then acting governor of Cagayan Province.

    Aguinaldo, in the suit, questioned Santoss March 19, 1990 decision in an administrative case that dismissed him from service as Cagayan Province governor for supporting the 1989 coup dtat launched by factions of the military against the government of Corazon Aquino.

    The governor faced the investigation and was preventively suspended for 60 days. He was eventually sacked and Vargas, the vice governor then, was appointed as his replacement.

    Aguinaldo contested the ruling and, while the case was still pending, managed to run and win his old post back in the 1992 elections.

    Cases were again filed and Aguinaldo found reprieve when the SC said the interior and local government order that sacked him had not yet attained finality, making his candidacy and win valid.

    The SC then ruled on the case proper, saying offenses committed, or acts done, during a previous term are generally held not to furnish cause for removal.

    The underlying theory is that each term is separate from other terms, and that the reelection to office operates as a condonation of the officers misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefore, the ruling read.

    The Court should ever remove a public officer for acts done prior to his present term of office. To do otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their officers. When a people have elected a man to office, it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and character, and that they disregarded or forgave his fault or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. It is not for the court, by reason of such fault or misconduct, to practically overrule the will of the people, it added.

    SAUCE: Court decision revives talks on Aguinaldo Doctrine | Sun.Star

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. unsa man ni nga site?
    By chill_angel25 in forum Networking & Internet
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-28-2010, 03:56 PM
  2. KIKIK! tuo mo? unsa man ni?
    By Onins in forum Spirituality & Occult - OLDER
    Replies: 215
    Last Post: 05-15-2009, 01:57 PM
  3. When i download, mu restart ang PC unsa man ni mani??? :)
    By sheka in forum Networking & Internet
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-18-2006, 03:39 PM
  4. unsa man ni na kanta?
    By kagulo... in forum Music & Radio
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-03-2005, 11:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
about us
iSTORYA.NET is Cebu's Biggest, Southern Philippines' Most Active, and the Philippines' Strongest Online Community!
follow us