"x x x.
The doctrine of condonation was adopted from American jurisprudence. It actually dates back to the 1800s. It was first used by the Supreme Court of the Philippines in 1959 (the case of Pascual vs. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija). The Court ruled that: Re-election to office operates as a condonation (to flush out; to remove) of the officer’s previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefor; the Court should never 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 the 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 faults or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. It is not for the court, by reason of such faults or misconduct to practically overrule the will of the people.
In 1992, in the case of Aguinaldo vs. Santos, the doctrine was used again. Secretary Luis Santos filed a case to remove Cagayan province governor Rudolfo Aguinaldo from public office for his alledged involvement in a coup attempt to oust former President Cory Aquino. Aguinaldo used the doctrine to protect his position in public office. The Court ruled in Aguinaldo’s favor stating: that a public official cannot be removed for administrative misconduct committed during a prior term, since his re-election to office operates as a condonation of the officer’s previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefor. This doctrine became known as the “Aguinaldo Doctrine.”
The doctrine has been used thereafter in several Supreme Court cases such as: Lizares v. Hechanova, et al. (123 Phil.916 1966); Ingco v. Sanchez, et al. (129 Phil. 553 1967); Olivarez v. Judge Villaluz, (156 Phil. 137 1974); Salalima v. Guingona, Jr. (326 Phil. 847 1996); Garcia v. Court of Appeals, (G.R. No. 185132, April 24, 2009); Office of the Ombudsman v. Evangelista, (G.R. No. 177211, March 13, 2009); and Trillanes IV v. Pimentel, Sr., (G.R. No. 179817, June 27, 2008) to name a few.
This doctrine espoused by the Supreme Court was always based on the assumption that when the people voted for an official, they knew his misdeeds or crimes during his previous term/s and have already disregarded the same and have forgiven him. Now that we are more enlightened to the dangers this doctrine can do to our country’s political landscape vis-a vis progress, I’m glad that our Ombudsman and SC Chief Justice are now working on removing it.
After the hearing conducted last week on Makati Mayor Binay’s case, Chief Justice Sereno explained her criticism against the doctrine. She said, “It is important that this court deliver the correct message to 430,000 officials… We’re basically saying that these 430,000 officials can commit administrative offenses ranging from simple misconduct all the way to serious misconduct, and dishonesty. They just have to ensure that they get re-elected and any preventive suspension or any investigation or an administrative finding by the Ombudsman will have to stop.” She also said that such principles could wreak havoc on the 1987 Constitution, as well as laws and penalties that aimed to uphold transparency and accountability.
Perhaps out of frustration with Binay’s lawyer who used the doctrine to defend Binay, CJ Sereno questioned Sandra Coronel: “Is this the kind of legal regime you want? We want to tell you this doctrine is wrong and you want to tell us to continue believing in this?... Isn’t this (the doctrine) tantamount to telling officials that they can commit all forms of administrative offenses so long as they get re-elected, because they cannot be held administratively liable?”
Two weeks ago, Ombudsman Morales echoed the same sentiments saying: “Given the fact that our present constitution, the 1987 Constitution is very emphatic on the drive against corruption, it calls for honesty among public officials, it calls for public accountability, then that policy should motivate the revisiting of the condonation doctrine because there is no law, no constitution that allows such doctrine, it was just based on a policy so it is only the Supreme Court which can reverse or modify it.”
x x x."
