Disqualification of Dabu and Velez - Joselito Basilio
I could not help but react to today's Sunstar news item and editorial
titled “PB finds Dabu, Velez qualifications deficient†and “On
Moralityâ€, respectively.
According to the PB, the qualifications of Dabu and Velez run counter
to the Civil Service Law and Rules and R.A. 6713 also known as “Code
of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees."
I disagree.
Under Sec. 480 and 481 of the Local Government Code 0f 1991, the
qualifications of the of the provincial administrator and legal officer are
as follows :
A) Provincial Administrator
No person shall be appointed administrator unless he is and/or has :
1. a citizen of the Philippines
2. a resident of the local government unit concerned
3. of good moral character
4. a holder of a college degree preferably in public administration,
law, or any other related course from a recognized college or university
5. a first grade civil service eligible or its equivalent.
6. acquired experience in management and administration work for at
least five (5) years.
A) Legal Officer
No person shall be appointed administrator unless he is and/or has :
1. a citizen of the Philippines
2. a resident of the local government unit concerned
3. of good moral character
4. a holder of a college degree preferably in public administration,
law, or any other related course from a recognized college or university
5. a member of the Philippine Bar
6. practiced his profession for at least five (5) years
I believe the qualifications of Dabu and Velez are both compliant with
the provisions of the aforecited law and both of them have duly been
appointed in accordance with Art. 463 of the Local Government Code, to
wit :
Qualifications
1) Morality
I do not see any defects in the qualifications of Dabu and Velez. The
PB disqualified Dabu and Velez for being single mothers, which they
viewed as an act of immorality.
In the eyes of the law, being a single mother is not a crime, much less
a breach of morality. I know one previous provincial administrator who
illicitly kept many paramours and yet his appointment was confirmed by
the then PB members including Guaio and David. They condoned an
adulterous act then and frown upon being a single mother now. What a double
standard!
What is the true test of good moral character? The PB cannot pass
judgment on the morality of an appointee on the basis of his or her personal
circumstances. The appointee must have been convicted of a crime
involving moral turpitude. This element is required in ascertaining the
morality of a person.
Our Supreme Court defines moral turpitude as including any act done
contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. Some of the
particular crimes which have been held to involve moral turpitude are adultery,
concubinage, rape, arson, evasion of income tax, barratry, bigamy,
blackmail, bribery, criminal conspiracy to smuggle opium, dueling,
embezzlement, extortion, forgery, libel, making fraudulent proof of loss on
insurance contract, murder, mutilation of public records, fabrication of
evidence, offenses against pension laws, perjury, seduction under
promise of marriage, estafa, falsification of public document, estafa thru
falsification of public document. (Zari vs. Flores, A.M. No. [2170-MC]
P-1356, 21 November 1979)
Both Dabu and Velez have not been convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude. They are therefore moral in the realm of the law.
2) Conflict of Interest
Section 7(2) of R.A. 6713 prohibits any public official and employee to
engage in the private practice of his profession unless authorized by
the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict
or tend to conflict with their official functions.
Dabu has been disqualified on the basis of the above law. Again, in the
absence of any court ruling that she violated this law, the PB cannot
pass judgment on this issue. Also, I believe this law applies only
after the appointment of a person, not before appointment. If the PB
members think otherwise, they are also in violation of the law they used in
disqualifying Dabu, viz :
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts and
omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the
Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited
acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:
(1) Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer, employee,
consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee or nominee in any private
enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by their office unless
expressly allowed by law.
Being a vice governor and a PBA coach, Guaio is also guilty of the
above prohibited act. So are some of our honorable PB members who own
personal businesses.
Confirmation of Appointment
Since the PB did not act on their appointment within 15 days from
submission of appointment papers, both Dabu and Velez have ipso facto been
appointed by operation of law.
As to the interpretation, I posit that Art. 463 of the Local Government
Code is clear and requires no interpretation on the basis of the
time-honored principle of “Plain Meaning Ruleâ€, viz :
“If the statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be
given its literal meaning and applied without interpretation. This is
rule rests on the valid presumption that the words employed by the
legislature in a statute correctly express its intention or will and preclude
the court from construing it differently. The legislature is presumed
to know the meaning of the words, to have used words advisedly, and to
have expressed its intent by use of such words as are found in the
statute.†(Republic vs. Lacap, G.R. No. 158253, 2 March 2007)
Moreover, Section 5(a) of R.A. 6713 requires all public officials, in
the performance of their duties, to act promptly on letters and requests
within 15 days from receipt thereof. By analogy, I find this law
applicable.
In any event, until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, the appointment
of Dabu and Velez are deemed confirmed by operation of law.