SIXTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC 
OF THE PHILIPPINES 
Second Regular Session 
SENATE 
S. No. 
2716 
) 
) 
) 
Introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago 
AN ACT 
'15 NAR24 P4:1\1 
AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "ANTI-
GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT," BY MAKING AN ELECTIVE 
OFFICIAL LIABLE FOR ANY VIOLATION 
OF THIS ACT COMMITTED DURING A PRIOR TERM 
DESPITE REELECTION 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
The Constitution, Article 11, Section 1 mandates: "Public office is a public trust. 
Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them 
with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and 
justice, and lead modest lives." 
The Constitution, Article 11, Section 2 provides: "All other public officers and 
employees may be removed from office as provided by law .... " 
Republic Act No. 3019, also known as the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," 
Section 1 provides: "It is the policy of the Philippine Government, in line with the 
principle that a public office is a public trust, to repress certain acts of public officers and 
private persons alike which constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead 
thereto." 
Section 9 of this Act mandates: "The violation of said section proven in a proper 
administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public 
officer. even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him." 


It is a well-established public policy that a public officer must possess the highest 
virtues of integrity, honesty, discipline, and uprightness. Once an elected official fails in 
his duty to serve the public honestly and is found wanting of these characteristics, he 
must be removed in order to safeguard the public from his abuses. 
Contrary to this public policy, the 2010 case of Salumbides v. Ombudsman,! 
reiterated the doctrine of condonation enunciated some 60 years ago in Pascual v. Han. 
Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija2 that prohibits the disciplining of an elective official for 
a wrongful act committed during his immediately preceding term of office. -
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 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, 
ifhe had been gUilty of any. 
The Pascual ruling gave birth to the doctrine of condonation in Philippine 
jurisprudence, which provides a blanket defense for elected officials to evade liability just 
by securing a reelection considering that the term of a local elective official is only three 
years. By merely asserting the doctrine of condonation, erring elective officials are 
automatically given a clean slate once reelected. Thus, there is a need to evaluate this 
doctrine in light of the express Constitutional mandate that public office is a public trust. 
Those who betray such trust by being dishonest, inefficient, and corrupt fail to meet the 
stringent standards found in the Constitution and must be removed. 
The simple act of reelection alone cannot be taken to condone an elective official's 
previous illegal acts since to do so would run counter to the State's duty to maintain 
honesty and integrity in public office, and to keep officers accountable to the public. It 
also collides with the character of public office as a public trust.3 


The very object of removal is to rid the community of a corrupt, incapable, or 
unworthy official. Reelection does not condone the offense. Misconduct may not have 
been discovered prior to the election, and in any event, had not been established in the 
manner contemplated by the statute.
4 
Thus, there is a need to amend R.A. No. 3019 to reflect the prevailing public 
policy that an elective official should still be held liable for any violation of this Act 
committed during a prior term despite reelection. 
4 Territory v. Sanches, 14 N.M. 493, 94 P. 954 (1908) citing State v. Welsh, 109 IOWA 
19, N.W. 369 (1899). 
3 


SIXTEENTH CONGRESS or THE REPUBLIC 
OF THE PHILIPPINES 
Second Regular Session 
SENATE 
~~716 
s. No. _-,-> _______ =-==-
) 
) 
) 
Introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago 
'15 
MAR 24 P4:41 
!(!·:n,;rV!-:IJ HY;_)~_ 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in 
Congress assembled: 
1 
mAcr 
2 
AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "ANTI-
3 
GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT," BY MAKING AN ELECTIVE 
4 
OFFICIAL LIABLE FOR ANY VIOLATION 
5 
OF THIS ACT COMMITTED DURING A PRIOR TERM 
6 
DESPITE REELECTION 
7 
SECTION 1. A new Section 10 is hereby inserted after Section 9 of Republic Act 
8 
No. 3019, otherwise known as the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," to read as 
9 
follows: 
10 
SECTION 10. VIOLATIONS COMMITTED DURING A PAST TERM. 
11 
-
ANY ELECTIVE 
OFFICIAL SHALL BE 
LIABLE FOR ANY 
12 
VIOLATION OF THIS ACT COMMITTED DURING A PRIOR TERM 
13 
DESPITE REELECTION. 
14 
SECTION 2. Section 10 orR.A. No. 3019 and all succeeding sections of the Act 
15 
are hereby renumbered accordingly. 
16 
SECTION 3. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations, 
17 
or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or amended accordingly. 
18 
SECTION 4. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its 
19 
publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation. 
Approved,