Anti-corruption advocates were quite disappointed when Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay Jr. invoked the Aguinaldo doctrine, questioning his order of suspension last March. The decision was made by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales. The Makati Mayor claimed that he was no longer held responsible nor liable for the construction of Makati Science High School Building (MSHSB) because such liability has already been rendered ineffective by his reelection in 2013. The same doctrine was used for defending himself against anomalous and shady transaction involved in the construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building II. Perhaps, the existence of Aguinaldo Doctrine has been misused and abused by politicians who still aspire to run for 2016 elections in spite of pending administrative cases.
The Aguinaldo doctrine removes the elected officials’ liabilities for administrative offenses that were committed in previous terms once they are reelected. It is so easy for elected officials to evade liabilities so long as they are reelected into office. The doctrine also emphasizes that the law only applies to administrative cases. If elected official has a pending criminal case, the acts will not be pardoned and the judicial processes will push through. Anti-corruption advocates believe that scrapping this doctrine can reduce graft and corruption in the country.
As stated in the doctrine: “Offenses committed, or acts done, during a previous term are generally held not to furnish cause for removal and this is especially true were the Constitution provides that the penalty in proceeding for removal shall not extend beyond the removal from office, and disqualification from holding office for a term for which the officer was elected or appointed.”
“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. (Lizares v. Hechanova, et al., 17 SCRA 58, 59-60 [1966]) (See also Oliveros v. Villaluz, 57 SCRA 163 [1974])”
“Equally without merit is petitioner's claim that before he could be suspended or removed from office, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required inasmuch as he is charged with a penal offense of disloyalty to the Republic which is defined and penalized under Article 137 of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioner is not being prosecuted criminally under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, but administratively with the end in view of removing petitioner as the duly elected Governor of Cagayan Province for acts of disloyalty to the Republic where the quantum of proof required is only substantial evidence.”
