Morales vs. CA and Jejomar Binay Jr.

(Disqualification of Candidates; Grounds for disqualification; Doctrine of Condonation)

FACTS: A complaint was filed by Atty. Renato L. Bondal and Nicolas "Ching" Enciso VI before the Office of
the Ombudsman against Binay, Jr. et al., accusing them of Plunder and violation of The Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act in connection with the procurement and construction of the 5-phase Makati City
Hall Parking Building. The Ombudsman issued a preventive suspension order placing Binay, Jr., et al.
under preventive suspension for not more than six (6) months without pay during the pendency of the
OMB Cases. Binay, Jr. filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, and argued that he could not be held
administratively liable since Phases I and II were undertaken before he was elected Mayor and Phase III
to V transpired during his first term and that his re-election as City Mayor of Makati for a second term
effectively condoned his administrative liability. Thus, he filed a petition for TRO / writ of preliminary
injunction against the implementation of the preventive suspension order of the Ombudsman.

ISSUE: Whether the condonation doctrine can be applied

RULING: No. Condonation has been defined as "[a] victim's express or implied forgiveness of an offense,
[especially] by treating the offender as if there had been no offense." (connotes this same sense of
complete extinguishment of liability). The condonation doctrine is a peculiar jurisprudential creation
that has persisted as a defense of elective officials to escape administrative liability.

The concept of public office is a public trust and the corollary requirement of accountability to the
people at all times, as mandated under the 1987 Constitution, is plainly inconsistent with the idea that
an elective local official's administrative liability for a misconduct committed during a prior term can be
wiped off by the fact that he was elected to a second term of office, or even another elective post.
Election is not a mode of condoning an administrative offense. In this jurisdiction, liability arising from
administrative offenses may be condoned by the President.

The LGC precludes condonation since in the first place, an elective local official who is meted with the
penalty of removal could not be re-elected to an elective local position due to a direct disqualification
from running for such post.

In this jurisdiction, there is, again, no legal basis to conclude that election automatically implies
condonation. This Court simply finds no legal authority to sustain the condonation doctrine in this
jurisdiction.