POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
X. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
C. Powers of the President
2. Power of Appointment
f. Disciplinary Power (Suspension and Removal)

I. Constitutional and Statutory Basis

The President of the Philippines exercises disciplinary power over certain public officials based on constitutional and statutory authority. This power includes the authority to suspend or remove officials from their posts under specified conditions. While the Constitution grants certain powers to the President, this disciplinary power is largely governed by laws such as the Administrative Code of 1987 and judicial interpretations from the Supreme Court.

Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution grants the President the power to appoint officials in the government. Inherent to this power is the authority to discipline, suspend, or remove certain appointed officials.
Section 17, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution also underscores that the President shall ensure that all laws are faithfully executed. This gives the President oversight over government officers and employees, particularly in ensuring accountability in service.

II. Scope of the Disciplinary Power

The President’s disciplinary authority includes the following key components:

1. Power to Suspend

Preventive Suspension: The President may impose preventive suspension on any appointed official while an investigation is ongoing. This is not a form of punishment but is preventive in nature, to ensure that the investigation is conducted impartially and that the official being investigated does not exert undue influence.
Grounds for Suspension: Preventive suspension is usually imposed when:
- The charges against the official involve dishonesty, oppression, misconduct, or gross neglect in the performance of duties.
- The respondent’s continued stay in office may prejudice the investigation or influence witnesses.
- The law or regulations provide for such suspension.

2. Power to Remove

Grounds for Removal: The President may remove officials for cause, such as dishonesty, misconduct, neglect of duty, inefficiency, incompetence, or any other ground specified by law, particularly the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 and jurisprudence.
Due Process: The removal of officials must adhere to the principle of due process. An official must be informed of the charges against them, given a reasonable opportunity to answer, and heard by an impartial body or authority before a decision is made.

3. Officials Subject to the President's Disciplinary Power

Appointive Officials: Generally, the President has disciplinary authority over officials whom he or she has appointed, particularly those falling under the executive department. The power to discipline includes suspension, removal, and administrative penalties.
Local Government Officials: The power to discipline local government officials is governed by the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160). The President’s power to discipline elective local officials is typically exercised through the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), except in cases involving the President's direct appointment or positions falling under the President’s jurisdiction.
Presidential Appointees Under Constitutional Bodies: Officials in independent constitutional bodies such as the Civil Service Commission (CSC) or the Commission on Audit (COA) are not subject to the direct disciplinary authority of the President due to their independence, as provided by the Constitution. Their disciplinary process is governed by their respective agencies or the courts.

III. Jurisprudential Principles on Disciplinary Power

1. Disciplinary Power as Inherent to Executive Control

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the disciplinary power over officials within the executive branch is an inherent function of the President’s executive authority. This power includes not only the authority to appoint but also to discipline, suspend, and remove officials as part of ensuring effective governance and accountability (e.g., Paredes v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 158875, June 16, 2004).

2. Limits of the President’s Disciplinary Authority

Constitutional Bodies and Independent Offices: The Supreme Court has ruled that the President’s disciplinary authority does not extend to officials belonging to constitutional commissions or other independent offices created by the Constitution, as these are beyond the control of the President to ensure their autonomy (Bautista v. COA, G.R. No. 191938, August 3, 2010).
Checks and Balances: The exercise of the disciplinary power is subject to the doctrine of checks and balances. This ensures that while the President has significant control over the executive branch, the judiciary and legislative branches may intervene to prevent abuse of this authority. Moreover, the principle of separation of powers mandates that the President cannot unilaterally discipline or remove officials under the legislative or judicial branches, except when prescribed by law (e.g., impeachment, as in Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15, March 2, 2001).

3. Principle of Due Process in Disciplinary Actions

The President must observe procedural due process when exercising disciplinary powers. In the case of removal or suspension, the official must be given notice of the charges, a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves, and an impartial determination of their case (e.g., Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No. L-46496, February 27, 1940).

IV. Delegation of Disciplinary Power

1. Delegation to Department Heads and Administrative Agencies

The President can delegate the power to discipline certain officials to department secretaries, heads of agencies, or disciplinary boards, especially in cases involving lower-ranked officials. This delegation is consistent with the Administrative Code of 1987 and allows for efficient management of administrative cases within the executive branch.
Exceptions to Delegation: The power to discipline certain high-ranking officials, such as cabinet members or constitutional officers (subject to appointment by the President), remains exclusively with the President. Furthermore, the removal of such officials requires a finding of just cause and adherence to proper procedures.

2. Disciplinary Power of Local Executives

Local executives, such as mayors and governors, also possess disciplinary authority over subordinate officials within their respective jurisdictions, pursuant to the Local Government Code. However, the President may exercise supervisory disciplinary authority through the DILG, particularly in cases involving gross misconduct or violations of national law by local government officials.

V. Disciplinary Power as a Check on Corruption and Incompetence

The President’s disciplinary power serves as a vital mechanism for maintaining integrity and efficiency in the public service. By exercising this authority, the President can:

Enforce accountability among executive branch officials.
Remove or suspend officials guilty of misconduct, abuse of power, or neglect of duties.
Uphold public trust in government institutions by ensuring that erring officials are held accountable.

VI. Conclusion

The disciplinary power of the President to suspend or remove officials is a fundamental component of executive authority. It ensures that public officers remain accountable to the people and that the executive branch operates with integrity and efficiency. This power, while broad, is subject to the principles of due process, separation of powers, and statutory limitations designed to prevent abuses and protect the rights of public officials. Jurisprudence further refines the scope of the President’s power, reinforcing its role as a tool for governance and accountability in the public sector.