This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-12-07 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| It contends that the President is necessarily vested with the power to conduct fact-finding investigations, pursuant to his duty to ensure that all laws are enforced by public officials and employees of his department and in the exercise of his authority to assume directly the functions of the executive department, bureau and office, or interfere with the discretion of his officials.[40] The power of the President to investigate is not limited to the exercise of his power of control over his subordinates in the executive branch, but extends further in the exercise of his other powers, such as his power to discipline subordinates,[41] his power for rule making, adjudication and licensing purposes[42] and in order to be informed on matters which he is entitled to know.[43] | |||||
|
2010-10-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Office of the Ombudsman v. Medrano,[19] (Medrano) this Court ruled that the administrative disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman over a public school teacher is not an exclusive power but is concurrent with the proper committee of the DECS, to wit: In resolving the second issue - whether petitioner has jurisdiction over the administrative complaint against respondent - it is necessary to examine the source, nature and extent of the power and authority of the Ombudsman vis-à-vis the provisions of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers. | |||||