Types of Accountability | Accountability of Public Officers | LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

Topic: Accountability of Public Officers: Types of Accountability

Accountability of public officers in the Philippines is a core principle embedded in the Constitution and various laws to ensure transparency, responsibility, and integrity in public service. Public officers are required to uphold the public trust and can be held accountable for violations of the law or abuses of authority. The types of accountability fall under multiple frameworks, including criminal, civil, administrative, and ethical standards.

1. Constitutional Accountability

Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve with responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives (Article XI, Section 1).

The Constitution establishes various mechanisms for accountability:

• Impeachment (Article XI, Section 2): The President, Vice President, Members of the Supreme Court, Members of Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office through impeachment for culpable violations of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.
• Office of the Ombudsman (Article XI, Section 5): Tasked with investigating complaints of public misconduct and recommending appropriate actions, including prosecution and administrative sanctions.

2. Criminal Accountability

Public officers may be held criminally liable under several key laws:

• Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019): This law penalizes corrupt practices of public officers, including but not limited to receiving kickbacks, engaging in unlawful transactions, or showing manifest partiality in the discharge of their duties. Violations can lead to imprisonment, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and confiscation of ill-gotten wealth.

• Plunder Law (Republic Act No. 7080): A public officer can be charged with plunder if they amass wealth amounting to at least P50 million through a combination or series of overt criminal acts. Plunder is punishable by reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment) and forfeiture of assets.

• Revised Penal Code (RPC): Public officers are also liable for specific crimes under the RPC, including:

  • Malversation of public funds or property (Art. 217);
  • Direct bribery (Art. 210);
  • Indirect bribery (Art. 211);
  • Dereliction of duty or failure to prosecute or arrest offenders (Art. 208).

3. Administrative Accountability

Public officers are also subject to administrative discipline under various administrative laws and regulations. Violations can result in disciplinary measures such as suspension, dismissal, or forfeiture of benefits. Key mechanisms include:

• Civil Service Commission (CSC): The CSC oversees the conduct of public officers in the civil service and may discipline officers for administrative offenses such as dishonesty, neglect of duty, misconduct, inefficiency, and insubordination.

• Office of the Ombudsman: In addition to its investigative powers, the Ombudsman has the authority to impose administrative sanctions against erring public officers, including suspension, dismissal, and forfeiture of retirement benefits.

• Administrative Code of 1987: It governs the administrative discipline of public officers and outlines the processes for handling complaints and imposing penalties.

4. Civil Accountability

Public officers can be held civilly liable for damages if their acts result in harm or injury to private individuals or the government. The civil liability of public officers arises in several contexts:

• Tort Law (Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 32): If a public officer violates the rights of another person, the injured party can file a civil case for damages. Article 32 covers violations of constitutional rights and liberties, where public officers are liable for damages irrespective of whether they acted in bad faith or with malice.

• Section 39 of the Administrative Code of 1987: This provision shields public officers from personal liability for damages arising from acts done in the performance of official duties, provided they acted in good faith and within the scope of their authority. However, this does not apply in cases of gross negligence, malice, or bad faith.

5. Ethical and Moral Accountability

The public service is governed by ethical standards that aim to prevent conflicts of interest and promote transparency:

• Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713): This law sets ethical norms for public officers, including standards of conduct like professionalism, public transparency, and simple living. Public officers must file Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN), disclose financial interests, and avoid conflicts of interest.

• Anti-Red Tape Act (Republic Act No. 9485): Public officers must provide efficient public service without undue delay. They are prohibited from demanding extra or hidden fees and are required to follow citizen’s charters in processing transactions. Non-compliance can result in administrative or criminal charges.

6. Impeachment Accountability

Impeachment is a political process distinct from criminal or civil cases. It applies only to high-ranking public officials such as:

• The President;
• The Vice President;
• Justices of the Supreme Court;
• Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
• The Ombudsman.

Impeachment grounds are limited to culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, and betrayal of public trust. Conviction by the Senate, acting as the impeachment court, leads to removal from office, but does not preclude criminal prosecution.

7. Accountability to International Law

In certain circumstances, public officers may be accountable under international law. This arises particularly in relation to human rights violations and international crimes:

• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC): Public officers, including heads of state, can be held accountable for crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. While the Philippines withdrew from the ICC in 2019, actions committed prior to withdrawal may still be investigated and prosecuted by the ICC.

• International Human Rights Obligations: The Philippines, being a signatory to several international treaties, imposes an obligation on public officers to adhere to human rights norms and standards. Failure to uphold these obligations can lead to international sanctions or diplomatic consequences.

Conclusion

The accountability of public officers in the Philippines encompasses multiple dimensions: constitutional, criminal, civil, administrative, ethical, and international. These layers of accountability ensure that public officers are held responsible for their actions, safeguard the public trust, and promote good governance. Public officers must act in accordance with the law, maintain ethical standards, and serve the best interests of the people they represent, with numerous mechanisms in place to ensure compliance and accountability.

Civil | Types of Accountability | Accountability of Public Officers

Political Law and Public International Law

VIII. Law on Public Officers

M. Accountability of Public Officers

1. Types of Accountability

c. Civil Accountability of Public Officers

The civil accountability of public officers refers to the legal responsibility of public officials for actions or omissions committed in the performance of their official duties that cause injury, loss, or damage to the public or any individual. This form of accountability is distinct from criminal or administrative liability, focusing on the obligation of a public officer to compensate for any harm or damages arising from unlawful or negligent actions.

The key aspects of civil accountability for public officers in the Philippines are outlined below:

I. Legal Framework

The civil liability of public officers is rooted in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, as well as in various statutes and jurisprudence. These legal instruments provide for the mechanisms by which public officers may be held civilly liable for violations or derelictions in their duties.

• 1987 Constitution (Article XI - Accountability of Public Officers):

  • Section 1 mandates that public office is a public trust, requiring public officers to be accountable at all times to the people.
  • Section 16 permits the recovery of damages from public officials through civil action if they are found to have caused injury by reason of their wrongful acts or omissions.

• Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386):

  • Under Article 27, any person suffering material or moral damage due to the improper or unlawful acts of a public officer may recover damages.
  • Article 32 holds public officers civilly liable for damages if they violate constitutional rights, regardless of whether there was malice or bad faith.

• Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019):

  • While primarily penal in nature, this Act also provides civil remedies by allowing the state or aggrieved parties to recover ill-gotten wealth or damages from public officers guilty of corrupt practices.

• Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292):

  • It reinforces the principles of civil accountability by requiring public officers to exercise reasonable diligence and ensuring that injured parties may seek civil damages for derelictions of duty.

II. Grounds for Civil Accountability

Public officers can be held civilly accountable for various acts or omissions, depending on the nature and consequences of the wrongdoing. Some common grounds include:

1. Negligence or Misfeasance in Office:

   • Public officers may be liable for damages caused by negligence or carelessness in the performance of their duties. Negligence involves a failure to act with the prudence and diligence required by the nature of their office.
   • Example: Failure of a building inspector to enforce safety regulations, resulting in the collapse of a building and causing injury or death.

2. Malfeasance or Misconduct:

   • Civil liability arises from deliberate or unlawful acts performed by a public officer in the discharge of official duties.
   • Example: A public officer embezzling public funds would not only face criminal charges but would also be liable for restitution of the stolen amount.

3. Nonfeasance:

   • This refers to the failure of a public officer to perform an act that is required by law. Such omissions, if they cause injury or damage to another party, can result in civil liability.
   • Example: A police officer’s failure to protect an individual despite clear duty and knowledge of an imminent threat can lead to civil claims if harm results.

4. Violation of Constitutional Rights:

   • Public officers are civilly liable if they cause injury by violating constitutional rights, even if there is no malice or bad faith.
   • Example: A public officer unlawfully searching a person's property without a valid warrant, violating the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, may be held civilly liable for damages.

III. Nature and Extent of Civil Liability

The civil liability of public officers is characterized by the obligation to indemnify for injury or damage caused. The extent of this liability may be personal or official, depending on the circumstances of the case.

1. Personal Liability:

   • Public officers may be held personally liable for acts done with malice, bad faith, or gross negligence. Personal liability entails that the public officer must personally shoulder the payment of damages.
   • Example: A public official who maliciously defames a private individual using official communications may be sued for moral damages in their personal capacity.

2. Official Liability:

   • Public officers may also be held liable in their official capacity if their wrongful acts were performed in the course of their duties but without malice or bad faith. In such cases, the government may be held liable for damages, but the officer may not bear personal liability.
   • Example: A government vehicle causing a traffic accident due to a public officer’s simple negligence would render the government liable for civil damages, not the officer.

3. Joint or Solidary Liability:

   • If several public officers conspire or collaborate in the commission of an unlawful act, they may be held jointly or solidarily liable for the resulting damages.
   • Example: Public officers who jointly approve a fraudulent contract may be held solidarily liable for the recovery of any loss suffered by the government or third parties.

IV. Remedies and Procedures for Civil Claims

Individuals or entities injured by the actions of public officers have several remedies available to enforce civil accountability:

1. Filing a Civil Suit:

   • Aggrieved parties may file a civil case for damages in court under the Civil Code, based on the public officer's unlawful act or omission. The court will assess the injury and determine the amount of compensation owed.

2. Administrative Remedies with Civil Consequences:

   • Administrative cases against public officers for misconduct or negligence may result in civil liability if the findings of the administrative tribunal show that the officer’s actions caused harm to a private individual.

3. Recovery of Ill-Gotten Wealth:

   • The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act allows the state to pursue civil actions to recover wealth unlawfully acquired by public officers, including through forfeiture proceedings. Such actions are independent of criminal prosecutions.

4. Claims Against the Government:

   • Under the State Immunity Doctrine, the government generally cannot be sued without its consent. However, under certain laws such as the Civil Code (Article 2180), the government may be held liable for the wrongful acts of its agents acting within the scope of their official duties, provided no malice or bad faith is proven.
   • Claims against the government or its officers may be pursued through civil actions in court, provided that jurisdiction and procedural requirements are met.

V. Defenses of Public Officers

Public officers facing civil liability can raise the following defenses to avoid or mitigate accountability:

1. Good Faith:

   • A public officer acting in good faith, without malice, and in the lawful performance of duties may not be held personally liable for civil damages. Good faith negates personal liability and transfers responsibility to the government.

2. Absence of Proximate Cause:

   • Public officers may argue that their actions or omissions were not the proximate cause of the injury or damage. For civil liability to attach, a direct and causal connection between the wrongful act and the damage suffered must be established.

3. Official Immunity:

   • Under certain conditions, public officers performing discretionary or policy-making functions may be immune from civil suits. This immunity does not extend to ministerial duties or actions performed with malice or gross negligence.

VI. Key Jurisprudence

Several Supreme Court rulings have shaped the doctrine on civil accountability of public officers:

• Santiago v. Garchitorena (1996): This case clarified that public officers may be held liable for damages even without a criminal conviction, as civil liability may be pursued independently of criminal proceedings.

• Aruelo v. CA (1996): This case reinforced that public officers violating constitutional rights can be sued for civil damages, even if they were acting within their official functions.

Conclusion

Civil accountability of public officers ensures that they can be held liable for the harm or injury caused by their wrongful acts or omissions in the performance of their duties. This form of accountability is a critical mechanism for maintaining public trust and upholding the principle that public office is a public trust. Civil liability may arise from negligence, misconduct, violations of constitutional rights, or other unlawful actions, and can be enforced through civil suits, administrative remedies, and recovery proceedings. Public officers are afforded certain defenses, but they are ultimately accountable for ensuring that their actions serve the public interest and do not result in harm to others.

Criminal | Types of Accountability | Accountability of Public Officers

In the realm of Political Law and Public International Law, particularly under the Law on Public Officers, the topic of Accountability of Public Officers is essential to ensure public trust and the proper functioning of a democratic government. Public officers are expected to adhere to the principles of transparency, responsibility, and integrity.

---

Accountability of Public Officers

Public officers are primarily accountable to the people, as mandated by various laws and principles under the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines and other relevant statutes. Accountability encompasses several forms, including administrative, civil, and criminal liabilities. Here, we focus on criminal accountability, which deals with the penal liabilities of public officers for offenses committed while in office.

1. Types of Accountability

Accountability of public officers can be divided into three main categories:

• Administrative
• Civil
• Criminal

In this discussion, we delve into criminal accountability, which holds public officers criminally liable for acts punishable under the law.

---

b. Criminal Accountability of Public Officers

Criminal accountability refers to the criminal liability of a public officer for crimes committed in the exercise of their official functions or while in public office. This form of liability subjects the public officer to penalties provided by the Revised Penal Code (RPC), special penal laws, and relevant provisions of the 1987 Constitution.

Key Aspects of Criminal Accountability:

1. Constitutional Provisions:
   The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines contains key provisions that establish criminal liability for public officers:

   • Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers): Under this article, public officers are held accountable for any acts that may violate the law or result in serious injury to the public interest. Specifically, Section 1 declares that public office is a public trust, and officers must always be accountable to the people.
   • Impeachment (Article XI, Sections 2-3): While this pertains primarily to high-ranking officials such as the President, Justices of the Supreme Court, and other constitutional officers, these officials may also be held criminally liable after removal from office through impeachment proceedings.

2. Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act):
   This law outlines various corrupt practices committed by public officers, which are considered criminal acts. Some notable offenses include:

   • Sec. 3(a): Persuading or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations.
   • Sec. 3(b): Direct or indirect solicitation or acceptance of gifts in exchange for a favor.
   • Sec. 3(e): Causing undue injury to the government or any party through gross negligence, evident bad faith, or manifest partiality.

3. Crimes under the Revised Penal Code:
   The RPC imposes criminal liability on public officers for specific crimes. These offenses can be divided into crimes committed by public officers in relation to their office and general offenses, as follows:

   • Crimes Committed by Public Officers:

     • Malversation of Public Funds (Article 217): Public officers who have custody or control of public funds or property are criminally liable for misappropriating, embezzling, or failing to account for the funds.
     • Direct and Indirect Bribery (Articles 210 & 211): A public officer is criminally liable for accepting money, gifts, or favors in exchange for performing an act (or omission) related to their official duties.
     • Frauds against the Public Treasury (Article 213): This involves defrauding the government through illegal contracts, subsidies, or misrepresentation in connection with public resources.
     • Infidelity in the Custody of Documents (Article 226): This applies to public officers who mishandle or allow the illegal disclosure of official documents or records in their care.
     • Other Crimes like Prolonging Performance of Duties (Article 237), Abandonment of Office (Article 238), and Usurpation of Legislative Powers (Article 239).

   • Crimes Committed by Public Officers Not Necessarily Related to Office: Public officers are also subject to criminal liability for offenses that are not necessarily related to their official duties but nonetheless violate the Revised Penal Code or other laws. These include acts such as falsification of documents (Article 171), sedition (Article 138), and other common criminal offenses.

4. Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees):
   This law reinforces the high ethical standards expected from public officers and includes criminal penalties for violations. Specific provisions that may give rise to criminal liability include:

   • Sec. 7(d): Prohibition on public officers accepting gifts, loans, or other forms of financial benefits in exchange for official actions.
   • Sec. 8: Failure to file a Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN), which can result in criminal prosecution for perjury or unexplained wealth under Republic Act No. 1379 (Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Property Act).

5. Special Laws Providing Criminal Penalties:
   There are several special laws that impose criminal penalties on public officers for specific acts. These include:

   • Plunder (Republic Act No. 7080): Public officers who amass ill-gotten wealth of at least P50 million through a series or combination of overt acts may be charged with plunder, a capital offense.
   • Election Offenses (Omnibus Election Code): Public officers who engage in vote-buying, election fraud, or other prohibited acts during election periods can be criminally prosecuted under election laws.
   • Republic Act No. 9160 (Anti-Money Laundering Act): Public officers may be held criminally liable for engaging in money laundering activities, especially when connected to ill-gotten wealth.
   • Republic Act No. 9485 (Anti-Red Tape Act): Imposes criminal liability on public officers who engage in bureaucratic red tape, such as unduly delaying or obstructing the delivery of government services.

---

Consequences of Criminal Accountability

When public officers are found guilty of criminal offenses, they face severe consequences under the law, which may include:

1. Imprisonment: Depending on the offense, penalties may range from short-term imprisonment (arresto menor) to life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua (e.g., for plunder or malversation involving large amounts).

2. Fines: Offenders may also be required to pay fines, which can vary depending on the nature and severity of the crime committed.

3. Forfeiture of Public Office: Conviction for a criminal offense often leads to the automatic forfeiture of public office and disqualification from holding any public position in the future.

4. Restitution: Public officers convicted of crimes such as malversation or bribery may be ordered to return any ill-gotten wealth or compensate the government or the injured party for damages caused.

5. Civil Liability: Criminal conviction may also give rise to civil liability, such as when the offense causes financial damage to the government or private individuals.

6. Perpetual Disqualification from Public Office: For offenses such as plunder or malversation, a public officer convicted may be perpetually disqualified from holding any public office or employment.

---

Conclusion

Criminal accountability is an essential component in maintaining the integrity of public service in the Philippines. The various constitutional provisions, statutes, and the Revised Penal Code impose strict penalties for violations of the law by public officers. These mechanisms are designed to ensure that public officers who misuse their positions or commit acts of corruption, fraud, or gross negligence face appropriate criminal sanctions. Such accountability is fundamental in fostering public trust, upholding the rule of law, and ensuring that public service remains a public trust.

Administrative | Types of Accountability | Accountability of Public Officers

Political Law and Public International Law:

VIII. Law on Public Officers

M. Accountability of Public Officers

Accountability of public officers is a fundamental principle under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. This principle ensures that public officers are held responsible for their actions while serving in government. It is based on the concept that public office is a public trust and officers must serve the people with integrity, responsibility, loyalty, and efficiency. This accountability can take different forms, depending on the type of misconduct or irregularity a public officer commits.

1. Types of Accountability

Accountability of public officers is broadly categorized into three types: administrative, civil, and criminal. However, for this section, we will focus on administrative accountability as requested.

a. Administrative Accountability

Administrative accountability refers to the liability of public officers for their actions and conduct in relation to the performance of their official duties. Administrative cases are non-criminal in nature and are typically concerned with violations of rules, regulations, and norms governing the behavior of public servants.

1.1 Legal Basis

Administrative accountability of public officers in the Philippines is anchored on several legal provisions:

• 1987 Philippine Constitution: Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers) states that public officers must be accountable to the people and act with utmost responsibility, integrity, and efficiency.

• Civil Service Law (Presidential Decree No. 807, as amended by Republic Act No. 6713): This law provides the foundation for the administrative discipline of public officials, defining the grounds for administrative offenses and the procedures for disciplining errant officers.

• Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160): Provides the administrative mechanisms for disciplining local government officials.

• Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019): Although primarily a criminal statute, it also includes provisions on administrative accountability for corrupt practices.

• Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713): This law provides guidelines for the conduct of public officials and employees, ensuring that they perform their duties in an ethical manner.

1.2 Nature of Administrative Accountability

Administrative cases are generally non-penal, meaning they do not involve criminal punishment like imprisonment. The purpose of administrative proceedings is corrective, not punitive, with the intent of disciplining erring officers to ensure that the public service is performed ethically and efficiently.

1.3 Coverage of Administrative Accountability

All public officers are covered by administrative accountability, including:

• Appointive officials under the Civil Service.
• Elective officials, such as local government officials.
• Career and non-career government employees.

However, certain high-ranking public officials such as the President, Vice President, members of Congress, and the Judiciary are subject to specific rules (such as impeachment for the President and Justices) or special bodies (like the Ombudsman).

1.4 Grounds for Administrative Liability

Public officers can be held administratively liable for several offenses, including but not limited to:

• Dishonesty: Concealing or misrepresenting facts in official dealings.

• Neglect of duty: Failing to perform a task that is required of a public officer by law or regulation.

• Gross misconduct: Acting in a manner that is highly improper or unethical while in public service.

• Inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of duty: Failing to deliver the required standard of work expected from a public servant.

• Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service: Engaging in behavior that undermines the public trust or dignity of the office.

• Oppression: Unjust or arbitrary use of power or authority.

• Grave abuse of authority: Using one's office to unduly influence or coerce others for personal gain or advantage.

• Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019): Engaging in corrupt practices that directly benefit oneself or others at the expense of the government.

• Failure to file Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN): Non-compliance with the requirement to submit SALN, as mandated by law (R.A. No. 6713).

1.5 Penalties for Administrative Liability

The penalties imposed for administrative offenses may vary depending on the gravity of the offense, and these are generally progressive in nature. The most common penalties include:

• Reprimand: An official rebuke or warning.

• Suspension: Temporarily barring the public officer from performing official duties, usually without pay.

• Demotion: Reducing the rank or position of the public officer.

• Dismissal from service: The most severe administrative penalty, resulting in the removal of the public officer from government service. Dismissal also comes with accessory penalties such as the forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the government.

1.6 Administrative Procedures

Administrative cases are typically handled by the following bodies:

• Civil Service Commission (CSC): Exercises jurisdiction over administrative cases involving appointive government employees.

• Office of the Ombudsman: Investigates and prosecutes cases involving graft and corruption, as well as other violations involving public officials, particularly those involving acts of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and gross negligence.

• Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG): Handles administrative cases against local government officials, except for those filed with the Ombudsman or where the offense is subject to criminal prosecution.

• Sangguniang Bayan/Panlungsod/Barangay: In cases involving local officials, the local legislative body may serve as the disciplinary authority for municipal or barangay-level officials.

1.7 Process of Administrative Adjudication

The process of adjudicating administrative cases generally follows the rules of due process, which include the following:

1. Filing of a Complaint: An administrative case is initiated by the filing of a verified complaint by a private individual, public official, or government agency.

2. Preliminary Investigation: The disciplinary authority or investigating body conducts an investigation to determine if there is a prima facie case to proceed.

3. Filing of Answer: The respondent public officer is given the opportunity to submit a written answer to the complaint.

4. Hearing: If there is a prima facie case, the matter proceeds to a formal hearing, where both the complainant and respondent can present their evidence.

5. Decision: After the hearing, the investigating body renders a decision, which may be appealed to the appropriate tribunal (e.g., Civil Service Commission, Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court, depending on the office of the respondent).

1.8 Remedies for Public Officers

Public officers who are administratively sanctioned have certain remedies available to them:

• Motion for Reconsideration: If dissatisfied with the decision, the public officer may file a motion for reconsideration before the same body that issued the decision.

• Appeal: The public officer may appeal the decision to higher administrative bodies (such as the Civil Service Commission) or judicial courts (such as the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court) depending on the nature of the offense and the office involved.

• Certiorari: A public officer may also file a petition for certiorari with a higher court if there is an allegation that there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

1.9 Prescription of Administrative Offenses

There are prescriptive periods within which administrative cases must be filed. The rule is that administrative cases against officers and employees of the government must be filed within one year from the commission of the offense or from the time the complainant knew of the commission of the offense.

For some offenses, like those under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the prescriptive period is 10 years.

Conclusion

Administrative accountability ensures that public officers are held responsible for violations of laws, regulations, and standards governing their conduct. The mechanisms for enforcing administrative accountability are vital to maintaining the integrity of public office and ensuring that public officers serve the people in an ethical and responsible manner. Through laws such as the Civil Service Law, the Code of Conduct, and other related statutes, the government has established a clear process for disciplining public officers while affording them due process and the right to seek remedies.