In the Philippine legal system, the principle that "public office is a public trust" is not merely a poetic sentiment; it is a constitutional mandate. Local Chief Executives, specifically City and Municipal Mayors, are subject to strict standards of conduct. When these standards are breached, the law provides specific mechanisms for citizens and aggrieved parties to hold them administratively liable.

The primary governing law for such actions is Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991, supplemented by the rules of the Office of the Ombudsman.

I. Grounds for Administrative Disciplinary Action

Under Section 60 of the Local Government Code, an elective local official may be disciplined, suspended, or removed from office on any of the following grounds:

Disloyalty to the Republic: Acts that undermine the sovereignty or integrity of the Philippines.
Culpable Violation of the Constitution: Wilful and intentional breach of the fundamental law.
Dishonesty, Oppression, or Misconduct in Office: This includes "Grave Misconduct," which implies wrongful intent or a flagrant disregard for established rules.
Gross Negligence or Dereliction of Duty: Failure to perform duties required by law.
Emotional/Physical Incapacity: When such incapacity prevents the performance of duties for more than six months.
Unauthorized Absence: Staying away from the post for more than 15 consecutive working days without approved leave.
Abuse of Authority: Using the powers of the mayoralty for personal gain or to harass others.
Commission of a Felony: Involvement in crimes involving moral turpitude.

II. Where to File the Complaint

Jurisdiction depends on the level of the official and the nature of the breach. For a City or Municipal Mayor, there are two primary avenues:

1. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan (Provincial Board)

Under the LGC, a complaint against a municipal mayor is filed before the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the province to which the municipality belongs. For City Mayors, the complaint is typically filed with the Office of the President.

2. The Office of the Ombudsman

The Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction over administrative cases involving public officials. Filing here is often preferred if the complainant fears local political bias. The Ombudsman has the power to investigate and, in certain cases, directly impose penalties like suspension or dismissal.

III. The Procedure for Filing

The process must strictly adhere to due process requirements to ensure the validity of any resulting decision.

Form of the Complaint: The complaint must be verified (sworn under oath) and in writing. It should contain a clear statement of the facts constituting the offense and be supported by affidavits of witnesses or documentary evidence.
The Notice to Answer: Within seven days of filing, the respondent (the Mayor) is served a copy of the complaint and ordered to submit a verified answer within 15 days.
Preliminary Investigation: The investigating body (the Sanggunian or the Ombudsman) determines if there is a prima facie case to proceed.
Formal Investigation: This resembles a trial. Both parties may be represented by counsel, can cross-examine witnesses, and submit position papers.
The Decision: The investigating body must render a decision in writing, stating clearly the facts and the law upon which it is based.

IV. Preventive Suspension

One of the most potent tools in an administrative case is Preventive Suspension. This is not a penalty, but a measure to prevent the Mayor from using their position to influence witnesses or tamper with records.

Who can impose it? The Provincial Governor (for municipal mayors) or the Office of the President/Ombudsman.
Duration: It cannot exceed 60 days for a single offense, or a maximum of 90 days within a single year for multiple offenses.
Conditions: It is only imposed after the respondent has filed their answer, or after the period for filing the answer has lapsed, and the evidence of guilt is strong.

V. Penalties and Removal

The Sangguniang Panlalawigan or the Office of the President can impose penalties such as Censure, Reprimand, or Suspension.

Important Legal Distinction: Under Section 60 of the LGC, an elective official can only be removed from office by a final order of a proper court. While the Ombudsman has the power to dismiss elective officials based on recent jurisprudence, the administrative bodies of the Local Government units are generally limited to suspension.

VI. Appeals and Remedies

If a Mayor is found liable by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, the decision may be appealed to the Office of the President within 30 days of receipt. Decisions rendered by the Office of the President or the Ombudsman may further be elevated to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

VII. The "Condonation Doctrine" Warning

Historically, the "Aguinaldo Doctrine" (Condonation Doctrine) allowed officials to be cleared of administrative liability for acts committed during a previous term if they were re-elected. However, the Supreme Court of the Philippines abandoned this doctrine in 2015 (Carpio-Morales vs. Binay). A Mayor can now be held administratively liable for acts committed in a prior term, provided the case is filed appropriately.