Introduction

In Philippine administrative law, preventive suspension is one of the most frequently invoked interim measures in disciplinary proceedings against public officers and employees. It is imposed to prevent the respondent from using his or her office to influence witnesses, tamper with evidence, or continue committing the alleged offense while the case is being investigated.

A recurring issue raised by respondents (and their counsel) is whether the disciplining authority or the hearing officer may validly conduct formal administrative hearings, clarificatory conferences, or any form of adversarial proceeding while the respondent is still serving preventive suspension. The short and unequivocal answer under existing law and jurisprudence is yes. Administrative hearings are not only permitted but are in fact mandated to continue during preventive suspension.

Legal Framework

The principal sources of law on preventive suspension and the conduct of administrative proceedings are:

Book V, Title I-A, Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987)
Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees)
Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 1701077 dated July 3, 2017 – 2017 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS)
CSC Resolution No. 99-1936 (Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, now superseded but still cited in older cases)
For local government officials and employees: Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), particularly Sections 60–68
For teaching and non-teaching personnel: Magna Carta for Public School Teachers (RA 4670) and DECS/DepEd rules (now harmonized with RRACCS)

Nature and Purpose of Preventive Suspension

Preventive suspension is not a penalty. It is merely a preventive or precautionary measure (Gloria v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119903, August 15, 2000; Beja, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97149, March 31, 1992).

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held:

It is not violative of due process because the respondent will be accorded full opportunity to be heard during the formal investigation (Layno v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 94497, March 26, 1992).
It is justified by the exigencies of public service and is not intended to punish the respondent presumptively (Rios v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 114839-40, June 23, 1995).
The purpose is to prevent the respondent from frustrating the orderly conduct of the investigation.

When Preventive Suspension May Be Imposed

Under Section 24, Rule 8 of the 2017 RRACCS, preventive suspension may be imposed:

(a) After the issues have been joined (i.e., after the respondent has filed his/her answer to the formal charge); or
(b) At any stage of the proceedings when the evidence of guilt is strong and:

the charge involves dishonesty, oppression, grave misconduct, neglect in the performance of duty, or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service; and
the respondent’s continued presence in office may prejudice the investigation; or
the respondent may intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence.

For elective local officials under the Local Government Code, preventive suspension may be imposed by the President, the Governor, or the Mayor (depending on the rank) at any time after the issues are joined.

Duration of Preventive Suspension

Civil Service Employees (appointive):

Maximum of ninety (90) days (Section 25, Rule 8, RRACCS).
Extension is no longer allowed except in graft and corruption cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, where the total period shall not exceed six (6) months (CSC Resolution No. 1600740, May 31, 2016).

Elective Local Officials:

Single preventive suspension: maximum sixty (60) days
Cumulative within one year for one offense: maximum ninety (90) days (Section 63, Local Government Code).

Conduct of Administrative Hearings During Preventive Suspension

The 2017 RRACCS is explicit:

Section 33, Rule 9 – “The investigation shall be conducted without necessarily adhering strictly to the technical rules of procedure and evidence applicable in judicial proceedings.”

Section 35 – The hearing officer shall set the case for continuous hearings.

There is no provision in the RRACCS, the Administrative Code, RA 6713, or the Local Government Code that suspends or prohibits the conduct of hearings during the period of preventive suspension.

On the contrary, the rules mandate speedy disposition:

Section 46, Rule 10, RRACCS: Decision must be rendered within thirty (30) days from submission for resolution.

To achieve this timeline, hearings must proceed even while the respondent is preventively suspended. Halting the hearings would defeat the very purpose of preventive suspension, which is to enable the government to investigate the case thoroughly and expeditiously without interference.

Supreme Court Jurisprudence Affirming Conduct of Hearings During Preventive Suspension

Gloria v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 119903, August 15, 2000)
“Preventive suspension is merely a preventive measure… The respondent is given ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself during the formal investigation.”
Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole (G.R. No. 108072, December 12, 1995)
The Court upheld the validity of preventive suspension and the continuation of the administrative proceedings.
Alonzo v. Capulong (G.R. No. 110109, May 10, 1995)
Preventive suspension pending investigation does not violate due process because the full-blown hearing follows.
Buenaseda v. Flavier (G.R. No. 106719, September 21, 1993)
The Court explicitly stated that preventive suspension may be imposed “pending investigation,” and the investigation necessarily includes the formal hearing.
Villaluz v. Zaldivar (G.R. No. 166996, November 15, 2005, on motion for reconsideration)
The Court reiterated that the purpose of preventive suspension is to facilitate the unhampered conduct of the investigation.
CSC Resolution No. 1600740 (Re: Preventive Suspension in Administrative Cases)
The CSC itself clarified that the 90-day limit is strictly enforced, and any extension is void, precisely to compel agencies to finish the investigation (including hearings) within the period.

Rights of the Respondent During Preventive Suspension

No salary during the period (except when exonerated – full back wages are awarded).
Entitled to immediate notice and copy of the preventive suspension order.
May file a motion for reconsideration within 5 days (CSC rules).
May attend hearings, present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and file pleadings.
May be represented by counsel of choice.
Entitled to a formal charge that complies with Section 18, Rule 6 RRACCS (specificity requirement).

The respondent is physically barred from entering the premises of the office (except when required to appear for the hearing), but this does not prevent participation in the administrative proceedings.

Practical Consequences of Arguing That Hearings Cannot Proceed During Preventive Suspension

Respondents who refuse to attend hearings on the ground that they are preventively suspended risk being declared in default or having the case submitted for decision based on complainant’s evidence alone (Section 39, Rule 9, RRACCS).

Such a defense has been consistently rejected by the Civil Service Commission, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

Administrative hearings are not only permitted during preventive suspension in the Philippines — they are required to proceed without delay. Preventive suspension is designed precisely to enable the disciplining authority to conduct a thorough, fair, and expeditious investigation, including the holding of formal hearings, clarificatory conferences, and ocular inspections when necessary.

Any claim that the respondent cannot be compelled to attend or participate in hearings while under preventive suspension is bereft of legal basis and has been repeatedly struck down by the Supreme Court and the Civil Service Commission.

The law and jurisprudence are unanimous: preventive suspension and the continuation of administrative hearings are not mutually exclusive — they are mutually reinforcing mechanisms to protect the public service while respecting the respondent’s ultimate right to due process.