CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN PUBLIC OFFICE UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION AND PHILIPPINE LAW
At least five major laws, including the 1987 Constitution, expressly prohibit conflict of interest among public officials. Yet, reports show that some politicians and bureaucrats still engage in private business, cornering public contracts and abusing the powers of their offices. This persistent problem undermines public trust and the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust.
I. CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS
Article XI, Section 1 — Accountability of Public Officers
> Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.
Article VII, Section 13 — The President, Vice President, Cabinet Members, and Deputies
> The President, Vice President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government.
Article IX-B, Section 2(4) — Civil Service Commission
> No officer or employee in the civil service shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any private business, vocation, or profession without the permission required by law.
These provisions create an ethical wall between public service and private gain. Any overlap between a public officer’s duty and personal business interest constitutes a conflict of interest, whether actual or potential.
II. STATUTORY PROHIBITIONS
1. Republic Act No. 6713
(Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees)
Section 7(b) prohibits public officials from having any financial or material interest in any transaction requiring the approval of their office.
Section 7(a) bars them from owning, controlling, or managing any business enterprise regulated, supervised, or licensed by their office.
2. Republic Act No. 3019
(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
Section 3(h) penalizes any public officer who directly or indirectly has financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract, or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity.
Section 3(g) punishes entering into a contract manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government.
3. Republic Act No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act)
Bars participation in bidding by public officials or entities with interests in the procurement process.
4. Administrative Code of 1987, Book I, Chapter 9, Section 49
Prohibits government officers from engaging in private business unless expressly allowed by law.
5. Revised Penal Code, Article 208 (Prosecution of Offenses)
Punishes dereliction of duty and favoritism that may accompany conflicts of interest.
III. LANDMARK SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
1. People v. Jaime H. Domingo and Diosdado T. Garcia,
G.R. Nos. 149175 & 149406, October 25, 2005
A municipal mayor and treasurer were convicted under Section 3(h) of RA 3019 for having a pecuniary interest in a government contract. The Court affirmed that a public official cannot act in both a public and private capacity in the same transaction.
Source:
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/gr_149175_2005.html
2. Garcia-Diaz and Solis v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 193236, March 20, 2018
Two government officials were convicted under Section 3(g) of RA 3019 for entering into a manifestly and grossly disadvantageous contract involving public land. The Court ruled that the intent to favor private interests over the government constitutes corrupt practice.
Source:
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64562
3. Civil Service Commission v. Sta. Ana,
G.R. No. 144458, November 21, 2002
A civil servant who engaged in private business without authorization was dismissed. The Court reiterated that public officials must secure prior permission before engaging in any private enterprise.
Source:
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/nov2002/gr_144458_2002.html
4. Pleyto v. Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group,
G.R. No. 169982, September 30, 2008
The Court held that unexplained wealth and business interests inconsistent with modest living standards violate the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust.
Source:
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_169982_2008.html
IV. JURISPRUDENTIAL PRINCIPLES
1. Public office demands undivided loyalty.
The Court has consistently held that a public servant’s primary allegiance is to the public, not to personal or familial interests.
2. Conflict of interest need not be proven by actual gain.
Potential or apparent conflicts are already sanctionable under RA 6713 and RA 3019.
3. Integrity and accountability are constitutional duties.
A breach of these duties undermines the legitimacy of governance and erodes citizens’ trust in democratic institutions.
V. CONCLUSION
The Constitution and anti-graft laws form a strict code of conduct that bars politicians and bureaucrats from using public power for private enrichment.
Yet enforcement remains weak.
As media initiatives like Rappler’s “#Politicontractors” show, the real test lies not only in having laws but in applying them consistently, regardless of rank or political color.
Public officials must choose: Serve the people, or serve themselves — but never both.
---
Assisted by ChatGPT AI app, October 10, 2025.
---
News
https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/investigative/politicians-government-contractors-connections-map/
