All about preventive suspension

In the context of Philippine laws and jurisprudence, preventive suspension, in its generic sense, is a provisional prerogative of an employer in the private sector, and the disciplinary authority in the public sector, to remove a respondent employee, temporarily for a limited period (for only 30 days in the private sector) who is under investigation, from his post in order to assure a flawless or unhampered investigation.

It is also to prevent the employee under inquiry from tampering with evidence and from threatening witnesses against him, or to make sure that the incumbent, who is being investigated, will not use the powers of his office to influence the nature of testimonies to be given. However, in order to safeguard the rights of the respondent, the law limits this provisional action to offenses where the continued presence of the respondent poses a grave or imminent danger to the life and security of the employer and fellow employees and to properties owned by the company. Thus, under our labor laws, preventive suspensions are imposed only when employees are being charged with crimes against persons or against property.

When the preventive suspension imposed by the private employer exceeds 30 days, then the employee may rightfully charge the employer for constructive dismissal. In the public sector, it is true that the limits imposed on private employers are not likewise provided, but the spirit of the law should be considered. Public officials also have rights. They have been elected by the people. If they are charged, they are entitled to be informed of the charges against them before they are prevented from exercising the functions of the office they were duly elected to. Preventive suspension is not a punishment but it inflicts grave and irreparable damage on those who are falsely accused.

In the public sector, it is required that the evidence against the official is strong before preventive suspension can be imposed on him. What is the basis of that finding and conclusion if no hearing has yet been conducted? How can the disciplining authority make such a draconian determination of evidence being strong when only documents presented by the complainants have been presented and considered? We hasten to interject that the respondent employee should first be informed of the nature of charges and be allowed ample opportunity to present his side. This is not just about a job; this is about honor and dignity. This is not just a means of livelihood, this the good name of the public official that is being clouded

Even if in the end, the respondents shall have been exonerated and they shall be paid their full backwages, the damage shall already have irretrievably been done. Preventive suspension for so long, like for 90 days or even for six months, unduly disrupts the flawless implementation of government programs and projects of the cities. It derails timetables and disturbs the flow of processes. The ultimate victims are the people and the ultimate culprits are those who initiated cases like these, with their far-reaching consequences and negative results that are beyond pecuniary estimation.

With due respect, public officials, like the Ombudsman, even if they have vast powers, under the law, should exercise utmost caution. At the very least, they should have allowed the fellow official concerned a little opportunity to be heard. It is not a matter of life and death. There is no rhyme and reason to act with extreme sense of urgency. The evil supposedly sought to be avoided is not too grave or too imminent that a little time to give the respondent a chance to say his piece would not make too big a difference. Just because one office has power, does not mean that such power is limitless.

I always remember Article 19 of the Civil Code which, with due respect, I modify a little and paraphrase: Every high or low official in government, in the exercise of his powers and in the performance of his functions, must act with reason, give all parties their due, and observe fairness and justice for all.