Outside of the court system, there are instances when a public officer or official is being made to follow an order, in whatever form it may have been made, either verbal, through a memorandum circular or resolution, and thus, the official or officer must comply lest administrative and criminal sanctions may be imposed.
But what if the order is unlawful? Should the public official or officer comply with such an unlawful order?
In a decision of the high court, it declared that "When a public officer takes an oath of office, he or she binds himself or herself to faithfully perform the duties of the office and use reasonable skill and diligence, and to act primarily for the benefit of the public. Thus, in the discharge of duties, a public officer is to use that prudence, caution and attention which careful persons use in the management of their affairs." (Factura, G.R. 166495)
Does this mean that blind obedience cannot just be made merely because there is a standing order to do or refrain from doing? Not exactly. But It is clear that "prudence, caution and attention" must be used. And a word of caution though, existing laws provide for certain parameters. There are instances when such or similar acts may be construed as sedition. That is why, when there are laws or issuances which one may feel to be violative of or will violate certain rights, the court is the still the best forum. This could be by declaratory relief or similar actions. Another move or remedy is to secure an official legal opinion from appropriate government agencies. Hence, the bottomline still is, do not put the law in your own hands. Seek legal remedies and redress.
No comments:
Post a Comment