Online Internship Program

Reflection Paper on the

Webinar on Prosecution Office

Batch “DIMATINAG”
2nd Semester S.Y. 2021 – 2022

Submitted by:

CI CHRISTIAN ALLEN S. LOPENA

BS Criminology
This particular webinar is led by Attorney Josie Vida Sempron, one of our Law
Instructors in the Department of Criminology. She explains what the prosecution
is all about and its importance in the criminal justice system. The prosecution
serves as the vanguard of the rights of the people through ethical, impartial and
efficient investigation and prosecution of criminal cases. Within the Philippine
legal context, the prosecution plays a crucial role in the administration of criminal
justice because it occupies a central and very important position between police
and the court. The prosecutor is the officer of the government whose function is
the prosecution of criminal actions partaking the nature of criminal actions. He or
She is also referred to as public prosecutor or fiscal. He or She also is a quasi-
judicial officer. A prosecutor is a lawyer with at least five years of legal practice
and was appointed by the Office of the President. The head of the National
Prosecutor Service is the Prosecutor General. The National Prosecutor Service
is under the Department of Justice which is headed by the Secretary of Justice
and the Department of Justice is under the Office of the President which is in the
Executive Department. They are the “gate keepers” of criminal justice, insofar as
without their initiative there cannot be the prosecution and repression of crimes.
Prosecution services are, in fact, society's principal means of pursuing
punishment of criminal behavior and its interface with the adjudicative power.
Only cases that are brought to courts by public prosecutors can be processed
and adjudicated by judges. Other forms of prosecution (like private prosecution)
exist only in a few countries and apply in limited circumstances. Prosecutors are
required to apply the law to criminal cases, protect the rights of the persons
involved in criminal proceedings, respect human dignity and fundamental rights,
and ensure public security. In many countries, prosecutors also play a key role in
applying and defining criminal policy by using their discretion, including adapting
to social and societal changes. In some countries prosecutors also have
competence in civil proceedings, to secure the protection of the rights, freedoms
and interests of juveniles, elderly or disabled persons, or persons who, due to
their state of health, are unable to take proceedings. In criminal cases,
prosecutors are responsible for representing not only the interests of society at
large, but also those of victims of crimes. They also have duties to other
individuals, including persons suspected of a crime and witnesses. Legal
systems in fact (sometimes the Constitutions) usually prescribe some
fundamental rights to be granted to victims of crimes, suspects, and witnesses,
for which prosecutors are primarily responsible. It is advisable that victims be
informed and heard on matters of bail or conditional release, trial preparation,
plea negotiation, sentencing recommendations and restitution. Such rights also
extend to suspects of crimes and usually include the rights to remain silent, to a
public trial within a reasonable time, to a presumption of innocence until proven
guilty, to have full access to evidence presented against them, to be represented
by legal counsel and to have the assistance of an interpreter when necessary.
The role of witnesses is also crucial in criminal process, as they must be
protected from possible pressure and bias. "All these rights are central to the
protection and preservation of human rights for all persons, at all stages of
criminal proceedings, and the responsibility of the prosecutor includes the
safeguarding of those rights whenever possible". Prosecutors must also ensure
that justice is done when public behaviors are at stake. To this end, they must be
committed to the rule of law and safeguard the lawfulness of public actions.
Prosecutors "shall control the State actions by bringing to the attention of the
courts any instance of unlawful or corrupt behavior by agents of the State or
other officials in positions of authority and by prosecuting such offenders to the
full extent of the law. In cases involving corruption, abuse of power, grave human
rights violations, and other crimes committed by public officials, the role of
prosecutors is particularly important and delicate". In short, effective prosecution
services, with well trained and adequately empowered and equipped
prosecutors, committed to the rule of law values, contribute to tackle impunity,
protect citizens' rights, and ensure the lawfulness of State actions. In doing so,
the United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors states that
"prosecutors shall, in accordance with the law, perform their duties fairly,
consistently and expeditiously, and respect and protect human dignity and
uphold human rights, thus contributing to ensuring due process and the smooth
functioning of the criminal justice system". The characteristics of the prosecutors'
role are different from those of the judicial role, as illustrated in Topic One. While
the judge is entrusted with decision-making power, and he/she cannot initiate
judicial process, the prosecutor's primary function is to initiate and conduct
criminal action, to act as a party in judicial proceedings and, in many countries, to
supervise and direct the police during the investigative phase. In some criminal
justice systems, prosecutors also: ensure that victims are effectively assisted;
decide on alternatives to prosecution; offer assistance to the court in reaching its
decision as to the appropriate sentence; supervise the execution of court
decisions. The distinction between an agent (the prosecutor) in charge of
investigation and criminal prosecution and another agent (the judge) in charge of
adjudication is at the basis of most criminal justice systems and contributes to
enhance the independence and impartiality of the judge. Judges, in fact, being
not directly involved in investigation and prosecution, can better safeguard their
neutral and detached position in the judicial process. As far as criminal action is
specifically concerned, the role of public prosecutors implies two kinds of
activities that are functionally related but different in nature. One
is investigative and encompasses the activities necessary to identify the suspects
of a crime and to gather the evidence needed to prove their guilt; during
investigation prosecutors also take proper account of the position of the victims,
considering their views and concerns and ensuring that they are informed of their
rights. The other is forensic and concerns the presentation of evidence to a judge
who has the power to decide whether the case ought to be prosecuted, and/or to
decide whether the suspect is innocent or guilty. In the different criminal systems
these two functions are concentrated in various ways in the hands of the public
prosecutor or shared with other subjects (police, investigating magistrate, private
parties, etc.). The role of prosecutors has also evolved considerably, reflecting
the growing international dimension of crime phenomena, such as organized
crime and corruption. National criminal justice systems have proven to be
insufficient and/or ineffective with respect to international and transnational
crime. The need for strengthened international cooperation in investigation and
prosecution activities has led prosecutors to seek to transcend national borders.
This has confronted prosecutors with new difficult challenges and has made the
prosecutor's duties and responsibilities increasingly complex (for example, they
are often members of inter-disciplinary teams, together with specialists from
other disciplines, and they are expected to exercise new leadership skills). Thus,
the efficient and effective prosecution increasingly requires that prosecutors'
activities be - to varying degrees - coordinated with those of other prosecutors'
offices, also at the international and regional levels. One regional network that
fulfils this function is the West African Network of Central Authorities and
Prosecutors against Organized Crime (WACAP) comprises representatives from
the 15 countries of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)
and from Mauritania, with the purpose of operating as a point of "exchange of
information and good practices between prosecutors, practitioners and law
enforcement practitioners on international cooperation in criminal matters"
(WCAP, n.d.). In addition, some networks are also important standard setting
entities. For example, the International Association of Prosecutors (IAP) and the
Network of Prosecutors against Organized Crime, and the Consultative Council
of European Prosecutors (Ccpe). The Ccpe is composed of high-level
prosecutors of the Council of Europe member States. It has various tasks,
including: to prepare opinions for the Committee of Ministers of the Council of
Europe (CoE) on issues related to the prosecution service; to promote the
implementation of CoE recommendations concerning the role of public
prosecution in the criminal justice system; and to collect information about the
functioning of prosecution services in Europe. Its opinions have great influence in
the CoE system and in the European Union. Example: Azerbaijan: International
conference on the role and independence of lawyers organized in Baku On 15
and 16 November 2018, the ICJ, jointly with the Council of Europe (CoE) and the
Azerbaijan Bar Association (ABA), held its annual international conference in
Baku on "the Role and Independence of Lawyers: comparative perspectives".
The conference, which is the first such event on the role and independence of
the legal profession organized in the country, aimed to bring together
perspectives on the governance and role of the legal profession from
international experts and representatives from a wide range of countries,
including the CoE countries, Central Asian as well as representatives of
international organizations. The role of the National Prosecution Service in the
Criminal Justice System is two-fold: (1) to investigate allegations that a crime has
been committed; and (2) to prosecute all cases involving violations of penal laws.
It is a quasi-judicial organization expected to deal with fair execution of laws.
Given the sensitive and delicate nature of their work, prosecutors are expected to
serve the public with utmost responsibility, integrity and honesty. Their failure to
do so will result in the collapse not just of the entire criminal justice system, but
the very foundation upon which our society is based. Democracy will not fully
blossom unless the rule of law is put in place. To ensure the rule of law, it is
essential that the Prosecution Service is backed-up by the trust of the people.
This bill seeks to do so by strengthening the independence of the National
Prosecution Services - free from interference of politicians, high-ranking
government officials and businessmen. The independent spirit of the judicial
body shall be applied to the Prosecution Service in order to better bring about
precise fact-finding investigation and righteousness through fair execution of
laws. It is high time that Prosecutors reaffirm their role as humble public servants
working for public interest, and erase the public perception that they are strong to
the weak and weak to the strong. The author is confident that this bill will, in the
end, strengthen public trust toward the Prosecution Service and, in the process,
help advance democracy in the Philippines. It is for these reasons that approval
of this bill is earnestly sough. To function effectively, a prosecution service must
be able to provide neutral, non-political, non-arbitrary decision-making about the
application of criminal law to real cases. An undue, improper or partisan use of
criminal investigation may have devastating consequences for the protection of
civil rights and the equal treatment of the citizens before the law (criminal
investigation often is, de facto, a sanction in itself, which may continue for years
before any judicial review). Consequently, to fulfil its institutional mission, the
prosecution service shall exhibit independence and impartiality in performing its
functions. Prosecutors shall be free from any political and undue pressure and
influence. Independence and impartiality are essential values of the prosecutorial
role, but some clarifications are needed. Independence, in fact, assumes a
peculiar meaning with respect to that of judges and judiciaries. Unlike judges,
whose independence is essentially inherent to their role, prosecutors may enjoy
lower levels of institutional and operational independence. Although some States
create an analogy between judicial and prosecutorial independence, usually the
independence afforded to the prosecution service (and individual prosecutors)
differs to that of the judiciary (and individual judges), in the sense that: In many
countries, prosecutors enjoy less independence because of the hierarchical
structure of the prosecution service. The rationale lies both in historical legacies
and in the functional role of the prosecutor. Being instrumental to the
implementation of public policies in the criminal sector, prosecutors' activity can
be steered by the authorities that are politically accountable for the
implementation of such policies. If non-prosecutorial authorities or high-level
prosecutors (or other authorities) have the right to give general or specific
instructions to prosecutors, such instructions have to be transparent and subject
to established guidelines to safeguard the actuality and the perception of
prosecutorial independence. The level of transparency actually varies from one
country to the other. The different constitutional, institutional and legal
arrangements must be considered comprehensively and not in isolation. In some
countries, for example, the institutional dependence of prosecutors on the
executive branch is the accepted status quo, nonetheless they maintain a certain
degree of discretion with respect to decision-making. A certain degree of
discretion always affects the prosecutors' activity, even in countries that do not
formally recognize it. This is due to various reasons: laws are written in quite
abstract terms to fit a broad range of situations, hence prosecutors may have
some discretion in applying the law to specific facts; financial resources and time
are limited, and prosecutors have some discretion to identify the cases requiring
more effort, hence reducing the effort on other cases. A certain degree of
institutional independence is indispensable to guarantee
prosecutorial impartiality in the concrete exercise of investigation and prosecution
function. Independence is, in fact, ultimately instrumental to impartiality. It is
therefore a general obligation of all States according to the United Nations
Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors to ensure that prosecutors are able to
perform their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment,
improper interference or unjustified exposure to civil, penal or other liability. In the
performance of their duties, prosecutors shall protect the public interest, act with
objectivity, take proper account of the position of the suspect and the victim, and
pay attention to all relevant circumstances, irrespective of whether they are to the
advantage or disadvantage of the suspect (1990, p. 4 and 13). Their role is not to
win convictions at any cost but to put before the court all available, relevant, and
admissible evidence necessary to enable the court to determine the guilt or
innocence of the accused. The role of prosecutors, as found by the Supreme
Court of Canada in Boucher v. The Queen , "excludes any notion of winning or
losing; their function is a matter of public duty (...). It is to be efficiently performed
with an ingrained sense of the dignity, the seriousness and the justness of
judicial proceedings". This is an important principle which is shared by most
criminal justice systems. A prosecutor "must ensure that all necessary and
reasonable inquiries are made and the result disclosed to the suspect, whether
that points towards the guilt or the innocence of a suspect. A prosecutor's duty is,
in fact, to search for the truth, assist the court to arrive at the truth and to restore
justice among the community, the victim and the accused according to the law
and the dictates of conscience" (UNODC, 2015, para. 163; Open Society, 2008;
Seibert-Fohr, 2011). Prosecutors may, however, feel pressure to secure a
conviction for a criminal case, coming from the victim, the victim's family, victim
advocacy groups, the media, the general public, other prosecutors, etc. This
pressure can lead to 'conviction psychology,' which is the overemphasis on
obtaining convictions at the expense of seeking to 'do justice'. To avoid this,
prosecutors are required to achieve a delicate balance between the different
requirements and expectations. A second challenge is the ethical obligation to
believe in the case being prosecuted. This obligation may simply manifest itself
as a product of the prosecutor's sense of their fundamental role in serving justice.
It has been noted that this approach can lead to 'tunnel vision' by prosecutors
which "can compromise their objectivity - because prosecutors seeking to do
justice must first satisfy themselves of a person's guilt as a precondition to the
decision that a criminal conviction is the just result". Independence and
impartiality are essential means to prevent and combat corruption within the
prosecution services, by reducing opportunities for corrupt officials to interfere in
investigations/criminal action. Prosecutors contribute to the fairness and
effectiveness of prosecutions (and judicial process) through cooperation with the
police, the courts, defense counsel and relevant government agencies, whether
nationally or internationally. Preventing and avoiding corruption is therefore
essential for prosecutors properly performing their role. In those States where the
prosecution service forms part of the judiciary, or enjoys independence similar to
that of the judicial service, measures to the same effect as those taken with
respect to the judiciary may be applied to the prosecution service as well
(UNODC, 2015, para. 137). Other measures to limit the risk of improper
interference on prosecutorial activity can include, for example, judicial review, the
prohibition of instructions in individual cases, procedures requiring any such
instructions to be given in writing and made public, any other mechanisms
ensuring the consistency and transparency of prosecutors' decision making. The
- more or less discretionary - power assigned to prosecutors poses important
questions as far as their accountability is concerned. According to the
fundamental principles of the rule of law, wherever criminal justice institutions are
given discretion and authority to take decisions themselves, there is a need to
ensure that actors and agencies responsible are held accountable for the
decisions that they make (Dandurand, 2007). Hence, prosecutors, as well as
judges, must be held accountable for their actions and different measures can be
put in place. Besides the general principles, the analysis of the main
characteristics of the role of prosecutors has to necessarily consider that the
organization of the prosecution service varies considerably from country to
country and several configurations may be possible, depending on various
elements and practices which are rooted in different legal cultures. The main
components that can affect prosecutors' activity can be identified as follows:
Criminal justice systems which are adversarial in nature and those which are
inquisitorial; Systems where prosecutors are entrusted with criminal investigation
and those where prosecutors are excluded from the investigative phase, in which
case investigation remains the exclusive domain of the police (or other
investigative agencies); the investigation and prosecution functions are therefore
separate and independent, even though some cooperation is possible; Systems
where prosecution is mandatory (according to the legality principle) and others
where the prosecutor has discretion not to prosecute (following the opportunity
principle) if, for example, the public interest does not demand it; Systems where
the public prosecution service is centralized, and those where it is decentralized;
Systems where prosecutors and judges belong to a single professional corps and
others where they are entirely separate; Some systems allow for private
prosecution while others do not do so, or recognize the possibility of private
prosecution only on a limited basis; Systems where prosecutors are subject to
the directives and supervision of subjects that bear political responsibility for their
activities (hierarchical structure) and system where prosecutors enjoy guarantees
of independence that are similar to those of judges; Systems where high ranking
prosecutors may intervene directly in a subordinate's case (highest prosecutors
may also be an interface between the prosecution service and the political
branches) and those where the single prosecutor enjoys greater independence.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) derives its mandate primarily from the
Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292). It carries out this
mandate through the Department Proper and the Department's attached
agencies under the direct control and supervision of the Secretary of Justice.
Under Executive Order (EO) 292, the DOJ is the government's principal law
agency. As such, the DOJ serves as the government's prosecution arm and
administers the government's criminal justice system by investigating crimes,
prosecuting offenders and overseeing the correctional system. The DOJ, through
its offices and constituent/attached agencies, is also the government's legal
counsel and representative in litigations and proceedings requiring the services
of a lawyer; implements the Philippines' laws on the admission and stay of aliens
within its territory; and provides free legal services to indigent and other qualified
citizens. The DOJ investigates the commission of crimes and prosecutes
offenders through the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the National
Prosecution Service (NPS), respectively. Likewise, the DOJ administers the
probation and correction system of the country through the Bureau of Corrections
(BuCor), the Board of Pardons and Parole (BPP)and the Parole and Probation
Administration (PPA). The DOJ, through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) and the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), acts as the
legal representative of the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and
instrumentalities including government owned and controlled corporations and
their subsidiaries, officials and agents in any proceeding, investigation or matter
requiring the services of a lawyer.
EO 292 specifically designates the Secretary as Attorney-General and ex-officio
legal adviser of government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCC) and their
subsidiaries. The Secretary exercises administrative adjudicatory powers over all
controversies between/among government agencies, including government
owned and controlled corporations including their subsidiaries. This power of
adjudication of the Secretary originally stemmed from Presidential Decree No.
242, and is now embodied in Sections 66 to 71, Chapter 14, Book IV of E.O. 292.
The Secretary is likewise empowered to act on all queries and/or requests for
legal advice and guidance from private parties and other officials and employees
of the government. The DOJ provides immigration and naturalization regulatory
services and implements the laws governing citizenship and the admission and
stay of aliens through the Bureau of Immigration (BI). Also, under Administrative
Order No. 142 dated August 23, 1994, the Secretary or his duly-authorized
representative is authorized to act on immigration matters, including waiver of
visas and admission of aliens, except deportation matters. Likewise, the DOJ,
through the DOJ Refugee Processing Unit (DOJ-RPU), processes applications
for refugee status of persons pursuant to the obligations of the Philippines as
signatory to the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of
Refugees. The DOJ is the central authority of the Republic of the Philippines
relative to extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties (MLAT) on criminal
matters and is involved in several aspects of international cooperation such as
the drafting and implementation of legislation and agreements as well as the
negotiation of extradition and MLAT. Moreover, under Philippine Extradition Law
(P.D. 1069), the DOJ handles requests for extradition and/or mutual legal
assistance and represents treaty partners in Philippine courts. The Department is
also involved in the negotiation of various investment and trade agreements with
other foreign countries. The Secretary is also the ex-officio Co-Vice Chairman of
the Commission on Maritime and Ocean Affairs (CMOA) pursuant to EO
612 and EO 612-A (2007), which is involved in the identification of the Philippine
baselines and in the preparation of the submission to the United Nations of the
country's claim for extended continental shelf. The DOJ provides free legal
assistance/representation to indigents and poor litigants as well as other qualified
persons in criminal, civil, and labor cases, administrative and other quasi-judicial
proceedings and non-commercial disputes through the Public Attorney's Office
(PAO)pursuant to RA No. 9406. With regard to conciliation and mediation,
the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 (RA 9285) created the Office for
Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR), which is an agency attached to the DOJ
and which is tasked to promote, develop and expand the use of alternative
dispute resolution in civil and commercial disputes. In addition to performing its
mandate under E.O. 292, the Department is significantly involved in the
implementation of the following penal, national security, and social welfare laws:
The Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act (R.A. 6981), which mandates
the DOJ to formulate and implement a Witness Protection, Security and Benefit
Program for the admission and protection of witnesses;
Implementation of the Victims Compensation Program through the Board of
Claims created under the DOJ (RA 7309);
 Administrative Order No. 99 (1988), designated DOJ as lead implementor
of Justice System Infrastructure Program (JUSIP) that was tasked to
construct/rehabilitate decent office buildings for judges, prosecutors, public
attorneys, probation officers, and registers of deeds;
 Executive Order 180 (1987), which created the Public Sector Labor
Management Council, of which the Secretary is a member, to provide guidelines
for the exercise of the right of government employees to organize;
 The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165), which created
the Dangerous Drugs Board to see to policy-making and strategy-formulation on
drug prevention and control and designated the Secretary or his representative
as ex-officio member of such Board;
 The Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 (R.A. 9160), which created the Anti-
Money Laundering Council (AMLC) to which the DOJ is a support agency
through the investigation of money laundering offenses and the prosecution of
offenders. With the DOJ Anti-Money Laundering Desk (DOJ-AMLD), the DOJ
works in close coordination with the AMLC in its task of combating money
laundering and financing of terrorism;
 The Human Security Act of 2007 (RA 9372) which created and designated the
Secretary as ex-officio member thereof. Relative to this and under EO 292, the
Secretary is also an ex-officio member of the National Security Council (NSC),
which advises the President with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign,
military, political, economic, social, and educational policies relating to national
security; The Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998 (RA 8505),
which mandated the DOJ to participate in inter-agency efforts to establish Rape
Crisis Centers in every city or province for the purpose of rendering assistance to
rape victims; The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (R.A. 9208), which
mandates the prosecution of persons accused of human trafficking and for that
purpose, created the Inter-Agency Council on Trafficking (IACAT), of which the
Secretary is Chairman; The Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act
of 2004 (RA 9262), which designated the Department as a member agency of
the Inter-Agency Council on Violence Against Women and their Children
(IACVAWC), the monitoring body of government initiatives to counter violence
against women and children; Executive Order 53 (2011) amending EO No. 275
pursuant to the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and
Discrimination Act (RA 7610), designating the DOJ Secretary as the Chairperson
of the Committee for the Special Protection of Children; Anti-Child Pornography
Act of 2009 (IRR of RA), designating the Secretary of Justice as member of Inter-
Agency Council Against Child Pornography that is tasked to coordinate, monitor
and oversee the implementation of Anti-Child Pornography Act; Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175), the Office of Cybercrime within the DOJ
designated as the central authority in all matters related to international mutual
assistance and extradition; Executive Order  45 (2011), which designated the
DOJ as competition authority that investigates all cases involving violations of
competition laws and prosecute violators to prevent, restrain and punish
monopolization, cartels and combinations in restraint of trade;
Administrative Order 35 (2012), which designated the Secretary of Justice as
Chairperson of the Inter-Agency Committee on Extra-Legal Killings, Enforced
Disappearances, Torture and Other Grave Violations on the Right to Life, Liberty
and Security of Persons, the body that undertakes inventory of cases mentioned
perpetrated by state and non-state forces; Memorandum Circular No. 68 (2014),
creating an Inter-Agency Task Force to Strengthen the Implementation of RA
8049 otherwise known as the Anti-Hazing Law, with the DOJ Secretary as
Chairperson.
Other tasks falling within the multifarious duties of the executive branch to
administer the laws devolve upon the Department through the Secretary, to wit:
The Anti-Dummy Law (Commonwealth No. 108), as amended by Presidential
Decree 715, whereby the Secretary is empowered to authorize the employment
of aliens as technical personnel in the management of a franchise, business or
enterprise expressly reserved by law to Filipino citizens or corporations or
associations whose equity at least 60% of which is owned by Filipinos; The Local
Government Code (Section 187 of RA 7160) which vests in the Secretary
appellate jurisdiction over the constitutionality or legality of municipal tax
ordinances and revenue; measures; Executive Order 643 (2007) which vests the
DOJ with administrative supervision over the Presidential Commission on Good
Government (PCGG). The Secretary is also an ex-officio member of the Judicial
and Bar Council (JBC) [Section 8(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution],
the Committee on Privatization [AO 48 (1987)], and the National Water
Resources Board (NWRB) (EO 123, series of 2002). He is also an ex-officio
director of the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities
Management (PSALM)Corporation (RA 9136, otherwise known as Electric Power
Industry Reform Act of 2001).  Under EO 648, series of 1981, an undersecretary
of the DOJ is designated as an ex-officio Commissioner of the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).