spot_img
29 C
Philippines
Thursday, March 28, 2024

SolGen hits Morales for questioning Rody’s order

- Advertisement -

THE state’s top lawyer on Friday tore into Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales and insisted that President Rodrigo Duterte has the authority to discipline Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Carandang.

Solicitor General Jose Calida challenged the assertion of Morales that President Duterte’s suspension order against Carandang constitutes disrespect of the 2014 Supreme Court decision, which nullified the order of then President Benigno Aquino III to dismiss Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales II.

Calida reminded Morales that she previously ignored the so-called “Aguinaldo doctrine” in indicting former Makati City Mayor Junjun Binay for graft three years ago.

“When the Ombudsman skewered then Mayor Junjun Binay by finding him guilty of graft over the Makati Parking Building, did she respect the Aguinaldo doctrine, which was the prevailing jurisprudence at that time? No. Now, she chides the Office of the President for ordering the preventive suspension of Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Carandang, which she characterized as ‘a clear affront to the Supreme Court.’ Look who’s talking,” Calida said.

- Advertisement -

Calida said Morales should not cite the SC decision on the case of Emilio Gonzales III, who had challenged before the Supreme Court the order of Aquino to sack him as deputy Ombudsman for gross neglect of duty.

The SC had ruled then that Section 8(2) of Republic Act No. 6770, or the Ombudsman Act, was unconstitutional “by granting disciplinary jurisdiction to the President over a deputy Ombudsman, in violation of the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman.”

However, Calida maintained that Gonzales’ case was different since the preventive suspension of Morales’ deputy was not a penalty.

“The Ombudsman was supposed to investigate the fraudulent claims against the President. She, however, recused herself and passed the baton to ODO Carandang to do this task. But ODO bungled his job by exposing the President’s fake bank accounts,” he said.

“She sanctimoniously invoked a distorted interpretation of the Ombudsman’s independence to shield her office from accountability. This is a travesty of justice,” Calida said.

The solicitor general said that Morales’ decision not to take part in the investigation on the President’s supposed bank records only created a “procedural, legal and ethical vacuum.”

“The Ombudsman cannot also discipline [Carandang] for acts committed in a case where she inhibited herself as she will contradict herself. Neither can [Carandang] be disciplined by the other deputy Ombudsmen due to lack of legal basis,” he said.

“Who will now discipline Carandang who was acting under Ombudsman Morales’ fiat?” he asked.

In defending the order suspending Carandang, Calida said Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution did not include the deputy Ombudsman as among the public officials who may be unseated only through an impeachment.

The chief state lawyer also said the 1987 Administrative Code also supported the President’s action.

“The President, in issuing the preventive suspension, merely filled the vacuum left by the Ombudsman’s masquerade, and enforced accountability in public service. Otherwise, we will just be paying lip service to the constitutional precept that public officers shall remain accountable at all times. One thing is clear: The Office of the Ombudsman is not a fourth branch of government,” the chief state lawyer said.

Calida reiterated that the President had the inherent power to discipline a Deputy Ombudsman, being the appointing authority.

”The Supreme Court has held that the power to discipline is lodged in the same authority in whom the power to appoint is vested,” Calida said.

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles