OMBUDSMAN Conchita Carpio-Morales on Wednesday defied a Palace order to enforce a 90-day suspension against Overall Deputy Ombudsman Arthur Carandang, saying that doing so would be unconstitutional and risk the independence of her office.
Citing a 2014 Supreme Court ruling, Morales said previous suspensions issued by the Office of the President against deputy ombudsmen were declared unconstitutional.
“The Supreme Court categorically declared unconstitutional the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the President over deputy ombudsmen,” Morales said in a statement.
“The Ombudsman cannot, therefore, seriously place at risk the independence of the very office which she has pledged to protect on the strength of the constitutional guarantees which the High Court has upheld,” she added.
Chief presidential legal counsel Salvador Panelo, however, warned Morales that she is opening herself to administrative and criminal sanctions in defying the suspension order.
“Every official act is accorded the presumption of regularity. Until a competent court declares that such official act is in violation of the law and the Constitution, President Rodrigo Duterte’s order of preventive suspension from office of Deputy Ombudsmaan Carangdang is presumed to be valid and legal. It behooves therefore the public official authorized to implement the order to enforce the same against respondent Carangdang. Any willful refusal to do so or any deliberate act impeding such enforcement may open the said official to administrative and criminal sanctions,” Panelo said.
But when asked if Morales’ decision constitutes an impeachable offense, Panelo said: “It depends. If it is malicious and deliberate, it can be considered a betrayal of the public trust. Otherwise, it may not be.”
Morales also accused the Office of the President of “arbitrary disregard of clearly worded jurisprudence” and its confidence that the Supreme Court would change its stance.
The Palace suspended Carandang for disclosing bank details of President Rodrigo Duterte and his family.
In 2014 ruling, the Supreme Court voted 8-7 to disallow the Palace from disciplining a deputy ombudsman, saying this would violate the constitutionally protected independence of the Office of the Ombudsman.
But of the eight who voted against the Palace in 2014, only four—Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco, Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Lucas Bersamin and Marvic Leonen—are sitting judges.
The Palace said it is confident the Supreme Court would reverse its earlier decision, and has given Carandang 10 days to answer its suspension order.
The deputy ombudsman has been accused of using fabricated bank records against the President.
Presidential Spokesman Harry Roque said it is incumbent upon Carandang to submit his answer within the required period.
After the lapse of the period provided, the Office of the President shall decide on the matter.
The Supreme Court, meanwhile, released a copy of its 2014 judgment that barred the Palace from disciplining former deputy ombudsman Emilio Gonzales III, after Solicitor General Jose Calida claimed that the President has the authority to discipline a deputy ombudsman.
Voting 8-7, the Court ruled that the administrative authority being exercised by the Office of the President over the position of deputy ombudsman is unconstitutional.
In particular, the Court voided a section of the Ombudsman Act of 1989, which grants the President the power to remove a deputy ombudsman. It ruled that such a provision diminished the authority and independence of the Office of the Ombudsman.