THE Supreme Court has denied the appeal of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales seeking a reversal of its decision affirming the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to review and stop suspension orders against elected officials facing criminal cases.
The high court released the decision as Morales denied allegations of selective justice, calling on politicians with pending cases before the office to stop crying political harassment and just face their pending lawsuits.
During its en banc session on Tuesday, the SC sustained its decision rendered in November 2015, which declared ineffective Section 14 of Republic Act No. 6770, or the Ombudsman Act, that reserves review powers only to the SC.
“The Court denied the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales from its decision dated November 11, 2015 which partially granted the petition,” SC spokesperson Theodore Te announced in a media briefing.
In its Nov. 11 decision, the SC also abandoned the so-called “condonation doctrine” that has been in place since 1959 and is rampantly being used by elected officials to defend themselves against administrative liabilities committed in their previous terms in office.
Under the condonation doctrine, administrative offenses by elected officials are deemed forgiven upon their reelection.
The controversy arose after the Ombudsman filed a petition assailing the decision of the CA issued last April 6, 2015 enjoining the anti-graft body from implementing the preventive suspension order against then Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay Jr., in connection with the alleged anomaly in the Makati City Hall building project.
Binay also repeatedly criticized decisions of the Ombudsman and said it was being selective in its dispensation of justice.
But Morales denied the charge and said “the Filipino people are the real victims whenever corrupt public officials steal money.”
“Stop giving the public the impression that you are being politically persecuted. It is the other way around. Every peso lost to corruption means less free medicines for indigent patients in government hospitals and health centers, less textbooks and classrooms in public schools, and less food packs for victims of natural disasters,” she said.
Political harassment has become the standard “public relations” defense of politicians charged with graft and corruption or plunder, according to the Ombudsman, she raised.
“This will not stand in court, and the public is not gullible to believe their claim,” she said.
According to Morales, her office does not distinguish whether it is election period or look at the party affiliation of the politician allegedly involved in corruption.
“We decide only on the basis of evidence. After careful and objective evaluation of the evidence gathered, we immediately file cases, if warranted. We are oblivious of the timing of the filing of cases in courts, just as corrupt public officials steal public money every time an opportunity comes.”
“Fighting corruption is a 24/7 job. We file plunder or graft cases as soon as we are done with a thorough and impartial investigation. The Office will not be deterred by propaganda and threats in doing our job. As I have said in the past, fighting corruption is the reason for my life.”
Accused of “selective justice” by its detractors, the Office of the Ombudsman is indeed selective, she said.
“Yes, we are selective because the Ombudsman’s charter (Republic Act No. 6770) mandates us to prioritize cases against high ranking government officials, complaints involving grave offenses, as well as complaints involving large sums of money or properties or those against big-time plunderers. We are selective because we dismiss cases when evidence is not sufficient. In some cases, we are even constrained to dismiss administrative cases against elected officials because the abandonment of the condonation doctrine is prospective according to the 10 November 2015 decision of the Supreme Court,” she said in a statement.