The Supreme Court (SC) has voided the 2018 dismissal by the Office of the President of then overall deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur H. Carandang who was acting as Ombudsman in the investigation of the charges filed against former president Rodrigo Duterte.
The SC, in a decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, ruled that "by constitutional design, the President possesses no administrative or disciplinary authority over a Deputy Ombudsman."
Carandang was ordered dismissed by the Office of the President on July 30, 2018 as he was declared administratively liable for graft and corruption and betrayal of public trust. His dismissal was with accessory penalties.
On May 5, 2016, former senator Antonio "Sonny" Trillanes IV filed charges of malversation, graft, plunder, and unexplained wealth against then president Duterte.
Then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales inhibited herself in the Trillanes complaint. Carandang took over as acting Ombudsman in the investigation of the complaint.
When Carandang was interviewed on Sept. 27, 2017, he told journalists that his office was in possession of documentary proof on bank transaction records transmitted by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) on the ill-gotten wealth of Duterte and his family.
Two administrative complaints were filed against Carandang before the Office of the President. He was charged with graft and corruption, grave misconduct, gross negligence and serious dishonesty constituting betrayal of public trust, and unauthorized disclosure of information under the Ombudsman's rules.
On Jan. 26, 2018, the Office of the President, through then executive secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, formally charged Carandang who was ordered preventively suspended for 90 days. Ombudsman Morales did not suspend Carandang.
Instead of filing an answer as directed, he appeared personally and explained that Section 8(2) of Republic Act No. 6770, the Ombudsman Act of 1989, the provision granting the President administrative disciplinary authority over the deputy ombudsman, has long been declared unconstitutional by the SC.
On Aug. 5, 2018, Carandang filed a motion before the Office of the President to reconsider his dismissal from the service. His motion was denied on May 28, 2019.
When Morales retired, then Ombudsman Samuel R. Martires was appointed as Ombudsman. Martires directed Carandang to cease and desist from performing his functions as overall deputy Ombudsman and declared his post vacant.
When his motion was denied by the Office of the President, Carandang filed a petition before the Court of Appeals (CA) and challenged his dismissal from the service.
Carandang told the CA that the President has no administrative disciplinary jurisdiction over the overall deputy Ombudsman. He also refuted that he betrayed public trust and committed acts amounting to graft and corruption when he was interviewed by journalists.
On Nov. 18, 2021, the CA granted Carandang's petition. Citing the SC's previous decision which declared unconstitutional the President's administrative disciplinary jurisdiction over a deputy Ombudsman, the CA ruled that the Office of the President's decision and resolution in dismissing Carandang "were void and without legal effect."
The CA pointed out that "the power to discipline Carandang lies exclusively with the Ombudsman; thus, any administrative complaint against him should have been initiated before that Office."
The Office of the President, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a petition before the SC assailing the CA's decision.
In resolving the petition, the SC said the removal of Carandang served as a convenient doorway to reopen a previous ruling.
"Yet the Court remains unconvinced. There is no compelling reason for such a drastic turn, all the more so when the President's own conduct was in issue, thereby underscoring the enduring need to shield the Office of the Ombudsman from the shifting winds of political influence," the SC said.
It pointed out that to ensure the enduring existence of the effective functioning of the Office of the Ombudsman, the Constitution expressly labeled it as "independent."
It also said the independence is shared by the Office of the Ombudsman with the three Constitutional Commissions -- the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.
"Their independence means that they do not owe their existence to any act of Congress; they enjoy fiscal autonomy; and, most importantly, they are intended to be 'insulated from political pressure to the extent that the absence of (said independence) would result in the impairment of their core functions,'" it added.
The SC said: "It is important to emphasize that the inhibition of then Ombudsman Carpio-Morales effectively positioned Carandang as the Acting Ombudsman for cases involving former President Duterte. It would be nothing short of a constitutional paradox, and a direct affront to accountability, if former President Duterte were allowed to sanction Carandang, one of the remaining officials explicitly empowered to hold government actors to account. With Carpio-Morales recused and Carandang removed, the Office of the Ombudsman was left virtually headless with even fewer individuals willing or able to enforce accountability in government, the President, in particular. Surely, this was the very evil the Constitution sought to guard against."
While Carandang's dismissal was voided, the SC said he could no longer be reinstated since his seven-year term expired in 2020.
The SC ruled: "The accessory penalties tied to Carandang's preventive suspension and dismissal, including but not limited to the forfeiture of his retirement benefits, are rendered without force or effect. Accordingly, Carandang is entitled to all of his retirement benefits effective upon the expiration of his term. He is also entitled to receive his salaries corresponding to the period of his preventive suspension and dismissal, but only up to the expiry of his term."