By Ade S. Fajardo
The Supreme Court, writing through Justice Filomena Singh, has upheld the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman by confirming that the president does not have the power to remove a deputy ombudsman.
To recall, despite prevailing case law that he could not do so, former President Rodrigo Duterte entertained a complaint submitted by lawyer Manuelito Luna and former Congressman Jacinto Paras, who claimed that Overall Deputy Ombudsman Arthur Carandang committed grave misconduct when he mentioned in a media interview that he possessed documents showing the Duterte family’s ill-gotten wealth.
***
The decision dismissing Carandang from office was signed by former Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea.
It was implemented by Ombudsman Samuel Martires as soon as he replaced the retiring Conchita Carpio-Morales.
Carandang was replaced by Warren Rex Liong, who himself was subsequently dismissed from the service for his involvement in the Pharmally scandal during the Covid-19 pandemic.
***
Carandang appealed his dismissal to the Court of Appeals, which agreed with his position that the president has no administrative jurisdiction or disciplinary powers over a deputy ombudsman.
The Court of Appeals held that the decision against Carandang is null and void given that the Supreme Court, in a previous case, had already declared unconstitutional the president’s administrative disciplinary powers over a deputy ombudsman.
That previous case involved the president’s dismissal of a deputy ombudsman who was accused of bungling the Luneta hostage taker’s case. The Supreme Court nullified it citing the president’s lack of administrative authority over a deputy ombudsman.
***
The Office of the President went on to appeal the loss. This was when the UniTeam was still intact and Victor Rodriguez was the executive secretary.
Rodriguez claimed that, at the very least, the president has concurrent disciplinary authority with respect to the Ombudsman’s deputies.
These arguments were ignored by the Singh ponencia, thus ushering a much stronger ombudsman who apparently now has the exclusive power to fire an erring deputy.
***
The Supreme Court also said that transparency is of great value in the campaign against corruption and ill-gotten wealth.
When Carandang was being interviewed, he had taken over the investigation into the Duterte bank accounts.
Carpio-Morales had to recuse from the proceedings because of close blood relations with Duterte’s son-in-law.
Resolution of allegations that billions of pesos went in and out of the Duterte bank accounts thus fell squarely on his shoulder. It is clear that he had to be taken out at all cost.
***
The Supreme Court decision is thus in time for the impeachment proceedings against the vice president, who is now faced with the premium accorded to transparency.
Her father never succumbed to the challenge of executing bank secrecy waivers if only to drive away all suspicions of the accumulation of ill-gotten riches.
It has been years since Carandang was removed from office — which in the words of the Supreme Court is the very “evil” against which the independence of the Ombudsman was envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
Will the impeachment trial in the Senate finally bring all these accounts to light?/WDJ