The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the President has no administrative or disciplinary authority over a Deputy Ombudsman, affirming the constitutional independence of the Office of the Ombudsman.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier Singh, the SC Third Division denied the Office of the President’s petition, upheld an earlier Court of Appeals (CA) ruling, and voided the dismissal of former Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur Carandang from service.

“By constitutional design, the President possesses no administrative or disciplinary authority over a Deputy Ombudsman,” the Court said.

FACTS AND ISSUE

The case stemmed from administrative complaints filed against Carandang after he disclosed in a September 2017 media interview that the Office of the Ombudsman supposedly possessed bank transaction records allegedly transmitted by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) concerning then President Rodrigo Duterte and his family in connection with a complaint filed by former senator Antonio Trillanes IV over alleged unexplained wealth.

The AMLC later denied being the source of the documents and said it had not furnished the Ombudsman with any report on Duterte’s alleged bank accounts, prompting complaints accusing Carandang of graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, grave misconduct, and unauthorized disclosure of confidential information.

In January 2018, the Office of the President, through then Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, formally charged Carandang and placed him under preventive suspension. Carandang challenged the proceedings, arguing that Section 8(2) of Republic Act No. 6770, or the Ombudsman Act, granting the President disciplinary authority over a Deputy Ombudsman, had already been declared unconstitutional in Gonzales III v. Office of the President.

Despite this, the Office of the President in July 2018 found Carandang liable for graft and corruption and betrayal of public trust and dismissed him from service. The CA later nullified the ruling, prompting the government to elevate the case to the SC.

Before the SC, the main issues were whether the CA correctly applied the 2014 Gonzales ruling, whether the President may discipline or remove a Deputy Ombudsman, and whether Carandang could be held administratively liable.

RULING

The SC denied the Office of the President’s petition and upheld the appellate court’s nullification of Carandang’s dismissal, ruling that the President cannot exercise disciplinary or removal powers over a Deputy Ombudsman because such authority violates the constitutional independence of the Ombudsman.

The Court held that its 2014 ruling in Gonzales, which declared unconstitutional the President’s disciplinary authority over Deputy Ombudsmen under Section 8(2) of the Ombudsman Act, remains binding precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis. 

Moreover, the SC rejected the government’s reliance on Agustin-Se v. Office of the President, clarifying that the case did not revisit the constitutionality of presidential disciplinary power and could not overturn an en banc ruling.

According to the SC, “there is no compelling reason” to revisit the Gonzales doctrine, emphasizing the need to preserve the constitutional independence of the Office of the Ombudsman.

Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.