SC: CA can stop Ombudsman suspension orders

MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC) yesterday junked the appeal of the Office of the Ombudsman regarding its ruling last year upholding the power of the Court of Appeals (CA) to review and stop orders of the anti-graft agency.

The SC justices decided in full court session in Baguio City to deny the motion for reconsideration of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales. The court stood firm on its ruling declaring as unconstitutional Section 14 of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) that the ombudsman often invoked in assailing CA rulings against the anti-graft body’s orders on administrative cases.

The high court also affirmed its November 2015 decision insofar as the prospective effect of the abandonment of the condonation doctrine that clears re-elected officials of administrative liabilities for acts committed in their previous term.

In its appeal, Morales asked the high court to reverse the ruling and instead strike down the authority of CA to stop her orders.

She also urged the SC to order the retroactive application of the abandonment of the condonation doctrine so it could apply in the case of dismissed Makati City mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay Jr. over alleged anomaly in the Makati City Hall Building 2 project.

The SC did not see merit in the ombudsman’s appeal and held that all arguments she raised were resolved in the earlier ruling.

In the ruling, the high tribunal struck down paragraph 2 of Section 14 of RA 6770, which is often invoked by the ombudsman in assailing CA rulings against its orders on administrative cases.

The SC deemed as “vague” Section 14, Par. 2 of RA 6770, which prevents a court, apart from the SC, from hearing any appeal or application for remedy against the decision or findings of the ombudsman on pure question of law.

It stressed the portion of the law was vague for two reasons: it is unclear what the phrase “application for remedy” or the word “findings” refers to; and it does not specify what procedural remedy is solely allowable to the SC except that it may be taken only on a question of law.

The SC also deemed as “ineffective” paragraph 1 of the provision, which prohibits any court, apart from the SC, from issuing a writ of injunction to delay an investigation being conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman.