‘Rody can suspend deputy ombudsman’

MANILA, Philippines — Solicitor General Jose Calida yesterday defended the legality of the suspension order issued by the Office of the President (OP) against Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur Carandang.

In a statement, Calida said the President has the authority to discipline a deputy ombudsman despite existing jurisprudence saying otherwise.

“The Constitution is clear, that only the ombudsman is subject to impeachment proceedings. While silent as to the disciplinary authority over a deputy ombudsman, the subsequent enactment of the Ombudsman Act filled this gap and expressly granted the authority to the President,” Calida explained, stressing that the President, being the appointing authority, has the inherent power to discipline a deputy ombudsman.

“The Supreme Court (SC) has held that the power to discipline is lodged in the same authority in whom the power to appoint is vested,” Calida pointed out.

Citing the opinion of Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio in the similar case of former deputy ombudsman for the military and other law enforcement offices Emilio Gonzales III, the solicitor general said the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman is not the same as the independence provided to other government bodies such as the judiciary.

Carpio, however, dissented in the SC ruling on Gonzales’ case in 2014, which had taken away the disciplinary power of the president over the deputy ombudsman post.

Voting 8-7, the high court ruled that the administrative authority being exercised by the OP over the position of deputy ombudsman is unconstitutional.

The SC specifically voided Section 8(2) of the Ombudsman Act of 1989, which grants the president the power to remove a deputy ombudsman.

Gonzales was dismissed in 2011 by then president Benigno Aquino III over the bloody hostage-taking incident at Rizal Park on Aug. 23, 2010, but was later reinstated by the SC.  

In the case of Carandang, Duterte has ordered his suspension for 90 days for making public documents related to the President’s bank accounts.

Carandang said the documents came from the Anti-Money laundering Council (AMLC), but the latter denied being the source.

‘Immediately executory’

Malacañang is keen on implementing the 90-day suspension of Carandang despite questions raised on the power of the President to suspend him.

“Without the (temporary restraining order) from the court, it is immediately executory,” said presidential spokesman Harry Roque in a press briefing in Lanao del Sur yesterday.

“We will implement the order. If he wants to go to court because I understand he is saying it is unconstitutional, let him, but we will not go to court because our reading is the Office of the President has the power to dismiss,” Roque said.

Meanwhile, chief presidential legal counsel Salvador Panelo also defended the Palace move and accused Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV  of “maliciously” misleading the public by describing the “lawful actions of the President” against Carandang.

“While the Constitution does provide for the independence of the ombudsman, the Constitution also provides for the effective system of ‘checks and balances,’ which is a hallmark of our democratic government and ensures the proper accountability of public officers,” Panelo said.

Panelo stressed that Section 8 (2) of Republic Act 6770, or the Ombudsman Act, provides that “a deputy, or the special prosecutor, may be removed from office by the President for any of the grounds provided for the removal of the ombudsman, and after due process.” 

“Public office is a public trust and accordingly, those who abuse such trust must be held accountable. No one is exempt from taking responsibility for their misdeeds, let alone ODO Carandang,” he said. 

“Neither may ODO Carandang conveniently hide under the shield of the requirement of an impeachment because the Constitution is clear, for purposes of removal from public office only applies to the ombudsman herself, and does not extend to her deputies,” Panelo said.

Panelo also described as “wantonly malicious and deceitful nature of the act of ODO Carandang in disclosing confidential information related to President Duterte’s alleged bank transactions reaching P1 billion is a violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corruption Act.”

Panelo reiterated that Carandang’s actions violated Section 3 (k) of the same Republic Act in relation to Section 2, Rule V of the Ombudsman Administrative Order No. 7 for “divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position to unauthorized persons.”

Panelo also maintained that Carandang’s actions “demonstrate that he is unfit to hold office in the esteemed Office of the Ombudsman or any public office for that matter.”  

“No one is above the law and those that break it will be held responsible; hence the suspension,” Panelo added.

Palace cover-up possible —  minority senators

Senators from the minority bloc yesterday warned the suspension of Carandang could be part of the Duterte administration’s attempts to cover up the truth on alleged corrupt activities of its officials.

Meanwhile, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales remained mum on the suspension of her deputy.

“No comment,” Morales told reporters at the Senate, where she attended the hearing on proposals to improve the retirement package of employees of the Office of the Ombudsman.

Sens. Paolo Benigno Aquino IV, Risa Hontiveros and Francis Pangilinan condemned the filing of charges and the 90-day suspension imposed on Carandang.

“It is critical that the Office of the Ombudsman remains independent and free from intimidation when investigating elected officials,” Aquino said in a statement.

He added that Carandang should be allowed to pursue his investigation on alleged hidden wealth of government officials.

Pangilinan said Malacañang’s move could be taken as preventing the truth from coming out.

“It appears that (the suspension) is just pressure against an official who just wants transparency among government officials, especially if it involves the highest leader of the government,” he said.

Hontiveros wondered if the suspension meant Malacañang was actually confirming allegations of hidden wealth against President Duterte.

“But how can someone be guilty of ‘divulging valuable information’ and ‘misuse of confidential information,’ that, according to Malacañang, is fake?” she asked.

“By filing cases against Carandang, is Malacañang confirming the authenticity of the AMLC records in President Duterte’s bank accounts?” Hontiveros added, referring to the Anti-Money Laundering Council. – With Christina Mendez, Paolo Romero