SC ruling that may help Carandang deemed irreversible

MANILA, Philippines (First published on Jan. 31, 2018) — A 2014 Supreme Court ruling that runs counter to Malacañang's order suspending Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Carandang is deemed final, executory and irreversible.

Supreme Court records show that the case of Gonzales III versus Office of the President was made part of the book of entries of judgments on May 7, 2014, three months after the ruling was promulgated on Jan. 28, 2014.

This was confirmed by the high court's spokesperson Theodore Te on Wednesday, who explained that a law deemed final and executory means there is "nothing to review."

Abdiel Dan Fajardo, president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, said the entry of judgment meant that the 2014 decision "may no longer be disturbed," citing a rule on the finality of judgments.

This is despite Solicitor General Jose Calida's confidence that the administration can reverse the high tribunal's decision that Malacañang under then President Noynoy Aquino erred when it fired Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales III.

Duterte's executive secretary, Salvador Medialdea, recently made a similar move in ordering Carandang preventively suspended for 90 days for his supposed grave misconduct and grave dishonesty.

"SC cannot resurrect the provision it had killed," Fajardo told Philstar.com.

A 'legally non-existent' disciplinary power

Most of the dissenting justices in the Gonzales case, decided with a narrow vote of 8-7, are still in office. These are Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justices Diosdado Peralta, Mariano del Castillo and Estela Perlas-Bernabe.

Philstar.com asked Fajardo about the possibility of reopening Gonzales III versus the Office of the President if three new Supreme Court justices—appointees of Duterte—would find it erroneous.

Fajardo explained that the Constitution does not allow the Supreme Court to act as an appeals court to reverse a previous decision. This is especially true if the declaration was about constitutionality.

The high court in 2014 effectively voided the chief executive's supposed disciplinary jurisdiction over a deputy ombudsman. Malacañang's order to suspend Gonzales, it ruled, violated the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman.

"[An] SC decision, when final, becomes part of the law of the land under our civil code. So being a law already, SC may not usurp legislative power by simply reversing its decision in Gonzalez III," the bar association's chief added.

Copy of the entry of judgment of the ruling on Gonzales III vs Office of the President (2014) provided by the Supreme Court Information Office.

Fajardo also pointed out that the ruling made the provision in the Ombudsman Act granting presidential jurisdiction over a deputy ombudsman was "legally non-existent."

"A void law produces no legal effect whatsover," Fajardo said. "It is as if it had never been passed and therefore does not exist in the statute books."

The date of the issuance of a record on the entry of judgment is the same date of the final order of a decision, according to the Rules of Court.

The Office of the Ombudsman on Wednesday backed Carandang after two days of radio silence and refused to enforce the Palace's suspension order. The Ombudsman called it "a clear affront to the SC and an impairment of the constitutionality enshrined independence of the Office of the Ombudsman."

EXPLAINER: Can the Office of the President suspend Deputy Ombudsman Carandang?