[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’SolGen defends deputy ombudsman suspension’ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=” av-medium-font-size-title=” av-small-font-size-title=” av-mini-font-size-title=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”][/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
January 31, 2018
[/av_textblock]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
MANILA – The president has authority to discipline a deputy ombudsman, Solicitor General Jose C. Calida said on Tuesday.
Calida was defending Malacañang’s decision to suspend Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Carandang for 90 days.
The Office of the Executive Secretary charged Carandang with “grave misconduct and grave dishonesty for misuse of confidential information and disclosing false information” on the alleged bank transactions of President Rodrigo Duterte and his family.
“The Constitution is clear that only the ombudsman is subject to impeachment proceedings,” Calida said in a statement.
“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,” he added.
Being the appointing authority, the president has the inherent power to discipline a deputy ombudsman, said the government legal defender.
“The Supreme Court has held that the power to discipline is lodged in the same authority in whom the power to appoint is vested,” Calida said.
Citing Justice Antonio Carpio’s opinion, Calida said the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman was not the same as the independence provided to other governmental bodies, such as the judiciary.
Carandang “is free to seek redress before the competent court,” said Calida.
“Nonetheless, my office is ready to defend the action of the Office of the President in suspending Carandang,” he added. “We are confident that the Supreme Court will reverse its 2014 ruling.”
In 2014, the high court declared as unconstitutional Section 8(2) of the Ombudsman Act of 1989, which grants the president the power to remove a deputy ombudsman by a vote of eight against seven.
An earlier ruling in 2012 ruled for the constitutionality of the assailed provision on an even vote of seven to seven (7-7), leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Carandang violated Section 3A of Republic Act 3019, “causing any undue injury to any party, including government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage of preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial function through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence,” Presidential Spokesman Harry Roque said on Monday.
Moreover, Carandang violated Section 3K of RA 3019 in relation to Section 2, Rule 5 of the Office of the Ombudsman Administrative Order No. 7 for divulging valuable information of confidential character acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position. (PNA)
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
