Last days of Overall Deputy
Ombudsman Melchor Carandang is numbered.
Ombudsman Samuel Martires
when asked about the dismissal order against Carandang he replied he has “no
choice” but to implement it.
Ombudsman Martires said that
he will carry out the dismissal order from the Office of the Executive
Secretary.
Newly appointed Ombudsman Samuel Martires (photo credit to owner) |
A contentious issue is a 2014
Supreme Court ruling that voided the president’s disciplinary jurisdiction over
a deputy ombudsman.
Carandang still has 15 days to file a motion for reconsideration to overturn the dismissal. Should the appeal be denied, the Ombudsman said has “no choice” but to dismiss Carandang.
Carandang still has 15 days to file a motion for reconsideration to overturn the dismissal. Should the appeal be denied, the Ombudsman said has “no choice” but to dismiss Carandang.
“But it will depend on ODO
[Carandang]...I don’t think he’s that hard-headed. I see him as a very
reasonable guy. I knew him since I was in the Sandiganbayan. I think ODO
Carandang will just follow what the law provides.” Martires said.
Reporters asked the newly
appointed Ombudsman if Malacañang has the power to dismiss Carandang, who is an
Office of the Ombudsman executive, Martires said: “No comment. No comment. Wag
niyo ‘ko ipitin diyan. (Don’t back me into a corner on this.)”
He added that the issue
regarding Carandang’s case is “a matter that is left to the courts to decide.”
Martires stand is a complete
turnaround from his predecessor Conchita Carpio-Morales, who refused to enforce
Malacañang’s earlier suspension order against Carandang.
The order of Malacañang
originated from the complaint filed by lawyer Manuelito Luna, and suspended
lawyer Eligio Mallari in October 2017.
The two accused Carandang of corruption
for causing “undue injury to any party, including the government,” as well as
for giving “unwarranted benefits” through “manifest partiality” and for
“divulging valuable information of a confidential character.”
Carandang was recorded in a
media interview where he was quoted as saying that his office had already
received the bank transaction records of the president’s family from 2006 to
2016 from the Anti-Money Laundering Council—a statement that was later denied
by the money laundering watchdog.
Carandang in his answer to
the complaint has maintained that his office “has observed confidentiality” in
the probe into the President and his family’s bank transactions.
Question of constitutionality
Last January Malacañang handed
down a 90 day preventive suspension against Carandang after it decided that he
has committed grave dishonesty for misuse of confidential information and
disclosing false information, under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
But Morales, citing the
Supreme Court case ruling on Gonzales III v Office of the President (OP), said
that the suspension order was “patently unconstitutional.”
The doctrine that was laid in
that case states that it “illegal (for
an) administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the president over deputy
ombudsmen. The SC ruled that Section 8(2) of RA 6770 or The Ombudsman Act of
1989 was unconstitutional by granting discplinary jurisdiction to the president
over a deputy ombudsman as it violates the independence of the Office of the
Ombudsman.
“The ombudsman will thus not
allow herself to betray her sworn duty to uphold the Constitution by
recognizing what is patently unconstitutional,” a statement from the office of
Morales said last January.
What can
you say about this?
Share us your thoughts by simply leaving on the comment section below. For
more news updates, feel free to visit our site often.
Stay updated with today's relevant news and trends by hitting the LIKE button.
Thanks for dropping by and reading this post.
Report from PhilStar
0 Comments