The Supreme Court has delivered a definitive blow to a 2018 executive order issued by former President Rodrigo Duterte, ruling that the Chief Executive lacks the legal authority to discipline or remove officials from the Office of the Ombudsman.
In a 28-page decision released by the Third Division, the high tribunal affirmed that the Ombudsman is a constitutionally independent body, designed specifically to operate beyond the reach of presidential control to ensure impartial investigations into government corruption.
“By constitutional design, the President possesses no administrative or disciplinary authority over a deputy Ombudsman,” the tribunal stated in the ruling penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh.
The case originated when the Office of the President suspended and subsequently dismissed Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Carandang for alleged graft and betrayal of public trust.
These charges followed Carandang’s public statements regarding an investigation into the Duterte family’s bank transactions, which were purportedly linked to data from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).
The Court, however, found the administrative allegations against Carandang to be baseless and warned that allowing a President to penalize those investigating the administration would cripple the nation’s system of checks and balances.
“Allowing the President to unilaterally discipline officials charged with investigating potential wrongdoing within the administration invites retaliation, coercion and the suppression of oversight, conditions fundamentally at odds with transparency and accountability,” the court added.
Furthering its critique of the executive overreach, the Court emphasized that the independence of such oversight bodies is vital to a functioning democracy.
“The attempt to remove Carandang reflects precisely the abuse of power that the (court) sought to prevent. The rule of law requires that those tasked with scrutinizing authority remain insulated from it, lest oversight become illusory and the constitutional design of checks and balances give way to political expediency,” the ruling read.
The decision also invalidated a 2019 directive from then-Ombudsman Samuel Martires, who had ordered Carandang to vacate his post in compliance with Malacañang’s dismissal.
The justices noted that the Office of the Ombudsman should have served as a bulwark against such executive interference rather than an enforcer of it.
“In a nation long vulnerable to governmental overreach, the continued creation and preservation of guardrails against concentrated power remain essential to democratic life,” the court ruled.
While the ruling entitles Carandang to his back salaries and full retirement benefits, it does not mandate his reinstatement to office, as his statutory seven-year term concluded in 2020.
The decision was supported by Associate Justices Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, Henri Jean Paul Inting, Samuel Gaerlan, and Japar Dimaampao.