Palace sees SC reversal on deputy ombudsman

The Supreme Court ruling stating that the President cannot discipline the deputy ombudsman may be reversed because some of the justices who voted on the issue are no longer in service, President Duterte’s chief legal counsel Salvador Panelo has said.

In 2014, the Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional Section 8(2) of the Ombudsman Act, which states that the President can remove a deputy ombudsman. The SC said the provision violated the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman. Eight justices voted to declare the provision as unconstitutional while seven disagreed.

The ruling was placed in the spotlight recently after Malacañang ordered the 90-day suspension of Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur Carandang for allegedly disclosing false information about the bank transactions of President Duterte and his family.

Ombudsman Conchita CarBALAOAN, pio-Morales has refused to implement the order, saying it is unconstitutional and goes against the SC ruling. But Malacañang insists that the President, as “chief implementer of the law,” can suspend Carandang.

Presidential spokesman Harry Roque has said the suspension would be enforced unless the court issues a temporary restraining order.

Panelo noted that the majority decision on the case won “on a single vote, it was just one vote.”

“Three of the justices who voted have resigned. Four justices have succeeded them. The court is always like that. Sometimes,

the decisions are reversed, sometimes they are retained,” Panelo told radio station dzMM last Saturday.

The eight justices who voted that the President cannot remove a deputy ombudsman were Presbitero Velasco Jr., Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Arturo Brion, Lucas Bersamin, Roberto Abad, Jose Portugal Perez, Jose Catral Mendoza and Marvic Leonen. The seven justices who dissented were Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Justices Antonio Carpio, Diosdado Peralta, Mariano del Castillo, Martin Villarama, Bienvenido Reyes and Estela Perlas-Bernabe.

The justices in the majority who have retired are Brion, Abad, Perez and Mendoza.

Panelo insisted that the suspension of Carandang is presumed to be regular.

“We have a principle called ‘official acts are accorded the presumption of regularity.’ It is assumed that any act of a government official is legal and regular,” Panelo said.

“Until the judiciary declares it as illegal, you have to implement the law. You want to challenge the legality of the order, then you go to the court and the court will tell you whether it is right or wrong,” he added.

Panelo said Carandang would lose nothing if he challenges the suspension order before the court.

“What will you lose if you implement it first then you challenge it before the court? If you are reinstated, then you are reinstated,” he said.