Malacañang stands by Carandang’s suspension
MALACAÑANG maintained on Tuesday, Jan. 30, that its suspension of Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur H. Carandang is “immediately executory” unless a temporary restraining order (TRO) from a competent court is issued.
“That’s subject to his decision whether he wants to run to the court...Without a TRO from the court, that’s immediately executory,” Presidential Spokesperson Harry L. Roque, Jr. said in a press briefing in Sagonsongan village, Marawi City.
Mr. Roque announced last Monday that “the Executive Secretary has formally charged Mr. Carandang for grave misconduct and grave dishonesty for misuse of confidential information and disclosing false information....”
The spokesman said the charge was pursuant to a complaint filed Oct. 3 last year by lawyers Manolito R. Luna and Elijio P. Mallari. The charge stemmed from unauthorized disclosure of confidential information, which the AntiMoney Laundering Council (AMLC) clarified was not the source, the spokesman explained.
“The Office of the Executive Secretary placed under preventive suspension Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur H. Carandang for a period of 90 days effective immediately upon receipt of this order,” Mr. Roque said.
“[T]he formal charge as well as the preventive suspension had to do, and I quote, with statements made by Deputy Ombudsman Carandang as follows: We can confirm that we received bank transactions coming from AMLC, bank transactions generated by AMLC.”
In a separate statement on Tuesday, Solicitor- General Jose C. Calida said: “The Constitution is clear that only the Ombudsman is subject to impeachment proceedings. 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.”
Mr. Calida also noted that “the Supreme Court has held that the power to discipline is lodged in the same authority in whom the power to appoint is vested.”
He pointed out as well that “Deputy Ombudsman Carandang is free to seek redress before the competent court.”
“Nonetheless, my office is ready to defend the action of the Office of the President in suspending Carandang. We are confident that the Supreme Court will reverse its 2014 ruling,” he also said, in reference to the high court’s declaring as unconstitutional Section 8(2) of the Ombudsman Act of 1989, which grants the President the power to remove a deputy ombudsman. An earlier ruling in 2012 ruled on the constitutionality of the assailed provision, Mr. Calida noted.