Ombudsman defies suspension order on deputy
THE OMBUDSMAN in a statement on Wednesday said she “will not allow herself to betray her sworn duty to uphold the Constitution by recognizing what is patently unconstitutional,” and therefore will defy Malacañang’s suspension order on Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur H. Carandang.
“It has become clear that the act of the Office of the President in taking cognizance of the complaints against the Overall Deputy Ombudsman and ordering his preventive suspension was not an inadvertent error but a clear affront to the Supreme Court and an impairment of the constitutionally enshrined independence of the Office of the Ombudsman,” Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales said in her statement.
The Palace issued a 90-day preventive suspension against Mr. Carandang for alleged “grave misconduct and grave dishonesty” by the “misuse of confidential information and disclosing false information” regarding President Rodrigo R. Duterte’s assets. according to Presidential Spokesperson Herminio Harry L. Roque, Jr.
“In a society founded on the rule of law, the arbitrary disregard of a clearly worded jurisprudence coupled with a confident stance that it will be changed should never be countenanced,” Ms. Morales said.
Mr. Roque had said Mr. Carandang is compelled to submit “his answer on the ‘Resolution and Order’” within 10 days.
“After the lapse of the period provided, the Office of the President shall decide on the matter,” he added.
In an interview with ANC, Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador S. Panelo said the “order of preventive suspension...is presumed to be valid and legal” until a “competent court” declares otherwise.
“It behooves therefore the public official authorized to implement the order to enforce the same against respondent Carandang. Any willful refusal to do so or any deliberate act impeding such enforcement may open the said official to administrative and criminal sanctions,” Mr. Panelo said.
Asked if the Ombudsman’s refusal to heed the President’s order is an impeachable act, Mr. Panelo said: “It depends. If it is malicious and deliberate, it can be considered a betrayal of the public trust. Otherwise, it may not be.” —