SolGen hits Ombudsman's refusal to suspend deputy probing Duterte family

Solicitor General Jose Calida on Friday hit back at Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales' refusal to carry out Malacañang's suspension order on Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Carandang.

Calida said Morales "sanctimoniously invoked a distorted interpretation of the Ombudsman’s independence to shield her office from accountability" after the Office of the President slapped a 90-day preventive suspension on Carandang for disclosing the alleged bank transactions of President Rodrigo Duterte and his family.

"This is a travesty of justice," the solicitor general said.

Morales on Wednesday said she won't enforce the disciplinary action because it was unconstitutional and posed a threat to the anti-graft body's independence.  Citing a Supreme Court ruling in 2014, Morales said previous suspensions issued by the Office of the President against deputy ombudsmen have been deemed unconstitutional.

"Now, she chides the Office of the President for ordering the preventive suspension of Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Carandang (ODO), which she characterized as 'a clear affront to the Supreme Court.' Look who’s talking?" Calida said.

Calida said Morales actually did not respect the Aguinaldo doctrine in 2015 when the camp of then Makati City Mayor Junjun Binay used it in securing a stay order from the Court of Appeals on the preventive suspension order against him due to graft charges.

The Aguinaldo doctrine pardons a public official's administrative offense if he gets re-elected. The SC abandoned it in 2015 after Morales asked the Court to revisit the doctrine in light of Binay's case. 

The Ombudsman was supposed to investigate the claims against Duterte. Morales, however, recused herself because Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte is the wife of her nephew, lawyer Mans Carpio, paving the way for Carandang to lead the probe.

"But ODO bungled his job by exposing the President’s fake bank accounts. Guess who came to the rescue of ODO in January 2018? The Ombudsman of course," Calida said.

"When the Ombudsman inhibited and left her ODO to decide in her stead, a procedural, legal, and ethical vacuum was created.
The Constitution states that ODO is not an impeachable officer. The Ombudsman cannot also discipline the ODO for acts committed in a case where she inhibited herself as she will contradict herself," he said.

Calida said the President was "forced" to exercise his residual authority to discipline officials under the Executive Department, citing Section 20 of the 1987 Administrative Code.

"Besides, preventive suspension is not a penalty, which further differentiates this case from the Gonzales ruling," Calida said, referring to the January 2014 decision which declared Section 8(2) of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 unconstitutional on for violating the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman. 

"The President, in issuing the preventive suspension, merely filled the vacuum left by the Ombudsman’s masquerade, and enforced accountability in public service," Calida said.

"Otherwise, we will just be paying lip service to the constitutional precept that public officers shall remain accountable at all times. One thing is clear: The Office of the Ombudsman is not a fourth branch of government," he said. —JST, GMA News