Drilon urges SC to resolve impasse between Executive, ombudsman

MANILA, Philippines — Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to step in and resolve the dispute between the Ombudsman and the Office of the President over the suspension order of Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Carandang to avoid a “constitutional crisis.”

Drilon, a former justice secretary, underscored the need for the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter in the impasse as the decision could not be left with either the Office of the Ombudsman or the Office of the President.

“The Supreme Court should immediately intervene. Otherwise, there could a constitutional crisis as there is a conflict and a clash between two independent constitutional offices--the President and the Ombudsman,” Drilon said in a statement.

On Wednesday, the Palace and Ombudsman Conchita Carpo-Morales clashed over the implementation of the 90-day suspension meted on Carandang.

Morales defied the Office of the President and stressed that she would not execute the suspension order which Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea released on Monday following accusations that Carandang committed grave misconduct for his disclosure of the alleged multimillion transactions of President Rodrigo Duterte and his family.

Morales said that the directive was “patently unconstitutional” as the Supreme Court, in its en banc decision in Gonzales III vs. Office of the President (G.R. 196231), declared as illegal the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the president over deputy ombudsmen.

READ: Can the Office of the President suspend Deputy Ombudsman Carandang?

Solicitor General Jose Calida insisted on the legality of the order, saying the Constitution did not bar the president from disciplining a deputy ombudsman.

Chief Presidential Counsel Salvador Panelo also defended the directive and warned Morales to implement the order or face the specter of an administrative or criminal case.

Panelo said that the order should be implemented and treat the suspension as lawful and operative prior to the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.

The Palace is basing its position on Section 8(2) of Republic Act 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989 which states, “a Deputy or the Special Prosecutor, may be removed from office by the President for any of the grounds provided for the removal of the Ombudsman, and after due process."

However, in the Gonzales case, the Supreme Court deemed this as “unconstitutional” for violating the independence of the anti-graft office.

"We declared Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 unconstitutional by granting disciplinary jurisdiction to the President over a Deputy Ombudsman, in violation of the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman," Gonzales vs OP said.

Drilon said that the Palace could file a petition for mandamus before the Supreme Court to compel Morales to implement Carandang’s suspension if it believed that Duterte had the power to suspend deputy ombudsmen.

On the other hand, Morales and Carandang can file a petition in the Supreme Court to set aside the suspension order of the Palace and seek a temporary restraining order based on its Gonzales ruling, according to the minority leader.

“Which interpretation is correct cannot be left to the President or the Ombudsman. The Supreme Court must rule as the final arbiter,” Drilon said.

READ:  Carandang suspension shows 'hypocrisy' of Duterte anti-graft drive