‘Supreme Court ruling on 2014 case may be reversed’

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) may still review the disciplinary authority of the President over deputies of the ombudsman despite its final ruling on the issue in 2014.

A highly placed source said the SC could revisit and even reverse its 2014 final decision in the case of former deputy ombudsman for the military and other law enforcement offices Emilio Gonzales III, which provided the jurisprudence that the Palace reportedly violated when it ordered the suspension of Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur Carandang.

“That would depend on whether a petition will be filed before the Court and on the grounds to be raised there,” the insider told The STAR.

The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, explained that the high court had in the past recalled and reversed an already final and executory decision.

The insider cited an SC ruling in 2011 recalling a 1998 final decision that declared the retrenchment of over 1,400 flight attendants of Philippine Airlines (PAL) as illegal.

“There is that precedent in recalling a decision with an entry of judgment. Again, it would depend on the arguments but the Court can correct its mistakes in earlier decisions,” the source pointed out.

The source further stressed that the ruling in the Gonzales case had a “weak value of jurisprudence” considering the 8-7 voting of justices in the decision.

“When you have a split vote of just one margin, that’s historically considered a reversible decision,” the insider pointed out.

This opinion was contrary to the one raised by SC spokesman Theodore Te and Integrated Bar of the Philippines president Abdiel Dan Fajardo, who both expressed belief there was “nothing to review” anymore in the issue on the President’s disciplinary power over the deputy ombudsman since it was already settled with finality in the Gonzales case.

Fajardo explained that the Constitution does not allow the Supreme Court to act as an appeals court to reverse a previous decision. This is especially true if the declaration was about constitutionality.

Of the SC justices who voted in the Gonzales case in 2014, six have retired from the judiciary. They were Associate Justices Arturo Brion, Roberto Abad, Martin Villarama Jr., Jose Perez, Jose Mendoza and Bienvenido Reyes.

Brion penned the decision with Abad, Villarama, Perez and Mendoza concurring. Reyes, on the other hand, joined the dissenting vote.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justices Diosdado Peralta, Mariano del Castillo and Estela Perlas-Bernabe also dissented in the ruling and voted to keep the President’s power of discipline over the position of deputy ombudsman.

“It is clear that not one office of government works in absolute autonomy. To determine the gradations and contours of institutional independence, one must look into the blueprint of the Constitution, which embodies the will and wisdom of the people,” Bernabe said in her dissenting opinion, which was supported by Sereno and Carpio. “This is precisely what Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution states: non-impeachable officers, such as the Special Prosecutor and the Deputy Ombudsmen, may be removed from office as may be provided by law,” Bernabe said.