Ibinasura ng Supreme Court ang dismissal ni dating President Rodrigo Duterte kay dating overall deputy ombudsman Melchor Arthur Carandang, halos isang dekada matapos pangunahan ni Carandang ang probe sa umano’y ill-gotten wealth ni Duterte.
Ibinasura ng Third Division ng high tribunal ang petition for review on certiorari ng Office of the President (OP), na noon ay kinatawan ni dating executive secretary Vic Rodriguez. Kinuwestiyon ng OP ang November 2021 decision at July 2022 resolution ng Court of Appeals.
Sa mga ruling na iyon, isinantabi ng Court of Appeals ang July 2018 decision ng OP na tanggalin si Carandang sa serbisyo at panagutin siya sa graft and corruption at betrayal of public trust. Pinaboran din ng appellate court ang petition for review ni Carandang.
Sa 28-page decision na promulgated noong January 29, 2026, kinatigan ng Supreme Court ang pagbanggit ng CA sa naunang jurisprudence na nagbabawal sa Office of the President na magkaroon ng “administrative or disciplinary authority over a deputy ombudsman.” Sakop ito ng constitutional principle of independence ng Office of the Ombudsman.
Binanggit ng Supreme Court na ang jurisprudence na iyon ang naging batayan para i-invalidate ang probisyon sa Republic Act 6770, o Ombudsman Act of 1989, na nagpapahintulot sa Pangulo na tanggalin ang deputy ombudsman.
“The CA rightly cited the Second Gonzales Decision in overturning the office of the former president’s removal of former overall deputy ombudsman Carandang. By constitutional design, the president possesses no administrative or disciplinary authority over a deputy ombudsman,” ayon sa desisyong isinulat ni SC Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh.
Kinatigan din ng Supreme Court ang paggamit ng CA sa stare decisis doctrine, na nag-uutos sa courts na sumunod sa mga kasong napagpasyahan na. Dahil dito, itinuring na “void and without legal effect” ang dismissal ni Carandang.
“The removal of former overall deputy ombudsman Carandang serves as the convenient doorway through which that settled ruling may be reopened. Yet the Court remains unconvinced. There is no compelling reason for such a drastic turn, all the more so when the president’s own conduct was in issue, thereby underscoring the enduring need to shield the Office of the Ombudsman from the shifting winds of political influence,” diin ng Supreme Court.
“Accordingly, the CA was correct in voiding the Office of the President’s decision and resolution for lack of jurisdiction,” dagdag nito.
Tinalakay din ng Supreme Court ang media interviews ni Carandang tungkol sa investigation sa umano’y ill-gotten wealth ni Duterte. Nagsimula ang probe sa complaint na inihain ni dating Senator Antonio Trillanes IV noong May 2016 batay sa umano’y records mula sa Anti-Money Laundering Council, na itinanggi ng ahensya na ibinigay nito.
“Carandang’s comments in the televised interview, which referred to the supposed enormity of the amounts involved, were qualified with terms such as ‘baka’ and ‘siguro’ and referenced other individuals through the pronoun ‘nila’ to speculate on the actions of those who allegedly disclosed former president Duterte’s unexplained assets. Such uncertainty was understandable, as the figures and documents he was evaluating during the interview were supplied by the reporter and had not been vetted by the Office of the Ombudsman,” saad ng Supreme Court.
“The text of Carandang’s statements demonstrates neutrality and stressed the preliminary nature of the actions taken by the Office of the Ombudsman,” dagdag nito.
Dahil natapos na ni Carandang ang kanyang seven-year fixed term noong 2020, iniutos ng Supreme Court na ibigay sa kanya ang lahat ng retirement benefits at salaries na dapat niyang natanggap noong siya ay preventively suspended at tinanggal noong 2018. /Bistado