The Supreme Court of the Philippines has reaffirmed that the President has no authority to remove a deputy ombudsman, upholding a previous ruling that strengthens the constitutional independence of the Office of the Ombudsman.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, the Court’s Third Division denied the petition filed by the Office of the President of the Philippines, which sought to overturn a Court of Appeals (CA) ruling that nullified the dismissal of former Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur Carandang.
The case stemmed from a 2017 controversy when Carandang disclosed in a media interview that the Ombudsman had evidence of alleged unexplained wealth involving then-President Rodrigo Duterte and his family, based on information allegedly linked to the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC). The claims were tied to a complaint filed by former Senator Antonio "Sonny" Trillanes IV.
Following his statements, Carandang faced administrative complaints and was eventually dismissed by the Office of the President for alleged graft, corruption, and betrayal of public trust. However, the court ruled that such disciplinary authority lies solely with the Ombudsman, not the President.
The High Court emphasized that its 2014 ruling in Gonzales III v. Office of the President remains binding law, declaring unconstitutional provisions of Republic Act No. 6770 that granted the president disciplinary power over deputy ombudsmen. It clarified that the 2016 case Agustin-Se v. Office of the President did not overturn this doctrine.
“The Constitution expressly ensures the Ombudsman’s independence from executive control,” the Court said, warning that allowing presidential authority over officials investigating the executive branch could lead to political pressure and abuse.
The Court also ruled that Carandang’s statements did not constitute administrative offenses, noting that his remarks were part of his duty to inform the public and were made in a neutral and preliminary context.
Although Carandang can no longer be reinstated as his term ended in 2020, the Court declared that the penalties imposed on him—including the forfeiture of retirement benefits—have no legal basis. He is entitled to full retirement benefits and back salaries covering the period of his suspension and dismissal.
The ruling underscores constitutional safeguards designed to maintain checks and balances and prevent the concentration of power within the executive branch.
