MANILA, Philippines – There seems to be a brewing misunderstanding between the Office of the Ombudsman — a quasi-judicial office that probes alleged corruptions — and the Court of Appeals (CA).
In his complaint-affidavit filed with the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) under the Supreme Court, Ombudsman Samuel Martires accused CA justices of alleged gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The named justices as respondents are:
- Associate Justice Louis Acosta
- Associate Justice Mary Charlene Hernandez Azura
- Associate Justice Ferdinand Baylon
- Associate Justice Rex Bernardo Pascual
- Associate Justice Roberto Quiroz
- Associate Justice Rafael Antonio Santos
- Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales Sison
But why is the Ombudsman going after these justices?
What happened
Martires filed the complaints following the CA’s action on the certiorari petitions granted in favor of Antique officials preventively suspended by the Ombudsman. Certiorari is a legal remedy used to ask a court to review another body’s decision or to check if there was any grave abuse of discretion that was committed, with the goal of reversing the assailed decision.
Apart from prosecutorial powers, the Ombudsman can rule and impose sanctions in relation to administrative cases filed against erring public officials. Preventive suspension is a temporary suspension imposed by the Ombudsman on officials involved in alleged offenses to ensure impartiality in the probe.
The Ombudsman received a complaint from Rey Ventura and Stephen Jules Siblag for oppression, grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority, gross neglect of duty, among others, against Antique officials over their alleged inaction on the province’s supplemental budget.
As a response, in August last year, the Ombudsman preventively suspended eight Antique board members over their “deliberate action” to allegedly delay the supplemental budget of the province. The suspended officials were:
- Victor Condez
- Egidio Elio
- Kenneth Dave Gasalao
- Mayella Mae Ladislao
- Rony Molina
- Alfie Jay Niquia
- Plaridel Sanchez IV
- Julius Cezar Tajanlangit
But despite the prevention’s implementation, the eight officials filed their certiorari petitions with the CA on October 3, 2024.
“Again, if the elemental doctrine that no injunction should issue to restrain an act already done still applies, doubtless, respondent Justices gravely abused their discretion and worse, displayed gross ignorance of the law in issuing the TROs (temporary restraining orders),” the complaint read.
In addition, Martires noted that in their CA petitions, the officials failed to attach certified true copies of their suspension orders because not one of them requested “Certified True Copies of the Preventive Suspension Orders that they sought to assail.”
The Ombudsman argued that such “infirmity” should have been a basis to deny the petition outright, but the justices allegedly “precipitately gave due course to the petitions and simply closed their eyes or glossed over this fundamental requirement.”
He also said: “When the inefficiency springs from a failure to recognize such a basic and elemental rule, a law or a principle in the discharge of his functions, a judge is either too incompetent, undeserving of the position and the prestigious title he holds or he is too vicious that the oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith, and in grave abuse of judicial authority.”
Typically, a preventive suspension is appealed before the Ombudsman, too, through a motion for reconsideration.
Justices’ actions
The CA’s Fourth Division, in a November 7, 2024 resolution, granted the Antique board members’ prayer for a TRO and blocked the implementation of the Ombudsman’s preventive suspension. The Fourth Division is composed of Associate Justices Acosta, Gonzales Sison, and Pascual.
Later, in a resolution issued December 18, 2024, the CA Special Fourth Division composed of Acosta. Gonzales Sison, and Hernandez Azura, issued a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of the officials, after the expiration of their TRO.
In a separate case, but still involving Antique officials, the Ombudsman received a complaint from Tobias Fornier, Antique Vice Mayor Jose Maria Fornier in 2024 against Mayor Ernesto Tajanlangit III over direct assault and less physical injuries, abuse of authority, grave misconduct, and conduct unbecoming of a public official, among others.
The Ombudsman preventively suspended the mayor on September 10, 2024, but Tajanlangit went to the CA and filed a petition for certiorari with application for TRO the next month.
Associate Justices Quiroz, Santos, and Baylon granted the petition on October 30, 2024, and issued a TRO in favor of Tajanlangit. The justices, in a December 2024 decision, also granted the mayor’s certiorari petition and reversed the Ombudsman’s preventive suspension.
“Respondent Justices Quiroz, Santos and Baylon were grossly ignorant of the rules when they brushed aside the requirement to file an MR (motion for reconsideration), because the Ombudsman retains the authority to lift a Preventive Suspension Order if the circumstances surrounding its issuance no longer obtain,” Martires argued.
What’s next?
Administrative cases could impose penalties like suspension or dismissal from service, depending on a body or court’s ruling, and the gravity of offenses.
As an internal body tasked to handle administrative cases against judges, justices, and court personnel, the JIB will act on Martires’ complaints. It will assess the complaints on prima facie (first impression) basis, and would recommend either outright dismissal, request for comment, or investigation into the allegations.
Regardless, the JIB will merely recommend its action to the Supreme Court, which would then have the final say on the complaints. – Rappler.com