By Arjay L. Balinbin, Reporter
THE OFFICE of the President has ordered the dismissal of Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur H. Carandang for “graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust.”
Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea signed the decision last Monday, July 30.
In a statement, Presidential Spokesperson Harry L. Roque, Jr. said, “The Office of the President has come to the decision to dismiss Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur H. Carandang after giving due consideration to the administrative complaints filed against him. “
Mr. Roque said Mr. Carandang’s “acts of making public statements about allegations in an ongoing investigation were in breach of his duty to protect confidential information.”
The Office of the President, according to Mr. Roque, found that “the same acts demonstrated manifest partiality and violated the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.”
He added: “This decision was reached after giving Mr. Carandang the appropriate opportunity to respond to the charges made against him.”
The decision cited a report by ABS-CBN in September last year about the alleged ill-gotten wealth of Mr. Duterte and his family.
“The source of the said news report was respondent Carandang who agreed to an interview by (Henry Omaga) Diaz (of ABS-CBN). In the said interview, respondent Carandang declared that the OMB acquired evidence of the said ill-gotten wealth, in the form of bank transaction records, from the Anti-Money laundering Council (AMLC),” the decision read.
Sought for comment, University of the Philippines (UP)-Diliman law professor Antonio G.M. La Viña said this is the “first test” for new Ombusdman Samuel L. Martires who officially assumed his post yesterday.
“This is actually his first test whether he will defend his right to discipline his colleagues in the Office of the Ombudsman or he will now give up that independence to the Office of the President,” Mr. La Viña said in a phone interview.
He added that the next step for Mr. Carandang is he “can go to the Supreme Court to have the decision reversed.”
“The Supreme Court actually had ruled on a similar case already that in fact the President does not have that kind of power over the deputy ombudsman,” Mr. La Viña said.
He added that the implication of the decision is that “(i)f Ombudsman Martires agrees to it, there will be questions about how independent he is going to be or how assertive he is going to be” in protecting the independence of his office.
Also sought for comment, lawyer and political consultant Michael Henry Yusingco said: “The next course of action for Deputy Ombudsman Carandang depends on how newly appointed Ombudsman Martires treats the dismissal order from Malacañang. If Ombudsman Martires adopts the position of former Ombudsman Morales, that is to assert the constitutional independence of the Office of the Ombudsman, then he can continue doing his job unhindered.”
“Mr. Carandang can go directly to the Supreme Court to challenge the dismissal. He can of course use the Supreme Court’s decision in G.R. No. 196231, January 28, 2014 as the basis for his legal action,” Mr. Yusingco also said.
He added that if the dismissal order is executed, “the public will certainly view the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman as compromised.”
“Again, the optics of the whole saga naturally leads to this perspective. Many people will now suspect that the new Ombudsman may not be as fierce in asserting the constitutional independence of the Office of the Ombudsman. If this happens, then it will set us back in our drive against graft and corruption in government. Because to get rid of this scourge, the country needs an uncompromising and fiercely independent Ombudsman,” Mr. Yusingco said.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR