SOLICITOR-GENERAL Jose C. Calida in a statement on Friday suggested Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales’s impeachment as “an obvious solution to the seeming impasse” over the suspension of her Overall Deputy Ombudsman (ODO) Melchor Arthur H. Carandang.

Ms. Morales is defying Malacañang’s suspension last Monday of Mr. Carandang, who had been investigating the alleged hidden wealth of President Rodrigo R. Duterte and his family, partly on the basis of information by the Anti-Money Laundering Council not authorized, however, by the council.

Ms. Morales, for her part, cited a 2014 Supreme Court ruling (Gonzales v. Office of the President) declaring “unconstitutional the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the President over deputy ombudsmen,” as she noted.

Mr. Calida in his statement said: “When the Ombudsman inhibited and left her ODO to decide in her stead, a procedural, legal, and ethical vacuum was created. The Constitution states that ODO is not an impeachable officer. The Ombudsman cannot also discipline the ODO for acts committed in a case where she inhibited herself as she will contradict herself. Neither can the ODO be disciplined by the other Deputy Ombudsmen due to lack of legal basis. This legal and ethical vacuum was not contemplated by the Supreme Court’s 2014 Gonzales decision. A deeply divided SC may have favored Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales then, but who will now discipline ODO Carandang who was acting under Ombudsman Morales’ fiat?”

He added: “There is an obvious solution to the seeming impasse. Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution states, “The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.” — with M.N.Dela Cruz

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR