Former deputy ombudsman (ODO) Melchor Arthur Carandang he was punished by the Duterte administration for just doing his job.
Office of President Duterte (OP) fired him in 2018 on allegations of breach of confidentiality and corruption when he did statement about the bank’s investigation into the former president Rodrigo Duterte wealth.
Eight years later, in 2026, Carandang was vindicated in a Supreme Court (SC) decision that overturned his deportation.
“The Order, dated June 14, 2019, of the Office of the Ombudsman directing Melchor Arthur H. Carandang to cease and desist from exercising his powers and duties as Deputy Chief Ombudsman, and declaring his position vacant is also declared null and void,” the 3rd Division of the SC said in its January 2029 ruling by Associate Justice. Singh.
The SC cannot reinstate Carandang because his term had already expired in 2020. Instead, the Supreme Court granted Carandang his salary from the period of his preventive suspension and dismissal, until the end of his term.
“Carandang is entitled to all retirement benefits applicable after his term expires until the end of his term,” said the Court.
The powers of the President have limitations
“Judge Singh’s 28-page ponencia clearly analyzes why the president has no administrative or disciplinary authority over the Deputy Ombudsman,” former SC associate justice and case investigator Conchita Carpio Morales told Rappler.
The Carandang case was a test of the independence of the Ombudsman. The issue was whether the chief executive (Duterte) has the power to fire an officer (Carandang) of a constitutional body like the Office of the Ombudsman.
For the SC, Duterte’s OP had no jurisdiction over Carandang because the power to punish the former Ombudsman official belongs to a constitutional body.
The 3rd Division upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) that the decision of Gonzales II applies as “you have decided to stop” (supervising the decided matters) in Carandang’s case. The CA granted Carandang’s 2021 petition against his dismissal, which is why the case reached the SC.
In 2014, the Court declared Gonzales’ second decision it announced Section 8(2) of Republic Act No. 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989 against the constitution. Under that article, the deputy or special prosecutor can be removed from office by the president.
The you have decided to stop The doctrine, meanwhile, requires courts to follow already settled decisions when faced with similar facts and circumstances. So in other words, Carandang’s dismissal was invalid because Duterte’s OP did not have the power to dismiss him. Their legal basis was already unconstitutional.
“Beyond historical precedent, it appears that the independence granted to the Office of the Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution was deliberately designed to reduce the possibility of abuse by the executive,” the SC said.
“Allowing the President to unilaterally punish officials charged with investigating possible wrongdoing within the administration invites retaliation, coercion, and suppression of management, conditions that fundamentally contradict transparency and accountability. The attempt to remove Carandang demonstrates precisely the abuse of power that the Second Gonzales Decision sought to prevent,” added Singh.
The Ombudsman-Duterte conflict
After a complaint was filed against Carandang, he was first suspended, then ordered dismissed.
For a while, Carandang remained active in his position because his boss, Morales, opposed the suspension.
“I refused to carry out the order since the president does not have disciplinary authority over the Deputy Ombudsmen (following the Gonzales case). That worsened my bad relationship with Duterte,” the former Ombudsman told Rappler.
What Morales offered was instead explore Carandang for alleged violations, and that they will decide if he will be punished with sanctions. Unfortunately for Carandang, Morales’ term was only until July 26, 2018.
“On July 30, 2018, four days after his retirement, the White House issued a decision to fire Carandang. My successor carried out that decision responsibly,” said Morales.
Duterte appointed former SC associate justice Samuel Martires as his Ombudsman, and as expected by some, the then investigator. implemented the dismissal order in 2019. Martires said he had it no choice but to fire his second in command.
“They used the ODO Art to try to push for the Supreme Court’s decision to be overturned – regardless of the fact that in the process, they tarnished the good name of the ODO Art, and even lost all the benefits he worked so hard to get.” The art of ODO was already there when the Office of the Ombudsman was established, and he strived to be the second office to record corruption or misuse of football,” the Ombudsman told Rappler.
“I am happy that he has now been fully vindicated, but I personally want to see the lawyers who pushed for his dismissal – the illegality of which they openly admitted – punished for their bad conduct,” Carandang’s former colleague added.
Duterte appointed his former lawyer, Warren Liongto replace Carandang in 2020. Liong would later be pulled into the Damage to the Pharmaceutical Organization which involves allegedly unusual procurement contracts during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The CA confirmed this year that Liong and his co-accused were administratively responsible for gross misconduct, gross dereliction of duty, gross dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the interests of the service due to Pharmally’s gaffe.
Carandang was just doing his job
The basis of the administrative complaint against Carandang was his statements about alleged unusual bank transactions related to Duterte. This was related to former senator Antonio Trillanes IV’s complaint to the Ombudsman regarding Duterte’s alleged unexplained assets.
Two separate complaints were filed against Carandang after his interrogation. Among the plaintiffs were lawyers Jacinto Paras and Glenn Chong, both associates of the former president.
For his part, Duterte’s OP found sufficient evidence to find Carandang responsible for graft and corruption and betrayal of public trust – grounds for his dismissal from public service.
Even in the hypothetical situation where the OP has jurisdiction over Carandang, Singh’s decision said the claims against the former ODO are based on “weak foundations.”
The SC said Carandang’s statements did not satisfy the evidence required to prove the administrative claim. It explained that ODO’s previous statements were an investigation by an officer whose job it was to investigate public officials and employees, including the president.
According to the Supreme Court, Carandang’s use of the words “cow” (maybe) and “maybe” (probably), among others, indicated that there was no ill will on Carandang’s part during the media interview.
The SC considered this because there were allegations that Carandang made false statements when he said that he received bank transactions from the AMLC, despite the AMLC secretariat’s statement that it did not make any report to the Ombudsman.
The SC added that ODO’s past statements showed “impartiality,” adding that “it is impossible to imagine any act of corruption or corruption can be attributed to him.”
“Instead of betraying public trust, Carandang’s action to provide information about the status of complaints pending before his office is equal to the public’s right to information about matters of national interest,” Singh’s ponencia explained. – Rappler.com
