The Court of Appeals was asked by Ombudsman Samuel Martires to quash the temporary restraining order (TRO) on the preventive suspension his office has meted against outgoing Cebu Governor Gwen Garcia.

Martires, in a motion filed 30 May, told the CA that the preventive suspension has already been implemented on 29 April and the TRO was issued on 15 May.

In his motion, Martires said, “But this Honorable Court closed its eyes to this very basic doctrine that ‘when the acts sought to be prevented by the injunction or prohibition have already been performed or completed prior to the filing of the injunction suit, nothing more can be enjoined or restrained the court by mere issuance of the writ, can no longer stop or undo the act.'”

The Ombudsman on 29 April suspended Garcia for six months without pay over alleged grave abuse of authority for illegally granting a special permit to a construction company.

Garcia, though, continued to defy the order and obtained a TRO from the CA.

The Ombudsman refuted the basis for the TRO saying “the implementation of this preventive suspension order will impede public service restrains credulity. To be sure, petitioner Garcia’s suspension will not disrupt the delivery of public services to the people of Cebu.”

The Ombudsman also said that the prohibition on imposing suspension on government officials during the election period does not apply to the Ombudsman.

Martires said, “It is a power directly conferred by the Constitution upon the Ombudsman, and the exercise of such power is unqualified and not subject to the vagaries of Congress or opinion of government officials. The Local Government Code and the Omnibus Election Code cannot supersede the constitutionally entrenched powers of the Ombudsman."

Further, Martires added that allowing the TRO to remain in effect sets a dangerous precedent.

The Ombudsman also added that with the TRO, Garcia sidesteps the preventive suspension which sends a troubling message, that legitimate grievances and complaints of graft and corruption, properly brought before the Ombudsman, can be nullified by a provisional remedy issued in contravention of established rules and jurisprudence, thereby eroding the Ombudsman’s prosecutorial and investigative powers.