The Supreme Court (SC) voided the dismissal of former Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur Carandang over his involvement in an investigation into the wealth of then-President Rodrigo Duterte, ruling that the Office of the President had no authority to discipline officials of the independent constitutional body.

In a 28-page decision made public on Saturday, 2 May, the Court’s Third Division affirmed a Court of Appeals ruling that nullified the 30 July 2018 decision of the Office of the President, which had found Carandang administratively liable for grave misconduct, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust, and ordered his dismissal from service.

The High Court also struck down related issuances, including a 14 June 2019 order from then-Ombudsman Samuel Martires implementing the presidential directive and ordering Carandang to stop performing his duties, effectively declaring his post vacant.

Carandang had been removed following his handling of sensitive reports linked to the alleged wealth of Duterte, which triggered administrative proceedings during his tenure in the Ombudsman.

The SC held that the Office of the Ombudsman is an independent constitutional body, and that the Office of the President has “no jurisdiction to impose administrative sanctions on its officials.”

It emphasized that allowing such authority would undermine constitutional checks and balances.

With the ruling, the Court declared that Carandang is entitled to retirement benefits upon the expiration of his term. 

He is also entitled to receive salaries corresponding to the period of his preventive suspension and dismissal, but only up to the end of his term.

The decision was penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh and concurred in by Associate Justices Benjamin Caguioa, Henri Jean Paul Inting, Samuel Gaerlan, and Japar Dimaampao.

The case stemmed from Carandang’s role in handling complaints related to former President Duterte, including allegations initially filed by Senator Antonio Trillanes IV concerning unexplained wealth and other possible violations.

The ruling reinforces the constitutional independence of the Office of the Ombudsman, underscoring limits on executive authority over its officials.