Supreme Court: Ombudsman has power to dismiss erring officials

MANILA, Philippines – Faced with controversies and questions on its integrity, the Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed that the Office of the Ombudsman has the power to directly remove erring officials.

In a decision, the second division of the High Court ruled that the anti-graft office has the authority to order the dismissal of any executive official down to the barangay level – except the president and members of Congress and the judiciary.

“The Ombudsman is clothed with authority to directly remove an erring public official other than members of Congress and the Judiciary who may be removed only by impeachment,” stated the ruling penned by Associate Justice Antonio Carpio.

The SC stressed that sanctions are not limited to suspension of erring public officials but may extend to dismissal from service.

“Under Section 60 of the Local Government Code, the Sangguniang Bayan (city council) has no power to remove an elective barangay official.

Apart from the Ombudsman, only a proper court may do so. Unlike the Sangguniang Bayan, the powers of the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory,” the decision stated.

The Court issued this ruling on a case involving Rolson Rodriguez, punong barangay in Brgy. Sto. Rosario, Binalbagan, Negros Occidental.

Reversing an earlier decision of the Court of Appeals, the SC affirmed a 2004 decision of the Ombudsman office in Visayas that found Rodriguez guilty of dishonesty and oppression with penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all benefits, disqualification to hold public office, and forfeiture of civil service eligibilities.

Records show that the CA granted the petition for review of Rodriguez and reversed the findings of the Ombudsman. But when the case was elevated to the SC, the decision against the barangay official was upheld.

In upholding the findings against Rodriguez, the SC pointed out that “clearly, the Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction with the Sangguniang Bayan over administrative cases against elective barangay officials occupying positions below salary grade 27, such as private respondent in this case.”

The tribunal added that “the rule against forum shopping applied only to judicial cases or proceedings, not to administrative cases…(and) even if complainants filed in the Ombudsman and the Sangguniang Bayan identical complaints against private respondent, they did not violate the rule against forum shopping because their complaint was in the nature of an administrative case.”

The SC added that in administrative cases involving the concurrent jurisdiction of two or more disciplining authorities, the body in which the complaint is filed first, and which opts to take cognizance of the case, acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of other tribunals exercising concurrent jurisdiction.”

In this case, since the complaint was filed first in the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman opted to assume jurisdiction over the complaint, the Ombudsman’s exercise of jurisdiction is to the exclusion of the Sangguniang Bayan exercising concurrent jurisdiction.” –Edu Punay (The Philippine Star)