NATIONAL
Advocates Philippines
SC: President Can't Remove Deputy Ombudsman
Photo credit: SC
The Supreme Court of the Philippines has reaffirmed a key constitutional principle: the President does not have the authority to remove a Deputy Ombudsman.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the Court’s Third Division denied a petition filed by the Office of the President, which sought to overturn a ruling that nullified the dismissal of former Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur H. Carandang.
“The SC explained that when it decided 饾槑饾槹饾槸饾樆饾槩饾槶饾槮饾槾 in 2014, it became part of the law of the land, firmly establishing that the President has no authority to remove the Deputy Ombudsman.”
Although Carandang can no longer return to his post due to the expiration of his term in 2020, the Court ruled that the penalties imposed on him—including the forfeiture of retirement benefits—are void. He is entitled to receive full retirement benefits as well as the salaries he would have earned during the period of his suspension and dismissal.
The case stemmed from a 2017 controversy, when Carandang publicly claimed that the Office of the Ombudsman possessed evidence of alleged unexplained wealth linked to then President Rodrigo R. Duterte and his family. The claims were tied to a complaint filed by former Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV.
Following his remarks, administrative complaints were lodged against Carandang before the Office of the President, accusing him of disclosing confidential information and demonstrating bias. He was later dismissed from service after being found liable for graft and betrayal of public trust.
However, the Supreme Court clarified that its landmark 2014 ruling in Gonzales III v. OP—which declared unconstitutional the provision granting the President disciplinary authority over Deputy Ombudsmen—remains in force.
“Reaffirming 饾槑饾槹饾槸饾樆饾槩饾槶饾槮饾槾, the SC stressed that the Constitution expressly characterizes the Ombudsman as independent: free from executive control, supervision, or political influence.”
The Court also rejected claims that a later ruling in Agustin-Se v. OP had overturned the earlier decision, explaining that the case did not tackle the same constitutional issues and therefore could not modify the precedent set by the full Court.
The ruling reinforces the independence of the Ombudsman, underscoring its role as a constitutional body insulated from political pressure and executive interference.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the Court’s Third Division denied a petition filed by the Office of the President, which sought to overturn a ruling that nullified the dismissal of former Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur H. Carandang.
“The SC explained that when it decided 饾槑饾槹饾槸饾樆饾槩饾槶饾槮饾槾 in 2014, it became part of the law of the land, firmly establishing that the President has no authority to remove the Deputy Ombudsman.”
Although Carandang can no longer return to his post due to the expiration of his term in 2020, the Court ruled that the penalties imposed on him—including the forfeiture of retirement benefits—are void. He is entitled to receive full retirement benefits as well as the salaries he would have earned during the period of his suspension and dismissal.
The case stemmed from a 2017 controversy, when Carandang publicly claimed that the Office of the Ombudsman possessed evidence of alleged unexplained wealth linked to then President Rodrigo R. Duterte and his family. The claims were tied to a complaint filed by former Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV.
Following his remarks, administrative complaints were lodged against Carandang before the Office of the President, accusing him of disclosing confidential information and demonstrating bias. He was later dismissed from service after being found liable for graft and betrayal of public trust.
However, the Supreme Court clarified that its landmark 2014 ruling in Gonzales III v. OP—which declared unconstitutional the provision granting the President disciplinary authority over Deputy Ombudsmen—remains in force.
“Reaffirming 饾槑饾槹饾槸饾樆饾槩饾槶饾槮饾槾, the SC stressed that the Constitution expressly characterizes the Ombudsman as independent: free from executive control, supervision, or political influence.”
The Court also rejected claims that a later ruling in Agustin-Se v. OP had overturned the earlier decision, explaining that the case did not tackle the same constitutional issues and therefore could not modify the precedent set by the full Court.
The ruling reinforces the independence of the Ombudsman, underscoring its role as a constitutional body insulated from political pressure and executive interference.
May 4, 2026
We are dedicated storytellers with a passion for bringing your brand to life. Our services range from news and media features to brand promotion and collaborations.
Interested? Visit our
Contact Us page for more information. To learn more about what we offer, check out our latest article on services and opportunities.
