SC voids Duterte order firing Deputy Ombudsman

The Supreme Court has voided the Duterte administration’s order dismissing former Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur Carandang, ruling that the Office of the President had no authority to discipline a deputy ombudsman.

The court’s Third Division affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling that set aside the July 30, 2018 decision of the Office of the President, which had found Carandang liable for graft and corruption and betrayal of public trust over public statements linked to an inquiry into then-President Rodrigo Duterte’s alleged wealth.

In a 28-page decision promulgated Jan. 29, 2026, and made public Saturday, May 2, the high court also voided the June 14, 2019 decision of the Office of the Ombudsman that ordered Carandang to stop serving as ODO and declared his post vacant.

The ruling was penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh.

Associate Justices Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, chairperson of the Third Division, Henri Jean Paul Inting, Samuel Gaerlan, and Japar Dimaampao concurred in the decision.

“By constitutional design, the president possesses no administrative or disciplinary authority over a deputy ombudsman,” the Supreme Court said.

The court said the Court of Appeals properly relied on previous jurisprudence that prohibited the Office of the President from exercising administrative or disciplinary authority over a deputy ombudsman.

The high court said that doctrine invalidated a provision in Republic Act 6770, or the Ombudsman Act of 1989, that allowed the president to remove a deputy ombudsman.

“The CA rightly cited the Second Gonzales Decision in overturning the office of the former president’s removal of former overall deputy ombudsman Carandang. By constitutional design, the president possesses no administrative or disciplinary authority over a deputy ombudsman,” the decision said.

The Supreme Court also applied the doctrine of stare decisis, which directs courts to follow settled rulings in similar cases.

“The removal of former overall deputy ombudsman Carandang serves as the convenient doorway through which that settled ruling may be reopened. Yet the Court remains unconvinced. There is no compelling reason for such a drastic turn, all the more so when the president’s own conduct was in issue, thereby underscoring the enduring need to shield the Office of the Ombudsman from the shifting winds of political influence,” the ruling said.

“Accordingly, the CA was correct in voiding the Office of the President’s decision and resolution for lack of jurisdiction,” it added.

The case stemmed from Carandang’s statements in media interviews about bank transaction records allegedly linked to Duterte’s wealth.

Those statements were made in connection with a complaint filed before the Office of the Ombudsman by former Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV over Duterte’s alleged unexplained assets.

The Anti-Money Laundering Council later denied providing records to the Office of the Ombudsman.

The Supreme Court said Carandang’s comments did not justify dismissal from public service.

“Carandang’s comments in the televised interview, which referred to the supposed enormity of the amounts involved, were qualified with terms such as ‘baka’ and ‘siguro’ and referenced other individuals through the pronoun ‘nila’ to speculate on the actions of those who allegedly disclosed former president Duterte’s unexplained assets. Such uncertainty was understandable, as the figures and documents he was evaluating during the interview were supplied by the reporter and had not been vetted by the Office of the Ombudsman,” the court said.

“The text of Carandang’s statements demonstrates neutrality and stressed the preliminary nature of the actions taken by the Office of the Ombudsman,” it added.

The Supreme Court said that even assuming the Office of the President had disciplinary authority over Carandang, the allegations against him “rests on tenuous grounds.”

The court said Carandang’s statements “more closely resemble observations” of an official tasked with investigating public officials, including the president.

“It would be nothing short of a constitutional paradox, and a direct affront to accountability, if former president Duterte were allowed to sanction Carandang, one of the remaining officials explicitly empowered to hold government actors to account,” the High Court explained.

“With [Conchita] Carpio-Morales recused and Carandang removed, the Office of the Ombudsman was left virtually headless with even fewer individuals willing or able to enforce accountability in government, the president, in particular. Surely, this was the very evil the Constitution sought to guard against,” it added.

“This highlights the very reason constitutional and statutory limits on presidential authority exist: to safeguard the rule of law and prevent the concentration of unchecked power,” the SC said.

“Allowing the president to unilaterally discipline officials charged with investigating potential wrongdoing within the administration invites retaliation, coercion, and the suppression of oversight, conditions fundamentally at odds with transparency and accountability.”

Carandang was appointed to a seven-year fixed term and was supposed to serve until 2020.

The Supreme Court ruled that Carandang is entitled to all retirement benefits effective upon the expiration of his term.

“He is likewise entitled to receive the salaries corresponding to the period of his preventive suspension and dismissal, but only up to the end of his term,” the High Court added.

Duterte’s Office of the President dismissed Carandang in 2018 after finding him administratively liable for graft and corruption and betrayal of public trust.

When Duterte appointee Samuel Martires became ombudsman in 2019, he implemented the dismissal order, saying he had no choice but to remove Carandang.

Carandang challenged the action before the Court of Appeals, which granted his petition in November 2021 and voided the Office of the President’s order.

The Duterte-era Office of the President sought reconsideration, but the appellate court denied the motion in July 2022.

The Marcos administration, through the Office of the Solicitor General, later elevated the case to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari.

The Supreme Court denied the petition, leaving the appellate court’s ruling in favor of Carandang intact.

The decision reinforces the constitutional independence of the Office of the Ombudsman, a body tasked with investigating and prosecuting wrongdoing by public officials.

The ruling also adds to recent Supreme Court decisions scrutinizing and overturning acts taken during the Duterte administration.