2/7/2020 Case Digest: CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES v. CA 2/7/2020 Case Digest: CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES v.

CA

Binay, Jr. maintains that... the CA correctly enjoined the implementation of the preventive suspension order
given his clear and unmistakable right to public of ce, and that it is clear that he could not be held
administratively liable for any of the charges against him since his subsequent re-election in

by Gena Terre 2013 operated as a condonation of any administrative offenses he may have committed during his previous
     term.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES v. CA, GR Nos. 217126-27, 2015-11-10 (/juris/view/cefc1? Binay, Jr. submits that while the Ombudsman is indeed an... impeachable of cer and, hence, cannot be
user=geGdHMy9XNlVCNWNnNzB3OFlYSlloRkYrUGZNNGJrWjlreWRVbjIvVXRpdz0=) removed from of ce except by way of impeachment, an action for contempt imposes the penalty of ne and
imprisonment, without necessarily resulting in removal from of ce. Thus, the fact that the Ombudsman is an
Facts:
impeachable of cer... should not deprive the CA of its inherent power to punish contempt.
On July 22, 2014, a complaint/af davit[10] was led by Atty. Renato L. Bondal and Nicolas "Ching" Enciso VI
the CA issued a Resolution... which further enjoined the implementation of the preventive... suspension order.
before the Of ce of the Ombudsman against Binay, Jr. and other public of cers and employees of the City
Government of Makati (Binay, Jr., et... al), accusing them of Plunder[11] and violation of Republic Act No. (RA) In so ruling, the CA found that Binay, Jr. has an ostensible right to the nal relief prayed for, namely, the
3019,[12] otherwise known as "The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," in connection with the ve (5) nulli cation of the preventive suspension order, in view of the condonation doctrine, citing Aguinaldo v.
phases of the procurement and construction of the Santos.

Makati City Hall Parking Building (Makati Parking Building).[13] the Ombudsman has been adamant that the CA has no jurisdiction to issue any provisional injunctive writ
against her of ce to enjoin its preventive suspension orders. As basis, she invokes the rst paragraph of
On even date,[58] Binay, Jr. led a petition for certiorari[59] before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
Section 14, RA 6770... in conjunction with her of ce's independence under the 1987 Constitution. She
139453, seeking the nulli cation of the preventive suspension order, and praying for the issuance of a TRO
advances the idea that "[i]n order to further ensure [her of ce's] independence, [RA 6770] likewise insulated
and/or
it from judicial intervention,"[157] particularly, "from injunctive... reliefs traditionally obtainable from the
WPI to enjoin its implementation. courts,"[158] claiming that said writs may work "just as effectively as direct harassment or political pressure
would."
a) Phases I and
Issues:
II were undertaken before he was elected Mayor of Makati in 2010
Whether or not the CA has subject matter jurisdiction to issue a TRO and/or WPI enjoining the
Phases III to V transpired during his rst term and that his re-election as City Mayor of Makati for a second
implementation of a preventive suspension order issued by the Ombudsman;
term effectively condoned his administrative liability therefor, if any, thus... rendering the administrative cases
against him moot and academic. Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion in issuing the TRO and eventually, the WPI in CA-G.R. SP
No. 139453 enjoining the implementation of the preventive suspension order against Binay, Jr. based on the
Prior to the hearing of the oral arguments before the CA, or on March 25, 2015, the Ombudsman led the
condonation doctrine
present petition before this Court, assailing the CA's March 16, 2015 Resolution, which granted Binay, Jr.'s
prayer for TRO Ruling:
The Ombudsman claims that: (a) the CA had no jurisdiction to grant Binay, Jr.'s prayer for a TRO, citing Section The Ombudsman's argument against the CA's lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the main petition, and
14 of RA 6770,[82] or "The Ombudsman Act of 1989," which states that no injunctive writ could be issued to her corollary prayer for its dismissal, is based on her interpretation of Section 14, RA 6770, or the
delay the Ombudsman's investigation unless there is prima facie evidence that the subject matter thereof is Ombudsman Act
outside the latter's jurisdiction... and
The rst paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 is a prohibition against any court (except the Supreme Court[119])
(b) the CA's directive for the Ombudsman to comment on Binay, Jr.'s petition for contempt is illegal and from issuing a writ of injunction to delay an investigation being conducted by the Of ce of the Ombudsman.
improper, considering that the Ombudsman is an impeachable of cer, and therefore, cannot be subjected to
As a general rule, the second paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 bans the whole range of remedies against
contempt proceedings.
issuances of the Ombudsman
Binay, Jr. argues that Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution speci cally grants the CA judicial power
The subject provision, however, crafts an exception to the foregoing general rule. While the speci c
to review acts of any branch or instrumentality of government, including the Of ce of the
procedural vehicle is not explicit from its text, it is fairly deducible that the second paragraph of Section 14,
Ombudsman, in case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, which he asserts RA 6770 excepts, as the only allowable remedy... against "the decision or ndings of the Ombudsman," a Rule
was committed in this case when said of ce issued the preventive suspension order against him. 45 appeal, for the reason that it is the only remedy taken to the Supreme Court on "pure questions of law,"
whether under the 1964 Rules of Court or the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure:

lawyerly.ph/digest/cefc1?user=448 1/6 lawyerly.ph/digest/cefc1?user=448 2/6

Section 5, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution guarantees the independence of the Of ce of the Ombudsman The conclusion is at once problematic since this Court has now uncovered that there is really no established
weight of authority in the United States (US) favoring the doctrine of condonation, which, in the words of
As may be deduced from the various discourses in Gonzales III, the concept of Ombudsman's independence
Pascual, theorizes that an of cial's re-election denies the... right to remove him from of ce due to a
covers three (3) things:
misconduct during a prior term. In fact, as pointed out during the oral arguments of this case, at least
First: creation by the Constitution, which means that the of ce cannot be abolished, nor its constitutionally seventeen (17) states in the US have abandoned the condonation doctrine.[250] The Ombudsman aptly cites
speci ed functions and privileges, be removed, altered, or modi ed by law, unless the Constitution itself several... rulings of various US State courts, as well as literature published on the matter, to demonstrate the
allows, or an amendment thereto is made; fact that the doctrine is not uniformly applied across all state jurisdictions

Second: scal autonomy, which means that the of ce "may not be obstructed from [its] freedom to use or At any rate, these US cases are only of persuasive value in the process of this Court's decision-making. "[They]
dispose of [its] funds for purposes germane to [its] functions;[168] hence, its budget cannot be... strategically are not relied upon as precedents, but as guides of interpretation."[267] Therefore, the ultimate analysis is on
decreased by of cials of the political branches of government so as to impair said functions; and whether or not the condonation... doctrine, as espoused in Pascual, and carried over in numerous cases after,
can be held up against prevailing legal norms. Note that the doctrine of stare decisis does not preclude this
Third: insulation from executive supervision and control, which means that those within the ranks of the of ce
Court from revisiting existing doctrine. As adjudged in the case of
can only be disciplined by an internal authority.
Belgica, the stare decisis rule should not operate when there are powerful countervailing considerations
Evidently, all three aspects of independence intend to protect the Of ce of the Ombudsman from political
against its application.[268] In other words, stare decisis becomes an intractable rule only when
harassment and pressure, so as to free it from the "insidious tentacles of politics."[169]
circumstances exist to preclude reversal... of standing precedent.[269] As the Ombudsman correctly points
That being the case, the concept of Ombudsman independence cannot be invoked as basis to insulate the out, jurisprudence, after all, is not a rigid, atemporal abstraction; it is an organic creature that develops and
Ombudsman from judicial power constitutionally vested unto the courts. Courts are apolitical bodies, which devolves along with the society within which it thrives.[270] In the words of a recent US Supreme Court
are ordained to act as impartial tribunals and apply even justice to... all. Hence, the Ombudsman's notion that Decision, "[w]hat we can decide, we can undecide."[271]
it can be exempt from an incident of judicial power - that is, a provisional writ of injunction against a
In this case, the Court agrees with the Ombudsman that since the time Pascual was decided, the legal
preventive suspension order - clearly strays from the concept's rationale of insulating the of ce from political
landscape has radically shifted. Again, Pascual was a 1959 case decided under the 1935 Constitution, which
harassment or... pressure.
dated provisions do not re ect the experience of the
The Ombudsman's erroneous abstraction of her of ce's independence notwithstanding, it remains that the
Filipino People under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Therefore, the plain difference in setting, including,
rst paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 textually prohibits courts from extending provisional injunctive relief
of course, the sheer impact of the condonation doctrine on public accountability, calls for Pascual's judicious
to delay any investigation conducted by her of ce. Despite the... usage of the general phrase "[n]o writ of
re-examination.
injunction shall be issued by any court," the Ombudsman herself concedes that the prohibition does not cover
the Supreme Court. What remains apparent from the text of these cases is that the basis for condonation, as jurisprudential
doctrine, was - and still remains - the... above-cited postulates of Pascual, which was lifted from rulings of US
Hence, with Congress interfering with matters of procedure (through passing the rst paragraph of Section
courts where condonation was amply supported by their own state laws. With respect to its applicability to
14, RA 6770) without the Court's consent thereto, it remains that the CA had the authority to issue the
administrative cases, the core premise of condonation - that is, an elective of cial's... re-election cuts qff the
questioned injunctive writs enjoining the implementation of the... preventive suspension order against Binay,
right to remove him for an administrative offense committed during a prior term - was adopted hook, line, and
Jr. At the risk of belaboring the point, these issuances were merely ancillary to the exercise of the CA's
sinker in our jurisprudence largely because the legality of that doctrine was never tested against existing legal
certiorari jurisdiction conferred to it under Section 9 (1), Chapter I of BP 129, as amended, and which it had
norms. As in the US, the... propriety of condonation is - as it should be -dependent on the legal foundation of
already... acquired over the main CA-G.R. SP No. 139453 case.
the adjudicating jurisdiction. Hence, the Court undertakes an examination of our current laws in order to
The condonation doctrine - which connotes this same sense of complete extinguishment of liability as will be determine if there is legal basis for the continued application of the doctrine of... condonation.
herein elaborated upon - is not based on statutory law. It is a jurisprudential creation that originated from the
The foundation of our entire legal system is the Constitution. It is the supreme law of the land;[284] thus, the
1959 case of Pascual v. Hon.
unbending rule is that every statute should be read in light of the Constitution.[285] Likewise, the
Provincial Board ofNueva Ecija,[247] (Pascual), which was therefore decided under the 1935 Constitution. Constitution is a... framework of a workable government; hence, its interpretation must take into account the
complexities, realities, and politics attendant to the operation of the political branches of government.
As there was no legal precedent on the issue at that time, the Court, in Pascual, resorted to American
authorities and "found that cases on the matter are con icting due in part, probably, to differences in statutes As earlier intimated, Pascual was a decision promulgated in 1959. Therefore, it was decided within the
and constitutional provisions, and also,... in part, to a divergence of views with respect to the question of context of the 1935 Constitution which was silent with respect to public accountability, or of the nature of
whether the subsequent election or appointment condones the prior misconduct public of ce being a public trust. The provision in the

lawyerly.ph/digest/cefc1?user=448 3/6 lawyerly.ph/digest/cefc1?user=448 4/6

1935 Constitution that comes closest in dealing with public of ce is Section 2, Article II which states that " (2) "[T]he Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman must have the independence and
[t]he defense of the State is a prime duty of government, and in the ful llment of this duty all citizens may be exibility needed in the discharge of their constitutional duties. The imposition of restrictions and constraints
required by law to render personal military or civil... service."[287] Perhaps owing to the 1935 Constitution's on the manner the independent constitutional... of ces allocate and utilize the funds appropriated for their
silence on public accountability, and considering the dearth of jurisprudential rulings on the matter, as well as operations is anathema to scal autonomy and violative not only [of] the express mandate of the Constitution,
the variance in the policy considerations, there was no glaring objection confronting... the Pascual Court in but especially as regards the Supreme Court, of the independence and separation of powers upon which... the
adopting the condonation doctrine that originated from select US cases existing at that time. entire fabric of our constitutional system is based";[164] and

After the turbulent decades of Martial Law rule, the Filipino People have framed and adopted the 1987 (3) "[T]he constitutional deliberations explain the Constitutional Commissions' need for independence. In the
Constitution, which sets forth in the Declaration of Principles and State Policies in Article II that "[t]he State deliberations of the 1973 Constitution, the delegates amended the 1935 Constitution by providing for a
shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service... and take positive and effective measures against constitutionally-created Civil Service Commission,... instead of one created by law, on the premise that the
graft and corruption."[288] Learning how unbridled power could corrupt public servants under the regime of a effectivity of this body is dependent on its freedom from the tentacles of politics. In a similar manner, the
dictator, the Framers put primacy on the integrity of the public service by declaring it as a... constitutional deliberations of the 1987 Constitution on the Commission on Audit highlighted the developments in the past
principle and a State policy. More signi cantly, the 1987 Constitution strengthened and solidi ed what has
Constitutions geared towards insulating the Commission on Audit from political pressure."[165]
been rst proclaimed in the 1973 Constitution by commanding public of cers to be accountable to the people
at all times: At bottom, the decisive ruling in Gonzales III, however, was that the independence of the Of ce of the
Ombudsman, as well as that of the foregoing independent bodies, meant freedom from control or supervision
To begin with, the concept of public of ce is a public trust and the corollary requirement of accountability to
of the Executive Department:
the people at all times, as mandated under the 1987 Constitution, is plainly inconsistent with the idea that an
elective local of cial's... administrative liability for a misconduct committed during a prior term can be wiped
off by the fact that he was elected to a second term of of ce, or even another elective post. Election is not a
mode of condoning an administrative offense, and there is simply no... constitutional or statutory basis in our
jurisdiction to support the notion that an of cial elected for a different term is fully absolved of any
administrative liability arising from an offense done during a prior term. In this jurisdiction, liability arising
from... administrative offenses may be condoned bv the President in light of Section 19, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution which was interpreted in Llamas v. Orbos[293] to apply to administrative offenses:

That being said, this Court simply nds no legal authority to sustain the condonation doctrine in this
jurisdiction. As can be seen from this discourse, it was a doctrine adopted from one class of US rulings way
back in 1959 and thus, out of touch from - and now rendered... obsolete by - the current legal regime. In
consequence, it is high time for this Court to abandon the condonation doctrine that originated from Pascual,
and af rmed in the cases following the same, such as Aguinaldo, Salalima, Mayor Garcia, and Governor
Garcia,... Jr. which were all relied upon by the CA.

It should, however, be clari ed that this Court's abandonment of the condonation doctrine should be
prospective in application for the reason that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the
Constitution, until reversed, shall form part of the legal... system of the Philippines

Principles:

Gonzales III is the rst case which grappled with the meaning of the Ombudsman's independence vis-a-vis the
independence of the other constitutional bodies. Pertinently, the Court observed:

(1) "[T]he independence enjoyed by the Of ce of the Ombudsman and by the Constitutional Commissions
shares certain characteristics - they do not owe their existence to any act of Congress, but are created by the
Constitution itself; additionally, they all... enjoy scal autonomy. In general terms, the framers of the
Constitution intended that these 'independent' bodies be insulated from political pressure to the extent that
the absence of 'independence' would result in the impairment of their core... functions"[163];

lawyerly.ph/digest/cefc1?user=448 5/6 lawyerly.ph/digest/cefc1?user=448 6/6