Santiago questions contempt case filed vs Ombudsman

By: Erika Sauler - 10 years ago

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO/GRIG MONTEGRANDE

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago on Wednesday took issue with the contempt case filed by Makati Mayor Junjun Binay against the Ombudsman for enforcing his preventive suspension despite a temporary restraining order from the Court of Appeals.

Santiago said the Ombudsman and other respondents were not liable for contempt as the government body had the authority to immediately execute a preventive suspension as the Supreme Court ruled in the 2008 case of Gobenciong v. Court of Appeals.

“The Ombudsman can even issue a preventive suspension order without a hearing. She does not have to listen to the other side because she is not punishing. She is merely preventing,” Santiago said in a press briefing in Quezon City on Wednesday.

“The only purpose of a preventive suspension, said the Supreme Court, is to prevent a sitting official from tampering with the records in his favor,” Santiago said.

In Gobenciong v. Court of Appeals, the high court denied the motion to cite the Ombudsman in contempt on the ground that it had become “moot and academic for the preventive suspension had been served,” said the senator, a former Regional Trial Court judge.

“Normally, since it is the prevailing case, it should be followed in the case of Binay. There should therefore be no case of contempt found against the Ombudsman and her corespondents, such as the secretary of justice and others, under this ruling. It’s almost an identical case,” Santiago said.

Whoever loses at the level of the Court of Appeals will bring the case on a petition for review in the Supreme Court, she said.

A long time

“So this contempt case will take a long time to litigate,” she said.

In the Gobenciong case, the Supreme Court ruled: “The Office of the Ombudsman can, as a matter of statutory empowerment, validly order the immediate execution of a preventive suspension after determining the propriety of the imposition, regardless of the remedy of reconsideration made available under the law to the suspended respondent.”

Santiago explained in a statement: “Thus, the Ombudsman can order the immediate suspension of a sitting mayor, who is not allowed to plead that he needs time to file a motion for reconsideration.”

Santiago said that in the Gobenciong case, the high court rejected the argument that the sitting official was denied due process of law, just because the suspension was immediately implemented.

No legal basis

The senator also said: “In the Gobenciong case, the Supreme Court said there was no legal basis for the argument that immediate implementation of the preventive suspension would deny due process. In fact, the Supreme Court added that since preventive suspension is not a penalty for an administrative offense, preventive suspension can be imposed without prior hearing.”

In the case, the high tribunal denied the motion to cite the Ombudsman in contempt on the ground that it had “become moot and academic for the preventive suspension had been served.”

Under the Gobenciong ruling, Santiago said the Ombudsman could not be held in indirect contempt because under the Rules of Court there is no “disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ of a court.”

“A contempt order usually arises according to the Rules of Court for ‘any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.’ It is not the case,” the senator said.

However, Santiago also pointed to a 2011 case, Strategic Alliance Development Corp. v. Star Infrastructure Development Corp., where the high court held: “Although the general rule is to the effect that a writ of preliminary injunction cannot be issued against acts already fait accompli it has been held, however, that consummated acts which are continuing in nature may still be enjoined by the courts.”

Santiago said the apparent collision between the 2008 Gobenciong case and the 2011 Strategic Alliance case should be resolved by the Court of Appeals.