SC: Courts can stop Ombudsman suspension orders
The Supreme Court on Tuesday affirmed the power of the Court of Appeals and any court to stop suspension orders issued by the Office of the Ombudsman.
In a resolution, the high court denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales after the Court of Appeals stopped the implementation of the first preventive suspension order against former Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay in connection with the alleged overpriced Makati City Hall parking building.
“The court denied the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales from its decision dated Nov. 11, 2015, which partially granted the petition,” the high court said.
In the same ruling, the high court reaffirmed its November 2015 decision abandoning the so-called condonation doctrine that had been in place since 1959 and being used by elected officials to defend themselves from administrative liabilities committed in their previous terms in office.
The condonation doctrine, which was introduced by jurisprudence in 1959, was abandoned by the high court in a ruling last year, but it said the doctrine would be prospective in nature.
The doctrine states that reelected officials cannot be held administratively liable for offenses during a previous term because their reelection means their constituents have forgiven them for their past wrongdoings.
Binay invoked the condonation doctrine in questioning the preventive suspension order and argued that the alleged anomalies were committed during the first and second phases of the project when he was not yet mayor of the city.
The third and fourth phases, however, were undertaken during his term from 2010 to 2013. RC
RELATED STORIES
Ombudsman asks SC to nullify CA TRO on Binay suspension
SC: Binay plea moot with his dismissal
