This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-01-28 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Given the scope of its disciplinary authority, the Office of the Ombudsman is a very powerful government constitutional agency that is considered "a notch above other grievance-handling investigative bodies."[39] It has powers, both constitutional and statutory, that are commensurate with its daunting task of enforcing accountability of public officers.[40] | |||||
|
2012-09-04 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Congress thereafter passed, on November 17, 1989, Republic Act No. 6770, the Ombudsman Act of 1989, to shore up the Ombudsman's institutional strength by granting it "full administrative disciplinary power over public officials and employees,"[32] as follows: Sec. 21. Officials Subject to Disciplinary Authority; Exceptions. -The Office of the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including Members of the Cabinet, local government, government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries, except over officials who may be removed only by impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the Judiciary.(Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2012-09-04 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Indeed, there is nothing in the Local Government Code to indicate that it has repealed, whether expressly or impliedly, the pertinent provisions of the Ombudsman Act. The two statutes on the specific matter in question are not so inconsistent, let alone irreconcilable, as to compel us to only uphold one and strike down the other. Well settled is the rule that repeals of laws by implication are not favored, and that courts must generally assume their congruent application. The two laws must be absolutely incompatible, and a clear finding thereof must surface, before the inference of implied repeal may be drawn. The rule is expressed in the maxim, interpretare et concordare legibus est optimus interpretendi, i.e., every statute must be so interpreted and brought into accord with other laws as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence. The fundament is that the legislature should be presumed to have known the existing laws on the subject and not to have enacted conflicting statutes. Hence, all doubts must be resolved against any implied repeal, and all efforts should be exerted in order to harmonize and give effect to all laws on the subject.[37] | |||||
|
2012-08-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It is already well-settled that "the power of the Ombudsman to determine and impose administrative liability is not merely recommendatory but actually mandatory."[70] As we have explained in Atty. Ledesma v. Court of Appeals,[71] the fact "[t]hat the refusal, without just cause, of any officer to comply with [the] order of the Ombudsman to penalize an erring officer or employee is a ground for discipilinary action [under Section 15(3) of RA No. 6770]; is a strong indication that the Ombudsman's 'recommendation' is not merely advisory in nature but is actually mandatory within the bounds of law."[72] | |||||