MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has ruled that former President Rodrigo Duterte wrongfully dismissed the former Overall Deputy Ombudsman Arthur Carandang eight years ago after he told the Inquirer and ABS-CBN network he had documents which may indicate that the then president and his family had ill-gotten or unexplained wealth.
The Jan. 29 decision by the Supreme Court’s Third Division, which was made public on Saturday, said the ex-president did not have authority over Carandang and his actions against the former senior antigraft investigator were unconstitutional and akin to “executive overreach.”
The decision authored by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh said the high court was again confronted by “a pivotal constitutional question regarding the limits of executive power and the scope of administrative accountability.”
READ: Marcos, legal aides tackle Duterte ICC case
Citing the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court said it would be a “direct affront to accountability” if the president were allowed to sanction Carandang, noting that he was “explicitly empowered to hold government actors to account.”
Executive ‘excesses’
The high court’s decision upheld a November 2021 ruling and a July 2025 resolution by the Court of Appeals (CA) that ruled both in favor of Carandang, who had questioned his suspension in January 2018 and his dismissal in July 2018 by the Office of the President.
It pointed out that the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman, which is enshrined in the Constitution, was a reaction to the “excesses” of executive power during the martial law regime of the late President Ferdinand Marcos Sr.
“The 1987 Constitution was a direct response to the abuses of martial law, limiting presidential power and strengthening checks and balances through provisions designed to ensure the effective functioning of democratic institutions for the protection of the sovereign people,” it said.
READ: INQToday: Duterte defense team challenges ICC
It stressed that by “constitutional design,” the President had “no administrative or disciplinary authority over a deputy ombudsman.”
“The framers of the 1987 Constitution deliberately insulated the Office of the Ombudsman, aware that accountability cannot thrive where independence is merely aspirational,” the Supreme Court said.
Trillanes initiative
It also said that the appellate court was correct in citing the Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling, which declared that any disciplinary action by the President over a high-ranking official of the Office of the Ombudsman was unconstitutional.
The Ombudsman’s probe into the unexplained wealth of the Dutertes was prompted by a 2016 complaint by then Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV, who accused Duterte of graft, plunder and malversation for his alleged accumulated assets.
A year later, Carandang told a reporter from the Inquirer and an ABS-CBN news anchor that the Office of the Ombudsman secured documents from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), which it had requested to investigate documents provided by Trillanes.
Carandang took over the ill-gotten wealth investigation after then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales inhibited herself from the case because she was a relative of the husband of Duterte’s daughter, Sara Duterte, who was then the mayor of Davao City.
“With 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,” the Supreme Court noted.
First complaints
“Surely, this was the very evil the Constitution sought to guard against,” it added.
After the news of Carandang’s disclosure came out, the AMLC immediately denied that it was the source of the Trillanes documents, saying that it could not produce them as it did not have the power or authority to inquire into Duterte’s bank transactions under strict bank secrecy laws. It said it had even informed Trillanes about this.
The first complaints against Carandang for his disclosures were filed on Oct. 2, 2017. They included allegations of unauthorized disclosure of information, violations of the antigraft law, grave misconduct and gross negligence, and serious dishonesty “constituting betrayal of public trust.”
The Office of the President filed formal charges against Carandang on Jan. 26, 2018, and suspended him for 90 days. His appeal to the Office of the Executive Secretary was rejected and he was dismissed from his post on July 30, 2018, after he was found allegedly liable for graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust.
READ: Madriaga: Rodrigo Duterte ordered Trillanes sabotage
The dismissal was accompanied by, among others, perpetual disqualification from public office and forfeiture of retirement benefits.
‘Tenuous at best’
For argument’s sake, the Supreme Court still discussed allegations against Carandang and found that they were “tenuous at best, lacking a firm foundation in fact or law.”
“By no stretch of the imagination can any act of graft or corrupt practice be attributed to him,” the high court said.
“Rather than betraying public trust, Carandang’s act of providing information on the status of a pending complaint before his office is consistent with the public’s right to information on matters of national interest,” the high court said.
The two appellate court decisions were questioned one more time by Malacañang under Duterte’s successor, President Marcos, through a petition for review on certiorari, which is intended to correct errors of law committed by lower collegiate courts, such as the CA or the Sandiganbayan.
The Supreme Court denied this petition and affirmed the two decisions of the CA. It also voided Carandang’s dismissal and declared that he was entitled to all retirement benefits, plus the salaries he was supposed to have received from the time he was suspended and dismissed up to the end of his seven-year term in 2020.
Mamamyang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima and Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno said the Supreme Court ruling supported the impeachment complaints against Duterte’s daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte.
‘Heroic actions’
De Lima said the AMLC has affirmed the same documents that Carandang was referring to eight years ago to the documents they presented to the recently concluded House justice committee hearings on the impeachment complaints against Duterte’s daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte. The committee found substantial grounds to impeach her.
She said the ruling was “reinforced by the AMLC report disclosed at the impeachment hearings of VP Sara,” particularly allegations involving billions of pesos in transactions that supposedly passed through Duterte-linked accounts.
The Supreme Court decision was also “a testament to Carandang’s heroic actions,” she said.
“One by one, the abuses and the wrongdoing and corruption concealed by the Duterte administration are coming to light. This only proves that power and abusive rule are not permanent, and that the truth will always prevail,” De Lima said.
Duterte, 81, is being held in a detention facility of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, the Netherlands, for trial for crimes against humanity in his drug war.
Diokno said the ruling was “a measure of justice” for Carandang. The former Overall Deputy Ombudsman “endured hardship and persecution from the previous administration for carrying out his duty under the law.” —WITH A REPORT FROM ISABELLE PECHAY
