2 days ago
6
ILOILO CITY — The Office of the Ombudsman has lodged a complaint before the Supreme Court against seven Court of Appeals (CA) justices, accusing them of gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Ombudsman Samuel Martires personally filed the complaint on Friday, March 21, with the high court's Judicial Integrity Board (JIB), the body responsible for handling administrative complaints against justices and other judiciary officials.
The justices named in the complaint include CA associate justices Louis Acosta, Marlene Gonzales-Sison, Rex Bernardo Pascual, Mary Charlene Hernandez-Azura, Roberto Quiroz, Rafael Antonio Santos, and Ferdinand Baylon.
The case centers on the CA's issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) in November 2024, preventing the Ombudsman from enforcing the preventive suspension of eight Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) members of Antique.
The officials faced allegations of grave misconduct, oppression, and gross neglect of duty for their failure to act on a supplemental budget amounting to P1.075 billion.
Get the latest news
delivered to your inbox
Sign up for The Manila Times newsletters
By signing up with an email address, I acknowledge that I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
In August 2024, the Ombudsman imposed a six-month preventive suspension without pay, citing strong evidence of guilt against the officials.
The suspension was scheduled to conclude in February 2025, but the CA's Fourth Division intervened with a TRO, allowing the officials to remain in office while legal proceedings continued.
In the nine-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Louis Acosta, the appellate court cited the potential "grave and deleterious effects" of the suspension on the residents of Antique.
In a subsequent ruling on March 10, the Ombudsman again suspended the eight SP officials after finding them guilty of grave abuse of authority, grave misconduct, and conduct unbecoming of a public officer.
The charge of gross neglect of duty was dismissed by the Ombudsman due to lack of merit.
The officials were handed a one-year suspension without pay as a penalty.
If they cannot be suspended due to retirement or separation from service, they will instead face a fine equivalent to one year of their basic salary, payable to the Ombudsman.
