In Police Director General Alan La Madrid Purisima v. Hon. Conchita Carpio Morales, the Supreme Court affirmed the Ombudsman’s power to issue preventive suspension orders against public officials under investigation. The Court emphasized that as long as the evidence suggests strong culpability and the charges could lead to removal from office, the Ombudsman’s order is valid, even if issued before the official files a counter-affidavit. This decision reinforces the Ombudsman’s role in ensuring public accountability and preventing potential abuse of power during investigations.

When Duty Calls: Examining the Ombudsman’s Power to Suspend a Police General

This case revolves around the preventive suspension of Police Director General Alan La Madrid Purisima in connection with irregularities in the accreditation of WER FAST Documentary Agency as a courier service provider for firearm licenses. In 2011, the Philippine National Police (PNP) entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with WER FAST without a public bidding. WER FAST was to provide courier services for delivering firearm licenses to gun owners, and in return, donate equipment for an online application system. Later, the Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO) established an Accreditation Board to evaluate courier service providers, laying down specific criteria. The controversy arose when Purisima, as PNP Chief, approved a memorandum making the delivery of firearm licenses via WER FAST mandatory, despite concerns about the company’s qualifications. Acting on complaints, the Ombudsman preventively suspended Purisima for six months, leading to a legal challenge that reached the Supreme Court.

The central legal question is whether the Ombudsman gravely abused her discretion in issuing the preventive suspension order against Purisima. Purisima argued that the suspension was premature, violating his right to due process, as it was issued before he could submit his counter-affidavit. He also questioned the strength of the evidence against him. The Ombudsman, however, maintained that the preventive suspension was justified under Section 24 of Republic Act (RA) 6770, also known as “The Ombudsman Act of 1989,” given the evidence suggesting Purisima’s neglect of duty and the potential for his continued stay in office to prejudice the case.

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of mootness, acknowledging that Purisima’s preventive suspension period had already lapsed. However, the Court emphasized that the validity of the preventive suspension order remained a justiciable issue. Citing Ombudsman v. Capulong, the Court stated that a finding of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman would render the suspension order null and void from its inception. This would entitle Purisima to restoration to his original position and corresponding back salaries. Therefore, the Court proceeded to resolve the substantive issues raised in the petition.

The Court then delved into the Ombudsman’s authority to issue preventive suspension orders under Section 24 of RA 6770. This section explicitly grants the Ombudsman the power to preventively suspend any officer or employee under her authority pending an investigation. This power is contingent on two conditions: first, the Ombudsman must determine that the evidence of guilt is strong; and second, the charge against the officer must involve dishonesty, oppression, grave misconduct, neglect in the performance of duty, warrant removal from service, or the respondent’s continued stay in office may prejudice the case.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the determination of the strength of evidence is left to the Ombudsman’s judgment. As held in Yasay, Jr. v. Desierto:

The rule is that whether the evidence of guilt is strong, as required in Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770, is left to the determination of the Ombudsman by taking into account the evidence before him. In the very words of Section 24, the Ombudsman may preventively suspend a public official pending investigation if “in his judgment” the evidence presented before him tends to show that the official’s guilt is strong and if the further requisites enumerated in Section 24 are present.

The Court underscored the preliminary nature and purpose of a preventive suspension order. Quoting Quimbo v. Gervacio, it reiterated:

Preventive suspension is merely a preventive measure, a preliminary step in an administrative investigation. The purpose of the suspension order is to prevent the accused from using his position and the powers and prerogatives of his office to influence potential witnesses or tamper with records which may be vital in the prosecution of the case against him.

The Court acknowledged that the Ombudsman’s power is not unlimited and that deference should not be given if a complaint is virtually without supporting evidence. However, in this case, the Ombudsman’s finding that the evidence against Purisima was strong was based on supporting documentary evidence, including the Joint Affidavit of PNP officials and various certifications. The Court noted that the Ombudsman considered several circumstances, such as the absence of public bidding, lack of accreditation of WER FAST, and failure to comply with accreditation policies, which should have prompted Purisima to verify WER FAST’s credentials. These circumstances, taken together, supported the Ombudsman’s decision to issue the preventive suspension order.

The Supreme Court also rejected Purisima’s argument that his right to due process was violated. Citing Lastimosa v. Ombudsman, the Court clarified that the Ombudsman may issue a preventive suspension order before the filing of a counter-affidavit, as it is a preventive measure. The Court stressed that the issuance of a preventive suspension order does not amount to a prejudgment of the merits of the case.

The Court concluded that both conditions for the issuance of a preventive suspension order were present in Purisima’s case. The Ombudsman acted within her powers, and Purisima was not entitled to back salaries during the period of his preventive suspension.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the Ombudsman gravely abused her discretion in issuing a preventive suspension order against Police Director General Alan La Madrid Purisima. Purisima argued that the suspension was premature and violated his right to due process.
What is a preventive suspension order?	A preventive suspension order is a preliminary measure taken by the Ombudsman to prevent a public official under investigation from using their position to influence the case. It is not a penalty but rather a tool to ensure the integrity of the investigation process.
Under what conditions can the Ombudsman issue a preventive suspension order?	The Ombudsman can issue a preventive suspension order if the evidence suggests strong culpability, and the charges involve dishonesty, oppression, grave misconduct, neglect of duty, warrant removal from service, or the official’s continued stay in office may prejudice the case. Both conditions must be met for the order to be valid.
Does a preventive suspension order violate due process rights?	No, the Supreme Court has held that a preventive suspension order does not violate due process rights. It is considered a preliminary step in an administrative investigation and can be issued before the official has filed a counter-affidavit.
What happens if the preventive suspension order is found to be invalid?	If the Court finds that the Ombudsman gravely abused her discretion in issuing the preventive suspension order, the order is deemed null and void from its inception. The official is then entitled to restoration to their original position and corresponding back salaries.
What is the significance of the Yasay, Jr. v. Desierto case in relation to this ruling?	The Yasay, Jr. v. Desierto case underscores the principle that the determination of the strength of evidence lies within the Ombudsman’s judgment. The courts generally defer to the Ombudsman’s assessment unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.
What was the basis for the Ombudsman’s finding of strong evidence against Purisima?	The Ombudsman’s finding was based on various documentary evidence, including a Joint Affidavit from PNP officials and certifications indicating irregularities in the accreditation process of WER FAST. These irregularities included the lack of public bidding and failure to comply with accreditation policies.
Can an official receive back salaries during a period of preventive suspension?	No, this ruling clearly states that if a preventive suspension order issued by the Ombudsman is deemed valid, the official is not entitled to back salaries during the period of his preventive suspension. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Ombudsman acted within her powers in this case.

This case clarifies the extent of the Ombudsman’s authority to issue preventive suspension orders and the limitations on judicial review of such orders. It reinforces the importance of allowing the Ombudsman to effectively carry out investigations without undue interference, while also emphasizing the need for the Ombudsman to act within the bounds of the law and with due regard for the rights of the individuals involved. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the delicate balance between ensuring public accountability and safeguarding individual rights in administrative proceedings.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: POLICE DIRECTOR GENERAL ALAN LA MADRID PURISIMA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT, G.R. No. 219501, July 26, 2017