DRA. BRIGIDA S. BUENASEDA, et.al., vs. SECRETARY JUAN FLAVIER, et.al., G.R. No. 106719, September 21, 1993
Subject: Statutory Construction
FACTS
This is a Petition for
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction or
Temporary Restraining Order, under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court.
The petition seeks to nullify the
Order of the Ombudsman dated January 7, 1992, directing the suspension of
petitioners. The petition also asks for an order directing the Ombudsman to
disqualify Director Raul Arnaw and Investigator Amy de Villa-Rosero, of the
Office of the Ombudsman, from participation in the preliminary investigation of
the charges against petitioner.
The questioned order was issued
in connection with the administrative complaint filed with the Ombudsman
(OBM-ADM-0-91-0151) by the private respondents against the petitioners for
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Joining petitioners, the
Solicitor General contends that assuming arguendo that the Ombudsman has the
power to preventively suspend erring public officials and employees who are
working in other departments and offices, the questioned order remains null and
void for his failure to comply with the requisites in Section 24 of the
Ombudsman Law.
The Solicitor General and the
petitioners claim that under the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman can only
recommend to the heads of the departments and other agencies the preventive
suspension of officials and employees facing administrative investigation
conducted by his office. Hence, he cannot order the preventive suspension
himself.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Ombudsman has
the power to suspend government officials and employees working in offices
other than the Office of the Ombudsman, pending the investigation of the
administrative complaints filed against said officials and employees.
RULING
Yes.
Under the principle of
construction (or interpretation) of statutes and other documents, Noscitor a
sociis, the meaning of words should be identified by reference to other words
in the context of which they appear.
In this case, when the
constitution vested on the Ombudsman the power "to recommend the suspension"
of a public official or employees, it referred to "suspension," as a
punitive measure. All the words associated with the word "suspension"
in said provision referred to penalties in administrative cases, e.g. removal,
demotion, fine, censure. Under the rule of Noscitor a sociis, the word
"suspension" should be given the same sense as the other words with
which it is associated.
Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770,
which grants the Ombudsman the power to preventively suspend public officials
and employees facing administrative charges before him, is a procedural, not a
penal statute. The preventive suspension is imposed after compliance with the
requisites therein set forth, as an aid in the investigation of the
administrative charges.
Under the Constitution, the
Ombudsman is expressly authorized to recommend to the appropriate official the
discipline or prosecution of erring public officials or employees. In order to
make an intelligent determination whether to recommend such actions, the
Ombudsman has to conduct an investigation. In turn, in order for him to conduct
such investigation in an expeditious and efficient manner, he may need to
suspend the respondent.
No comments:
Post a Comment