THE Office of the Ombudsman has asked the Court of Appeals (CA) Special Seventh Division to quash the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) it issued on May 15, 2025 that halted the implementation of the six-month preventive suspension of outgoing Cebu Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia.
In his 24-page Reply submitted to the CA on May 30, 2025, Ombudsman Samuel Martires said the TRO granted by the CA allowed the governor to sidestep the preventive suspension that was issued based on administrative complaints against her for Grave Abuse of Authority, Gross Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty, Gross Negligence, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713).
“Allowing the TRO to remain in effect …sends a troubling message: that legitimate grievances and complaints of graft and corruption, properly brought before the Ombudsman, can be nullified by a provisional remedy issued in contravention of established rules and jurisprudence,” the Ombudsman said.
The administrative charges against Garcia were filed by Cebu resident Moises Deiparine in relation to a separate criminal complaint for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), alleging that she issued an unlawful special quarry permit on May 14, 2024 in favor of Shalom Construction Inc. that intruded into a protected area.
The governor, who lost her reelection bid to Pam Baricuatro, had earlier defended the permit, saying it was necessary to address an urgent need due to the critical water shortage that affected the entire franchise area of the Metropolitan Cebu Water District (MCWD), including Cebu City and seven other local government units.
Garcia, citing advice from her counsel, said she refused to comply with the preventive suspension from the Ombudsman because it was against the Local Government Code and the Omnibus Election Code as it was issued during an election period.
However, Martires pointed out that the powers of the Ombudsman are derived its powers directly from the 1987 Constitution itself and the power to suspend, dismiss or remove “is clear and absolute” under Section 13, Article XI of the Charter.
“It is neither dependent nor conditioned upon the issuance of any enabling legislation. It is a power directly conferred by the Constitution …and the exercise of such power is unqualified and not subject to the vagaries of Congress or opinion of government officials,” he added.
Martires pointed out that under the Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy, the Ombudsman is necessarily excluded from the prohibition during an election period and this was recognized by Commission on Elections (Comelec) chairperson George Garcia himself.
“A mere statute cannot trample upon the fundamental law of the land – the repository of all the powers of government. The spring cannot rise above its source. Furthermore, any notion that the Omnibus Election Code prevails over RA 6770 (the Ombudsman Act of 1989) must be outrightly rejected,” he added.
Martires said by issuing the TRO, the CA reinforced “the perception that political giants in his country can act with impunity.”
“The TRO issued to petitioner Garcia lends judicial imprimatur to the erosion of the Ombudsman’s prosecutorial and investigative powers. Case law has spoken in clear and unmistakable language, and if faithful adherence and compliance to jurisprudential rulings is a primordial responsibility of every member of the Bench and the Bar, then this Honorable Court must quash the TRO it issued in this case,” the Ombudsman said.
