Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Barreras-Sulit Vs Office of The President Rule 116

    Uploaded by

    Taroy Cee
    63 views1 page
    1) The case involved a plea bargaining agreement entered into by Special Prosecutor Barreras-Sulit to resolve plunder and money laundering charges against Major General Carlos F. Garcia and his family. 2) The House Committee on Justice conducted hearings on the agreement and recommended dismissing Barreras-Sulit and filing charges against her deputies for betrayal of public trust. 3) The issue was whether the Office of the President has jurisdiction to exercise disciplinary power over Barreras-Sulit and her deputies who are part of the Office of the Ombudsman. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that while the Ombudsman has authority to discipline government officials, the President also has

    Original Description:

    read

    Original Title

    Barreras-sulit vs Office of the President Rule 116

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) The case involved a plea bargaining agreement entered into by Special Prosecutor Barreras-Sulit to resolve plunder and money laundering charges against Major General Carlos F. Garcia and his family. 2) The House Committee on Justice conducted hearings on the agreement and recommended dismissing Barreras-Sulit and filing charges against her deputies for betrayal of public trust. 3) The issue was whether the Office of the President has jurisdiction to exercise disciplinary power over Barreras-Sulit and her deputies who are part of the Office of the Ombudsman. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that while the Ombudsman has authority to discipline government officials, the President also has

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    63 views1 page

    Barreras-Sulit Vs Office of The President Rule 116

    Uploaded by

    Taroy Cee
    1) The case involved a plea bargaining agreement entered into by Special Prosecutor Barreras-Sulit to resolve plunder and money laundering charges against Major General Carlos F. Garcia and his family. 2) The House Committee on Justice conducted hearings on the agreement and recommended dismissing Barreras-Sulit and filing charges against her deputies for betrayal of public trust. 3) The issue was whether the Office of the President has jurisdiction to exercise disciplinary power over Barreras-Sulit and her deputies who are part of the Office of the Ombudsman. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that while the Ombudsman has authority to discipline government officials, the President also has

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    BARRERAS-SULIT VS OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

    GR NO. 196232

    Facts: Acting Deputy Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman charged Major General Carlos
    F. Garcia, his wife Clarita D. Garcia, their sons Ian Carl Garcia, Juan Paulo Garcia and Timothy Mark
    Garcia and several unknown persons with Plunder and Money Laundering before the Sandiganbayan.
    The Sandiganbayan denied Major General Garcia's urgent petition for bail holding that strong prosecution
    evidence militated against the grant of bail. However, the government, represented by petitioner, Special
    Prosecutor Barreras-Sulit and sought the Sandiganbayan's approval of a Plea Bargaining Agreement
    ("PLEBARA") entered into with the accused. The Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution finding the change
    of plea warranted and the PLEBARA compliant with jurisprudential guidelines.

    Outraged by the backroom deal that could allow Major General Garcia to get off the hook with nothing but
    a slap on the hand notwithstanding the prosecution's apparently strong evidence of his culpability for
    serious public offenses, the House of Representatives' Committee on Justice conducted public hearings
    on the PLEBARA. At the conclusion of these public hearings, the Committee on Justice passed and
    adopted Committee Resolution No. 3, recommending to the President the dismissal of petitioner
    Barreras-Sulit from the service and the filing of appropriate charges against her Deputies and Assistants
    before the appropriate government office for having committed acts and/or omissions tantamount to
    culpable violations of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust, which are violations under the Anti-Graft
    and Corrupt Practices Act and grounds for removal from office under the Ombudsman Act. Hence the
    petition.

    ISSUE: Whether the Office of the President has jurisdiction to exercise administrative disciplinary power
    over a Deputy Ombudsman and a Special Prosecutor who belong to the constitutionally-created Office of
    the Ombudsman.

    HELD: YES. The Ombudsman's administrativedisciplinary power over a DeputyOmbudsman and Special
    Prosecutor is not exclusive. While the Ombudsman's authority to discipline administratively is extensive
    and covers all government officials, whether appointive or elective, with the exception only of those
    officials removable by impeachment such authority is by no means exclusive. Petitioners cannot insist
    that they should be solely and directly subject to the disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman. For, while
    Section 21 of R.A. 6770 declares the Ombudsman's disciplinary authority over all government officials,
    Section 8(2), on the other hand, grants the President express power of removal over a Deputy
    Ombudsman and a Special Prosecutor. A harmonious construction of these two apparently conflicting
    provisions in R.A. No. 6770 leads to the inevitable conclusion that Congress had intended the
    Ombudsman and the President to exercise concurrent disciplinary jurisdiction over petitioners as Deputy
    Ombudsman and Special Prosecutor, respectively. Indubitably, the manifest intent of Congress in
    enacting both provisions - Section 8(2) and Section 21 - in the same Organic Act was to provide for an
    external authority, through the person of the President, that would exercise the power of administrative
    discipline over the Deputy Ombudsman and Special Prosecutor without in the least diminishing the
    constitutional and plenary authority of the Ombudsman over all government officials and employees. Such
    legislative design is simply a measure of "check and balance" intended to address the lawmakers' real
    and valid concern that the Ombudsman and his Deputy may try to protect one another from administrative
    liabilities.

    You might also like