CA voids Gwen’s suspension

CEBU, Philippines — The Court of Appeals (CA) has declared invalid the six-month preventive suspension imposed by the Office of the Ombudsman on then Cebu governor Gwendolyn Garcia, ruling that the anti-graft body committed grave abuse of discretion and violated provisions of the Omnibus Election Code.

In an 18-page decision promulgated on May 18, 2026, the CA’s 14th Division granted Garcia’s petition for certiorari and prohibition and nullified the April 23, 2025 preventive suspension order issued by then Ombudsman Samuel Martires.

The decision was penned by Associate Justice Marietta S. Brawner-Cualing, with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Robeniol and Maximo M. De Leon concurring.

The appellate court found that the Ombudsman improperly imposed the suspension during the 2025 election period without first obtaining approval from the Commission on Elections (Comelec).

Garcia had challenged the Ombudsman’s order placing her under preventive suspension without pay for a maximum period of six months while she faced administrative charges of grave abuse of authority, gross misconduct, serious dishonesty, gross negligence, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and violation of Republic Act No. 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

The administrative complaint was filed by Moises Garcia Deiparine and stemmed from Garcia’s issuance of Special Permit No. 2024-09 to Shalom Enterprises on May 14, 2024 for the desilting of the Mananga River during the El Niño-induced water shortage that affected Metro Cebu and neighboring municipalities.

According to the court’s decision, several government agencies, including the Department of Public Works and Highways, Mines and Geosciences Bureau, Environmental Management Bureau, Protected Area Management Board, and other stakeholders, coordinated efforts to restore water flow to the Jaclupan Dam. The initiative enabled the Metropolitan Cebu Water District to continue supplying water to Cebu City, Talisay City, Mandaue City, Lapu-Lapu City, and the municipalities of Compostela, Liloan, Consolacion, and Cordova.

Deiparine alleged that Garcia issued the permit without first securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate or a Certificate of Non-Coverage from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and without consulting the concerned government agencies.

Garcia elevated the case to the appellate court on May 7, 2025, arguing that the preventive suspension order violated Section 62(c) of the Local Government Code, Section 261(x) of the Omnibus Election Code, and Sections 15 and 16 of Comelec Resolution No. 11059.

On May 15, 2025, the CA issued a 60-day temporary restraining order preventing the implementation of the suspension.

In its ruling, the appellate court held that while the prohibition under Section 62(c) of the Local Government Code does not apply to the Ombudsman, the provisions of Section 261(x) of the Omnibus Election Code and Comelec Resolution No. 11059 apply to “any public official,” including the Ombudsman.

The court emphasized that elective provincial, city, municipal, and barangay officials cannot be suspended during the election period without prior written approval from the Comelec.

It noted that an exception exists for cases involving the application of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. However, the court found that the Ombudsman’s April 23, 2025 order did not indicate that Garcia was being charged under the anti-graft law.

“Nowhere in the assailed Order does it state that the petitioner is also charged with a violation of R.A. No. 3019 or that the imposition of preventive suspension upon the petitioner is founded upon the application of R.A. No. 3019,” the court said.

“Thus, the respondents’ argument that the order of preventive suspension comes under the exemption provided in Section 261(x), Article XXII of the Omnibus Election Code lacks sufficient factual and legal basis,” it added.

The CA likewise ruled that the case was not rendered moot by subsequent developments, including the Ombudsman’s June 30, 2025 decision finding Garcia administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and simple misconduct and imposing a fine equivalent to six months’ salary.

“Considering the urgent character of the issue at hand, the petitioner may seek direct recourse to this Court via a petition for certiorari,” the decision stated.

The appellate court ultimately concluded that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the preventive suspension order and declared the April 23, 2025 order “invalid and without legal effect.” — /FPL (FREEMAN)