Grave abuse of discretion on preventive suspension

All powers can be abused and all abuses can be reversed by a higher power. This was the gist of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Simon B. Aldovino, Jr. et al versus Comelec, case number GR 184836, written by a learned jurist who topped the Bar in 1974, Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion, and promulgated on December 23, 2009.

In the said decision, this was exactly what the highest court of the land said: "That the imposition of preventive suspension can be abused is a reality that is true in the exercise of powers and prerogatives under the Constitution and the laws. The imposition of preventive suspension, however, is not an unlimited power, there are limitations built into the laws". These limitations, as pointed out by the court, includes, among others, Section 24 of Republic Act 6670, Section 62 of RA 7160 and Section 13 of RA 3018.

The moment that the suspending authority exceeds the bounds set forth by the Local Government Code, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act or the Ombudsman Law, then the victim can seek the annulment of his preventive suspension by filing the proper petition in the proper court. In the Aldovino case, the Supreme Court reminded one and all that once these limitations are transgressed, particularly, when there has been a Grave Abuse of Discretion, then the proper court can issue a writ of certiorari to annul and reverse said preventive suspension.

The Supreme Court warned against grave abuses of discretions and declared that: "In light of these well-defined parameters in the imposition of preventive suspension, we should view preventive suspension from the extreme situation - that it can totally deprive an elected office holder of the prerogative to serve and is thus an effective interruption of an elective official's term." When the suspending authority then commits grave abuse of discretion in exercising his power to suspend preventively, the proper court can rectify his error by annulling the preventive suspension itself.

Justice Brion wrote in the Aldovino decision that: "Grave Abuse of Discretion defies exact definition but it generally refers to 'capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction --the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross, as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility."

That definition of grave abuse of discretion was quoted by Justice Brion from the Supreme Court decisions in Quintos versus Comelec, 440 Phil 1045, 2002, which cited the landmark case of Sahali versus Comelec, 381 Phil 505, 2002. The bottom line of all these disquisitions is that, in imposing preventive suspension on Mayor Mike Rama, it could be possible that the honorable ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion, and such abuse could be corrected by the proper court which may issue a writ of certiorari and/or afford the good mayor other appropriate reliefs and remedies.

The ombudsman, of course, was conscious of the grave and far-reaching consequences when he suspended Mayor Mike, not for 30 days, not for 90 days, but for the maximum period of six months. That was practically exhausting the remaining months of his three-year term. The evil sought to be avoided by a preventive suspension may pale in comparison to the instrument of avoidance. In short, the temporary cure might be more painful than the injury sought to be remedied.

Indeed, with great power comes great responsibility. That was an original line, not by Spider-man in the Marvel comics, but from the great philosopher, Voltaire. I am sure the honorable ombudsman realized the tremendous implications of a six-month suspension. I hope and pray that his power was exercised with an utmost sense of responsibility.