Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CELSO SANTIAGO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 172700 2010-07-23	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ROLSON RODRIGUEZ CARPIO, J.
As a final note, under Section 60 of the Local Government Code, the sangguniang bayan has no power to remove an elective barangay official. Apart from the Ombudsman, only a proper court may do so.[33] Unlike the sangguniang bayan, the powers of the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory. The Ombudsman is clothed with authority to directly remove[34] an erring public official other than members of Congress and the Judiciary who may be removed only by impeachment.[35]
	GR No. 167982 2008-08-13	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The power of the Ombudsman to directly impose administrative sanctions has been repeatedly reiterated in the subsequent cases of Barillo v. Gervasio,[26] Office of the Ombudsman v. Madriaga,[27] Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[28] Balbastro v. Junio,[29] Commission on Audit, Regional Office No. 13, Butuan City v. Hinampas,[30] Office of the Ombudsman v. Santiago,[31] Office of the Ombudsman v. Lisondra,[32] and most recently in Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas v. Abugan[33] and continues to be the controlling doctrine.
	GR No. 166658 2008-04-30	EUSTAQUIO B. CESA v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN QUISUMBING, J.
The 1987 Constitution states that the Ombudsman has the power to recommend the suspension of erring government officials and ensure compliance therewith,[26] which means that the recommendation is not merely advisory but mandatory.[27] Under Republic Act No. 6770[28] and the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman has the constitutional power to directly remove from government service an erring public official other than a member of Congress and the Judiciary.[29] The framers of our Constitution intended to create a stronger and more effective Ombudsman, independent and beyond the reach of political influences and vested with powers that are not merely persuasive in character.[30] The lawmakers envisioned the Ombudsman to be an "activist watchman," not merely a passive one.[31]
	GR No. 159883 2008-03-31	DR. PEDRO F. GOBENCIONG v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
The parallel holdings in Ledesma and Office of the Ombudsman would later be echoed in a slew of cases, among the latest of which were Commission on Audit, Regional Office No. 13, Butuan City v. Hinampas[46] and Office of the Ombudsman v. Santiago.[47]