BUENASEDA v.

FLAVIER
GR No. 106719 Sept. 21, 1993 Quiason, J.
Article XI - Section 13
Petitioners Respondents
Dra. Brigida S. Buenaseda, et al. Secretary Juan Flavier, et al.

Recit Ready Summary

 This petition seeks to nullify the order of the Ombudsman directing the preventive
suspension of petitioners, all employees belonging to the National Center for Mental Health.
It also asks for the disqualification of Director Raul Arnaw and Investigator Amy de Villa-
Rosero, of the Office of the Ombudsman, from participating in the preliminary investigation
of the charges against petitioner. The issue here is W/N the Ombudsman has the power to
preventively suspend gov’t officials and employees working in offices other than the Office
of the Ombudsman, pending the investigation of the administrative complaints filed against
said officials and employees. The Court ruled in affirmation that the Ombudsman has the
capacity to order preventive suspension under Sec. 24 of RA 6670. Pertinently, it covers all
officials and employees under investigation by his Office, irrespective of whether they are
employed “in his office” or in other offices of the gov’t.
Facts of the Case
 Petition seeks to nullify the order of the Ombudsman directing the preventive suspension of
petitioners, all employees belonging to the National Center for Mental Health. The petition
also asks for the disqualification of Director Raul Arnaw and Investigator Amy de Villa-
Rosero, of the Office of the Ombudsman, from participating in the preliminary investigation
of the charges against petitioner.
 According to the petition, the said order was issued upon the recommendation of Director
Raul Arnaw and Investigator Amy de Villa-Rosero w/out affording petitioners the opportunity
to controvert the charges filed against them.
 The order was issued in connection w/ the administrative complaint filed w/ the
Ombudsman by respondents against petitioners for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.

Issues Ruling
1. W/N the Ombudsman has the power to preventively suspend gov’t officials and Yes
employees working in offices other than the Office of the Ombudsman, pending
the investigation of the administrative complaints filed against said officials and
employees.

Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
1. The Court ruled that, yes, the Ombudsman has the capacity to order preventive suspension.
On the contention of the Solicitor General and the petitioners that, under Sec. 13, Art. XI of
the Const., the Ombudsman cannot order the preventive suspension himself since he can
only recommend to heads of depts. and other agencies the suspension of officials and
employees facing investigation conducted by his office, the Court answers this by pointing
out that what the Ombudsman imposed on petitioners was not punitive, but only a
preventive suspension. What the Const. contemplates in the said Sec. 13, Art. XI regarding
 the power “to recommend the suspension” of a public official or employee refers to
“suspension” as a punitive measure such as penalties, removal, demotion, fine, and
censure. Sec. 24 of RA 6670, which grants the Ombudsman the power to preventively
suspend public officials and employees facing administrative charges before him, is a
procedural not a penal statute. Under the said provision in the Const., the Ombudsman is
expressly authorized to recommend to the appropriate official the discipline or prosecution
of erring public officials or employees. In order to do this, the Ombudsman has to conduct
an investigation, and in turn, he may need to suspend certain people to expedite and
facilitate the process.
2. On the contention of the Solicitor General that the Ombudsman can only preventively
suspend people who are employed under his office, he leans heavily on the phrase
“suspend any officer or employee under his authority” in Sec. 24 of RA 6770. The origin of
this phrase is traceable to the Revised Administrative Code which dealt w/ preventive
suspension and which authorized the the chief of a bureau or office to “suspend any
subordinate or employee in his bureau or under his authority pending an investigation.”
However, the Ombudsman Law deleted the words “subordinate” and “in his bureau”. Hence,
the conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the Congress intended to empower the
Ombudsman to preventively suspend all officials and employees under investigation by his
Office, irrespective of whether they are employed “in his office” or in other offices of the
gov’t. The moment a criminal or administrative complaint is filed w/ the Ombudsman, the
respondent therein is deemed to be “in his authority” and he can proceed to determine
whether said respondent should be place under preventive suspension.

Disposition
Petition is DISMISSED.

Separate Opinions
Bellosillo, concurring.
 Agrees that the Ombudsman has authority, under Sec. 24 of RA No. 6770, to preventively
suspend any gov’t official or employee administratively charged before him pending the
investigation of the complaint, the reason being that respondent’s continued stay in office
may prejudice the prosecution of the case.