{"id":174432,"date":"2018-08-01T05:31:34","date_gmt":"2018-08-01T09:31:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=174432"},"modified":"2018-08-01T05:31:34","modified_gmt":"2018-08-01T09:31:34","slug":"overall-deputy-ombudsman-carandang-sacked","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2018\/08\/01\/overall-deputy-ombudsman-carandang-sacked\/","title":{"rendered":"Overall Deputy Ombudsman Carandang sacked"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
“These transgressions of respondent Carandang constitute graft and corruption as well as betrayal of public trust, which gravely affect his fitness to remain in public office,” it stressed. (File photo<\/a>: Office of the Ombudsman via PNA\/Twitter<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Palace fired Overall Deputy Ombudsman Arthur Carandang from service, following his disclosure of information regarding the bank records of President Rodrigo Duterte and his family.<\/p>\n

In its July 30 decision which was only released to public on Wednesday, August 1 and was signed by Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, Malaca\u00f1ang found Carandang “liable for graft and corruption and betrayal of public trust.”<\/p>\n

His dismissal rooted from two administrative complaints filed in 2017 — one filed by Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC) Commissioner Manuelito Luna and lawyer Eligio Mallari, and the other filed by Labor Undersecretary Jacinto “Jing” Paras and lawyer Glenn Chong for baring details of Duterte’s alleged ill-gotten wealth.<\/p>\n

The Office of the President, in its order, cited Carandang’s September 27 interview with ABS-CBN where he said the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) obtained the President’s bank transaction records from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC). However, AMLC denied providing such documents to the Ombudsman.<\/p>\n

“He was clearly only interested to broadcast an information adverse to the President. His keeping mum about an information that was favorable to the President clearly amounted to manifest partiality,” the order read.<\/p>\n

The Palace said that Carandang violated Republic Act (RA) 6713 also known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees when he revealed the confidential information “to give undue advantage” to opposition Senator Trillanes IV, who earlier filed a plunder complaint against Duterte.<\/p>\n

This, according to Malaca\u00f1ang, also violates Republic Act (RA) 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.<\/p>\n

“These transgressions of respondent Carandang constitute graft and corruption as well as betrayal of public trust, which gravely affect his fitness to remain in public office,” it stressed.<\/p>\n

Aside from dismissal, Carandang was also slapped with a cancellation of eligibility, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, barred from taking civil service examinations, and forfeiture of retirement benefits.<\/p>\n

Earlier this year, Carandang was placed under preventive suspension for 90 days and was charged with grave misconduct and grave dishonesty for the disclosures of the supposed bank transactions of the Chief Executive and his family, according to Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque Jr.<\/p>\n

However, just-retired Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales did not implement Carandang’s suspension, calling the Palace’s action “an impairment of the constitutionally enshrined independence of the Office of the Ombudsman.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Palace fired Overall Deputy Ombudsman Arthur Carandang from service, following his disclosure of information regarding the bank records of …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":174437,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1145,16,95],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-174432","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-headline","category-news","category-news-ph","mauthors-joanna-belle-deala","mauthors-philippine-canadian-inquirer"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174432","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=174432"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174432\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/174437"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174432"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}