Ledesma vs.

Court of Appeals* Ledesma, the Chairman of the First Division of the Board of Special Inquiry of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, was complained by Somalio, who requested Fact Finding Intelligence Bureau (FIIB) of the Ombudsman to investigate anomalies on the extension of the Temporary Resident Visas (TRV) of 2 foreign nationals. FIIB filed criminal and administrative charges before the Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the Ombudsman against the petitioner, Ledesma. Graft Investigation Officer Reyes suspended Ledesma. However, the criminal charges were dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. Consequently, Ledesma filed a motion for reconsideration with Graft Officer Reyes, but denied the motion and reduced the suspension to 9 months without pay. Ledesma filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, and CA reduced the suspension to 6 months and 1 day without pay. The petitioner filed an instant petition for review with the Supreme Court, and one of the grounds was that the Ombudsman may only recommend suspension under Sec. 13(3) of Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution. He held that in Tapiador vs. Office of the Ombudsman, the Court mentioned that the Office of the Ombudsman may only recommend the removal or suspension of public official. Issue: Did the decision of the Supreme Court limit the power of Ombudsman to merely recommendation of suspension of public official? Ruling: No. The statement that made reference to the power of the Ombudsman is, at best, merely an obiter dictum and, as it is unsupported by sufficient explanation, is susceptible to varying interpretations, as what precisely is in this case. Moreover, the Sec. 15 Art XI of the Constitution provides that the Ombudsmans recommendation is not merely advisory in nature but is actually mandatory within the bounds of law.