G.R. No. 108072 December 12, 1995
HON. JUAN M. HAGAD, in his capacity as Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, petitioner, vs. HON. MERCEDES GOZO-DADOLE, Presiding Judge, Branch XXVIII, Regional Trial Court, Mandaue City, Mandaue City Mayor ALFREDO M. OUANO, Mandaue City Vice-Mayor PATERNO CAÑETE and Mandaue City Sangguniang Panlungsod Member RAFAEL MAYOL, respondents.

FACTS

Administrative and criminal complaints were filed with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas against Mandaue City Mayor Alfredo Ouano, Vice-Mayor Paterno Cañete, and Councilor Rafael Mayol. The complaints alleged they conspired to falsify an ordinance by unlawfully increasing its appropriation. The Deputy Ombudsman assumed jurisdiction, ordered the respondents to file counter-affidavits, and later granted a motion for their preventive suspension.
The respondent local officials moved to dismiss the administrative case, arguing that under Sections 61 and 63 of the newly enacted Local Government Code ( R.A. No. 7160 ), the power to investigate and discipline local elective officials was vested exclusively in the Office of the President, thereby divesting the Ombudsman of jurisdiction. The Deputy Ombudsman denied the motion and implemented the preventive suspension. The officials then filed a petition for prohibition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City, which issued a writ of preliminary injunction against the Ombudsman’s order, ruling that the Local Government Code provided a specific disciplinary procedure that created an exception to the Ombudsman’s general investigatory power.

ISSUE

Whether the Ombudsman is divested of its authority to conduct administrative investigations over local elective officials by virtue of the Local Government Code of 1991.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman retains concurrent jurisdiction with the Office of the President to investigate administrative complaints against local elective officials. The Court explained that the Ombudsman’s power to investigate any act or omission of any public official is constitutionally mandated and embodied in R.A. No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act). This power is plenary and unqualified.
The enactment of the Local Government Code, which provides a disciplinary procedure for local officials, did not impliedly repeal the Ombudsman’s authority. The Court applied the rule of statutory construction that a general law does not repeal a special law by mere implication unless the intent to repeal is clear and manifest. Here, the Ombudsman Act is a special law conferring specific investigative powers on a unique constitutional body. Furthermore, statutes should be harmonized whenever possible. The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and the President can coexist concurrently, as there is no irreconcilable conflict between the two laws. The Ombudsman’s power of preventive suspension, being distinct from the punitive aspect of administrative discipline, is also upheld. Consequently, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the injunction.