|
The Department of Education on Tuesday said they will comply with
the order of the Supreme Court, which recently upheld the authority
of the Office of the Ombudsman to handle cases involving officials
and employees of the department, including public school teachers.
Education Undersecretary for legal affairs
Franklin Sunga said they have yet to receive a copy of the decision
from the High Court.
In a decision written by Chief Justice Reynato
Puno, the High Court said the Ombudsman has the mandate to determine
the administrative liability of a public official or employee at
fault, and direct and compel the head of the agency, which in this
case is the Education department, to implement the penalty imposed.
With the ruling, the High Court resolved the
issue on whether or not the Ombudsman may directly discipline public
school teachers and employees, or merely recommend appropriate
disciplinary actions to the Education department.
The High Court emphasized that the Ombudsman’s
order to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure and prosecute an
officer or employee is not merely advisory or recommendatory, but is
actually mandatory.
The question was raised when a case was filed
against Florita Masing and Jocelyn Tayactac, a former principal and
office clerk of the Davao City Integrated Special School,
respectively.
Respondents were administratively charged before
the Ombudsman for Mindanao by the parents of the students for
allegedly collecting unauthorized fees and to account public funds.
The Ombudsman in Mindanao rendered a decision
finding Masing and Tayactac guilty of gross misconduct and neglect
of duty, for violating Republic Act 6713, the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
Masing was dismissed from the service, while
Tayactac was found guilty of simple neglect of duty and was meted a
six-month suspension.
Respondents sought recourse with the Court of
Appeals, which reversed the Ombudsman’s decision. The case was
eventually elevated to the High Court, which held that respondents
Masing and Tayactac were administratively charged for violation of
RA 6713, for collecting unauthorized fees, failure to remit
authorized fees, failure to account public funds, oppression and
serious misconduct.
It also said that the authority of the Ombudsman
to conduct administrative investigations “is beyond cavil,” and
the exceptions are officials who can be removed only by impeachment.
Relieved over the ruling
Assistant Ombudsman Marc Jaladoni, Task Force
Head of the Sama-Samang Pagsugpo Laban sa Katiwalian (SAPAK) of the
Ombudsman, expressed relief over the High Court’s ruling, saying
his office could now pursue cases against officials of the Education
department and the Commission on Higher Education without being
questioned on its jurisdiction.
The Ombudsman, through SAPAK, has been receiving
complaints ranging from illegal school contributions, teacher
positions for sale, missing salaries, textbook scams and similar
cases.
-- James Konstantin Galvez
|
