THE Court of Appeals (CA) has voided the Ombudsman’s April 23, 2025, preventive suspension order against then Cebu governor Gwendolyn Garcia, ruling that it was issued during the election period without prior approval from the Commission on Elections (Comelec).
In its 18-page May 18, 2026 ruling, CA’s 14th Division granted Garcia’s petition and declared the suspension order invalid and without legal effect. The decision was penned by Associate Justice Marietta Brawner-Cualing and concurred by Associate Justices Gabriel Robeniol and Maximo De Leon.
The ruling clarifies that the Ombudsman is covered by the Omnibus Election Code provision requiring prior Comelec approval before an elected local official may be suspended during the election period.
The suspension order, issued by then Ombudsman Samuel Martires, placed Garcia under preventive suspension without pay while an administrative case against her was pending for six months.
Challenging the order before the CA in May 2025, Garcia argued that it violated election rules because it was issued within the 90-day prohibited period before the May 12 midterm elections.
On May 15, the CA issued a temporary restraining order stopping the Ombudsman from enforcing the suspension.
“This Court finds that the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion when it rendered the order of preventive suspension against the petitioner,” the CA said.
Why Garcia’s petition was not dismissed
Garcia lost the gubernatorial race in the province to Pamela Baricuatro, who was proclaimed governor on May 13.
The Ombudsman also later resolved the administrative case against Garcia. In a June 30, 2025 decision, it found her guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and simple misconduct, and imposed a fine equivalent to six months’ basic salary.
Even so, the CA said Garcia’s petition was “not rendered moot and academic.”
That means the appellate court found there was still a live legal issue to settle: whether the April 23 suspension order was valid when it was issued.
It cited Supreme Court rulings, saying a challenge to a preventive suspension order does not automatically become pointless just because the order was later lifted, expired, or overtaken by later events.
Origins of the case
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Moises Garcia Deiparine against Garcia over the issuance of Special Permit 2024-09 to Shalom Enterprises on May 14, 2024, to allow desilting of the Mananga River in Talisay City during a water shortage triggered by the El Niño phenomenon.
In earlier reports, Garcia said she issued the permit as part of emergency efforts to restore water flow to the Jaclupan Water Facility, which supplies water to parts of Metro Cebu.
Deiparine accused Garcia of grave abuse of authority, gross misconduct, serious dishonesty, gross negligence, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and violation of Republic Act 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
The CA decision did not resolve whether those accusations were true, as its ruling focused on whether the Ombudsman could order the preventive suspension during the election period without Comelec approval.
Martires’ counter-arguments
Martires argued that the election-period prohibition on suspending elective officials did not apply to the Office of the Ombudsman.
The CA rejected this view, saying the Omnibus Election Code bars any public official from suspending an elective provincial, city, municipal or barangay officer during the election period without prior Comelec approval.
It also cited Comelec Resolution 11059, which said no public official may suspend any elective provincial, city, municipal, or barangay officer from Jan. 12, 2025, to June 11, 2025, except upon prior written approval of the Comelec.
The CA said the wording was broad enough to cover the Ombudsman.
“The phrases ‘any public official’ and ‘no public official’ are unambiguous enough to be understood as including the Ombudsman,” it said.
The CA also rejected the argument that Garcia’s suspension was exempt from the election-period ban because of Republic Act (RA) 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The suspension order, the appellate court said, did not state that Garcia was charged with violating RA 3019. It also did not say the suspension was based on that law.
For that reason, the CA said Martires’ claim that the suspension fell under an exception in the election law had no sufficient factual and legal basis. / KAL
