The Court of Appeals (CA) 14th Division 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).
CA Ruling
In its 18-page May 18, 2026 ruling, the CA granted Garcia's petition and declared the suspension order invalid and without legal effect. The decision, penned by Associate Justice Marietta Brawner-Cualing and concurred by Associate Justices Gabriel Robeniol and Maximo De Leon, found that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion.
The court emphasized that the Omnibus Election Code and Comelec Resolution 11059 require 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 for six months while an administrative case was pending.
Garcia challenged the order in May 2025, arguing it violated election rules because it was issued within the 90-day prohibited period before the May 12 midterm elections. The CA issued a temporary restraining order on May 15, stopping the suspension's enforcement.
Petition Not Moot
Despite Garcia losing the 2025 gubernatorial race to Pamela Baricuatro and the Ombudsman later resolving the administrative case against her, the CA ruled that Garcia's petition was not moot. The court found a live legal issue: whether the April 23 suspension order was valid when issued. It cited Supreme Court rulings that a challenge to a preventive suspension order does not automatically become pointless if the order is later lifted or overtaken by events.
Origins of the Case
The case stemmed from a complaint by Moises Garcia Deiparine over Garcia's issuance of Special Permit 2024-09 to Shalom Enterprises on May 14, 2024, for desilting the Mananga River in Talisay City during a water shortage. Garcia said she issued the permit as part of emergency efforts to restore water flow to the Jaclupan Water Facility. Deiparine accused her of grave abuse of authority, gross misconduct, serious dishonesty, gross negligence, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and violation of RA 6713.
The CA decision did not address the merits of those accusations, focusing solely on whether the Ombudsman could order preventive suspension during the election period without Comelec approval.
Martires' Arguments Rejected
Martires argued that the election-period prohibition on suspending elective officials did not apply to the Office of the Ombudsman. The CA rejected this, stating that 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 cited Comelec Resolution 11059, which prohibits suspensions from Jan. 12, 2025, to June 11, 2025, except upon prior written Comelec approval.
The CA said the phrases 'any public official' and 'no public official' are broad enough to include the Ombudsman. It also rejected the argument that Garcia's suspension was exempt under RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), noting that the suspension order did not state she was charged under that law or that the suspension was based on it.
