The Office of the Ombudsman has asked the Court of Appeals (CA) to quash the temporary restraining order (TRO) it issued against the graft body’s preventive suspension vs outgoing Cebu Governor Gwen Garcia.

In a motion filed by Ombudsman Samuel Martires said this Honorable Court closed its eyes to this very basic doctrine that “when the acts sought to be prevented by the injunction or prohibition have already been performed or completed prior to the filing of the injunction suit, nothing more can be enjoined or restrained… the court by mere issuance of the writ, can no longer stop or undo the act.

Martires said the Ombudsman suspended Garcia for six months without pay over alleged grave abuse of authority for illegally granting a special permit to a construction company.

But Garcia continued to defy the order and obtained a TRO from the CA.

He added that last May 30 the CA that the preventive suspension has already been implemented on April 29. The CA issued the TRO on May 15.

The Ombudsman refuted the basis for the TRO saying “the implementation of this preventive suspension order will impede public service strains credulity. To be sure, petitioner Garcia’s suspension will not disrupt the delivery of public services to the people of Cebu.”

Martires also said that the prohibition on imposing suspension on government officials during the election period does not apply to the Ombudsman.

“It is a power directly conferred by the Constitution upon the .. Ombudsman, and the exercise of such power is unqualified and not subject to the vagaries of Congress or opinion of government officials… the Local Government Code and the Omnibus Election Code cannot supersede the constitutionally entrenched powers of the Ombudsman” he said.

Martires further added that allowing the TRO to remain in effect sets a dangerous precedent.

“… it (allows) petitioner Garcia to sidestep the preventive suspension sends a troubling message: that legitimate grievances and complaints of graft and corruption, properly brought before the Ombudsman, can be nullified by a provisional remedy issued in contravention of established rules and jurisprudence… it (erodes) the Ombudsman’s prosecutorial and investigative powers,” he said.