Practice question
The Ombudsman finds strong evidence of guilt against an employee under its authority and finds that continued access to records may prejudice the case. The employee claims preventive suspension is unavailable unless all three additional conditions in Section 24(a)–(c) coexist. Is that correct?
- No; strong evidence plus any one listed condition may suffice
- Yes; the text requires all three additional conditions simultaneously
- Yes; only a prior conviction permits suspension
- Yes; a respondent may veto the order
- No; no evidence at all is required
Legal references
- Republic Act No. 6770: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1989/ra_6770_1989.html Sections 19, 20, 23 and 24.
- Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015, main opinion: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/nov2015/gr_217126_2015.html Preventive suspension discussion.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.