9. Police officers Miggy and Laida were involved in an alleged buy-bust operation against Mr. Magtalas, a suspected drug dealer. Mr. Magtalas maintained his innocence, asserting that the drugs were merely planted. He further claimed that he was unjustifiably beaten up by the police officers. Mr. Magtalas filed before 5 of 5 the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Military and Other Law Enforcement Officers (OMB-MOLEO) a criminal complaint for planting evidence which is punishable under Section 29 of the Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 9165). Mr. Magtalas also filed an administrative complaint for grave misconduct against Miggy and Laida in light of the unwarranted physical assault against him. May Hugh implement the writ of execution against the lessees? Explain briefly. (5 points) The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) rendered a decision holding Miggy and Laida administratively liable for grave misconduct and accordingly imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. A few weeks later, the OMB issued a separate resolution finding probable cause against them for violation of Section 29 of R.A. No. 9165. Aggrieved, Miggy and Laida filed before the Supreme Court the following: (i) a Rule 65 petition for certiorari assailing the OMB’s decision finding them administratively liable for grave misconduct; and (ii) a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari assailing the OMB’s resolution finding probable cause against them. Were the remedies availed of by Miggy and Laida proper? Explain briefly. (5 points)