Professional Documents
Culture Documents
# Ombudsman v. Valera
# Ombudsman v. Valera
VALERA
TOPIC: Ombudsman
DOCTRINE: Ombudsman may delegate his investigatory
function including the power to conduct administrative
investigation to the Special Prosecutor. However, Sec. 24
of RA 6770 grants the power to preventively suspend
ONLY to the OMBUDSMAN and DEPUTY OMBUDSMEN.
FACTS:
1. Repondent Valera was appointed as Deputy
Commissioner of the Bureasu of Customs by PGMA.
He took his oath of office and assumed his post.
2. Office of the Ombudsman received the sworn
complaint filed by then Director Matillano of PNP
CIDG. In the complaint he was charged with
criminal offenses as well as administrative offenses
of grave misconduct and Serious irregularity in the
performance of duty.
3. Prior to Director Mattilanos sworn complaint,
criminal and administrative charges were also filed
with the Office of the Ombudsman by Atty. Adolfo
Casareo against respondent Valera. Such complaint
contained
similar
allegations
with
Director
Matillanos complaint.
a. Without authority by commissioner of
customs,
respondent
entered
into
compromise agreement with Steel Asia
Manufacturing Corp. to the prejudice of the
govt.
4. Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo issued a memo
inhibiting himself from the criminal and admin
cases and directed petitioner special prosecutoe
Villa-Ignacio to act in his stead and place.
addition
to
those
powers
expressly
enumerated, may perform such other duties
assigned to it by the Ombudsman. CA
declared Ombudsman Marcelos memo null
and void.
ISSUE/S: WON Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio has
authority to place respondent under preventice
suspension. NO.
HELD:
Petitioners defend the validity of Ombudsmans
delegation of authority to special prosecutor. They
contend that the authority to preventively suspend
is not insusceptible to delegation to an alter ego of
the ombudsman; petitioner Special Prosecutor
possessed the necessary qualifications and
competence to exercise delegated functions; and
no law or rule was violated with the said
delegation.
Respondent
Valera
argues
that
special
prosecutor has no authority to issue the order
placing him under preventive suspension. While
section 11 [4][c] of RA 6670 grants the special
prosecutor the power to perform such other duties
assigned to it by the Ombudsman, the performance
of such other duties should still be under the
supervision and control and upon the authority of
the Ombudsman. Respondent also submits that the
memo destroyed the hierarchy of command within
the office f the Ombudsman.
- SPECIAL PROSECUTOR HAS NO SUCH AUTHORITY
TO ORDER THE PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION OF THE
RESPONDENT.
- Ombudsman Marcelo did not state in the said
memo the reason for his inhibition.
- Rule on voluntary inhibition of judges must be
applied to the Ombudsman in the performance of
his
functions
particularly
in
administrative
proceedings like in this case.
o Like judges, the decision on WON to inhibit is
left to the Ombudmans discretion and sound
conscience. However, Ombudsman Marcelo
has no unfettered discretion to inhibit
himself. The inhibition must be for valid and
just causes.
The Ombudsman, pursuant to his power of
supervision
and
control
over
the
Special
Prosecutor, may authorize the latter to conduct
administrative investigation
- Based on the pertinent provisions of the
Constitution and R.A. No. 6770, the powers of the
Ombudsman have generally been categorized into
the following:
o Investigatory power;
o Prosecutory power;
o Public assistance functions;
o Authority to inquire and obtain information;
and
o Function to adopt, institute and implement
preventive measures.
- The Ombudsmans investigatory and prosecutory
power has been characterized as plenary and
unqualified.
- ON THE OTHER HAND, Authority of Special
Prosecutor has been characterized as limited.
o Merely a component of the office of the
Ombudsman and may act only under the
supervision and control1 and upon authority
of the Ombudsman.