LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – OMBUDSMAN

motion for reconsideration. Estarija claimed that dismissal was unconstitutional

EDGARDO V. ESTARIJA VS. EDWARD F. RANADA since the Ombudsman did not have direct and immediate power to remove
GR No. 159314; June 26, 2006 government officials, whether elective or appointive, who are not removable by
impeachment. He maintains that under the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman’s
administrative authority is merely recommendatory, and that Republic Act No. 6770,
otherwise known as " The Ombudsman Act of 1989", is unconstitutional because it
FACTS: On August 10, 1998, respondent Edward F. Ranada, a member of the Davao
gives the Office of the Ombudsman additional powers that are not provided for in the
Pilots Association, Inc. (DPAI) and Davao Tugboat and Allied Services, Inc., (DTASI)
Constitution.
filed an administrative complaint for Gross Misconduct before the Office of the
Ombudsman-Mindanao, against petitioner Captain Edgardo V. Estarija, Harbor The Ombudsman denied the motion for reconsideration in an Order dated October
Master of the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), Port of Davao, Sasa, Davao City. 31, 2000. Thus, Estarija filed a Petition for Review with urgent prayer for the issuance
of a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction
The complaint alleged that Estarija, who as Harbor Master issues the necessary
before the Court of Appeals.
berthing permit for all ships that dock in the Davao Port, had been demanding money
ranging from P200 to P2000 for the approval and issuance of berthing permits, and The Court of Appeals, on February 12, 2003, dismissed the petit ion and affirmed the
P5000 as monthly contribution from the DPAI. The complaint alleged that prior to Ombudsman’s decision.
August 6, 1998, in order to stop the mulcting and extortion activities of Estarija, the
associate on reported Estarija’s activities to the National Bureau of Investigation In his petition for review on certiorari, Estarija contends that he cannot be liable for
(NBI). On August 6, 1998, the NBI caught Estarija in possession of the P5,000 marked grave misconduct because he did not commit extortion as he was merely prodded by
money used by the NBI to entrap Estarija. Adrian Cagata, an employee of the DPAI, to receive the money and that it makes no
sense why he would extort money in consideration of the issuance of berthing
Consequently, the Ombudsman ordered petitioner’s preventive suspension and permits since the signing of berthing permits is only ministerial on his part. He also
directed him to answer the complaint. The Ombudsman filed a criminal case against maintains that Rep. Act No. 6770 is unconstitutional because the Ombudsman has
Estarija for violation of Republic Act No. 3019, The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices only the powers enumerated under Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution, which
Act, before the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch No. 8. powers do not include the power to directly remove, suspend, demote, fine, or
censure a government official. According to him, the Ombudsman’s power is merely
In his counter-affidavit and supplemental counter-affidavit, petitioner denied
to recommend the action to the officer concerned.
demanding sums of money for the approval of berthing permits. He claimed that
Adrian Cagata, an employee of the DPAI, called to inform him that the DPAI had The Solicitor General maintains otherwise, arguing that the framers of the 1987
payables to the PPA, and although he went to the association’s office, he was hesitant Constitution did not intend to spell out, restrictively, each act which the Ombudsman
to get the P5,000 from Cagata because the association had no pending transaction may or may not do, since the purpose of the Constitution is to provide simply a
with the PPA. Estarija claimed that Cagata made him believe that the money was a framework within which to build the institution.
partial remittance to the PPA of the pilotage fee for July 1998 representing 10% of the
monthly gross revenue of their association. Nonetheless, he received the money but ISSUE NO.1: Whether or not there is substantial evidence to hold Estarija liable for
assured Cagata that he would send an official receipt the following day. He claimed dishonesty and grave misconduct
that the entrapment and the subsequent filing of the complaint were part of a
RULING: The petition is DENIED. Estarija is liable for dishonesty and grave
conspiracy to exact personal vengeance against him on account of Ranada’s business
misconduct. Estarija did not deny that he went to the DPAI office to collect, and that
losses occasioned by the cancellation of the latter’s sub-agency agreement with Asia
he actually received, the money which he demanded from the DPAI as monthly
Pacific Chartering Phil., Inc., which was eventually awarded to a shipping agency
contribution. Since there was no pending transaction between the PPA and the DPAI,
managed by Estarija’s son.
he had no reason to go to the latter’s office to collect any money. Even if he was
On August 31, 2000, the Ombudsman rendered a decision in the administrative case, authorized to assisting the collection of money due the agency, he should have issued
finding Estarija guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct. Estarija seasonably filed a an official receipt for the transaction, but he did not do so.

1| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – OMBUDSMAN
Patently, petitioner had been dishonest about accepting money from DPAI.
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more ISMAEL G. KHAN JR & WENCESLAO L. MALABANAN VS. OFFICE OF THE
particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. And when the OMBUDSMAN
elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of GR No. 125296; July 20, 2006
established rule are manifest, the public officer shall be liable for grave misconduct.

ISSUE NO.2: Whether or not the power of the Ombudsman to directly remove, FACTS: Private respondents Rosauro Torralba and Celestine Bandala charged
suspend, demote, fine, or censure erring officials is constitutional petitioners before the Deputy Ombudsman (Visayas) for violation of RA 3019. They
accused petitioners of using their positions in PAL to secure a contract for Synergy
RULING: Rep. Act No. 6770 provides for the functional and structural organization of Service Corporation, a corporation engaged in hauling and janitorial service in which
the Office of the Ombudsman. In passing Rep. Act No.6770, Congress deliberately they were shareholders.
endowed the Ombudsman with the power to prosecute offenses committed by public
officers and employees to make him a more active and effective agent of the people in Petitioners filed an omnibus motion to dismiss the complaint but in the resolution it
ensuring accountability in public office. Moreover, the legislature has vested the was dismiss by the Deputy Ombudsman. Petitoners appealed the order to the
Ombudsman with broad powers to enable him to implement his own actions. ombudsman and raised the same issues but was again dismiss by the Ombudsman.

Rep. Act No. 6770 is consistent with the intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution. Petition for certiorari, with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order,
They gave Congress the discretion to give the Ombudsman powers that are not petitioners assail the orders (July 13,1989 & February 22,1996), claiming that public
merely persuasive in character. Thus, in addition to the power of the Ombudsman to respondents acted without jurisdiction and/or grave abuse of discretion in
prosecute and conduct investigations, the lawmakers intended to provide the proceeding with the investigation of the case against them although they were officers
Ombudsman with the power to punish for contempt and preventively suspend any of a private corporation and not “public officers”.
officer under his authority pending an investigation when the case so warrants.
ISSUE: WON public respondents Deputy Ombudsman have jurisdiction over
He was likewise given disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials petitioners Ismael G. Khan, Jr. and Wenceslao L. Malabanan, former officers of the
of the government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies except Philippines Airlines (PAL), for violation of RA3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corruption
members of Congress and the Judiciary (Ledesma v. Court of Appeals) Practice Act)

The Constitution does not restrict the powers of the Ombudsman in Section 13, Article HELD: No, according to the 1987 Constitution specifically Art. XI, Sec.13(2) stating
XI of the 1987Constitution, but allows the Legislature to enact a law that would spell the powers and function of the Office of the Ombudsman “The Office of the
out the powers of the Ombudsman. Through the enactment of Rep. Act No. 6770, Ombudsman shall have the power, to direct, upon complaint or at its own instance,
specifically Section 15, par. 3, the lawmakers gave the Ombudsman such powers to any government-owned and controlled corporation with original charter, to perform
sanction erring officials and employees, except members of Congress, and the and expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any
Judiciary. Sections 15, 21, 22 and 25 of Republic Act No. 6770 are constitutionally abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties”.
sound. The powers of the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory. His office
was given teeth to render this constitutional body not merely functional but also The Office of the Ombudsman exercises jurisdiction over public officials/employees
effective. Thus, we hold that under Republic Act No. 6770 and the 1987 Constitution, of the government corporations, although the government later on acquired the
controlling interest in PAL, it did not have an “original charter” and its
the Ombudsman has the constitutional power to directly remove from government
officers/employees could not be investigated and/or prosecuted by the ombudsman.
service an erring public official other than a member of Congress and the Judiciary.
The case Quimpo is not applicable to the case at bar because the government acquired
PETROPHIL to “perform functions related to government programs and policies on
oil.” Its purpose was for governmental functions certainly not the case with PAL
where there was no governmental functions at all were involved.

2| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – OMBUDSMAN
The term “government-owned or controlled corporations” in the 1973 Constitution was Dr. Macabulos who used the cash advance by improperly spending it and that she
was qualified by the 1987 Constitution to refer only to those with original charters. tried to liquidate the same by submitting a tampered invoice in conformity with the
PAL being originally a private corporation seeded by private capital and created amount of the cash advance. Graft Investigation Officer I Ulysis S. Calumpad rendered
under the general corporation law, does not fall within the jurisdiction powers of the a decision absolving Dr. Macabulos from the administrative charge.
Ombudsman. Petitioners as officers of PAL were not public officers. A public officer is
an individual invested with portion of the sovereign function of the government, to However, Overall Deputy Ombudsman Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr. disapproved the
be exercised by him for the benefit of the public. They are those endowed with the decision. He found out that Dr. Dee signed an unnotarized affidavit but the contents
exercise of sovereign executive, legislative, or judicial functions. of the first page were entirely different from the affidavit submitted by Dr. Macabulos
in her counter- affidavit. A new memorandum by the Ombudsman was released
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. Public respondents Deputy finding Dr. Macabulos guilty imposing upon her the penalty of dismissal from the
Ombudsman (Visayas) and Office of the Ombudsman are restrained from proceeding government service.
with the investigation or prosecution of the complaint against the petitioners for
violation of RA3019. Accordingly, their assailed orders of July 13,1989 and February
Thereafter, Dr. Macabulos filed a motion for consideration before the Court of Appeals
22,1996 respectively, are SET ASIDE and ANNULLED.
(CA). The CA reversed the decision of the Ombudsman ratiocinating that the
Ombudsman can no longer investigate the complaint since the acts complained of
were committed one year from the filing of the complaint and that the penalty
imposed by the Ombudsman is not immediately executory.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND DR.
ISSUES:
MACABULOS
1) Whether or not CA‘s interpretation of Section 20(5) of Republic Act No. 6670
GR No. 146486; November 22, 2006 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) as a prescriptive period on the Ombudsman
administrative disciplinary cases is correct
2) Whether or not the penalty of dismissal from the service meted on the private
FACTS: Dr. Minda Virtudes (Dr. Virtudes) charged Dr. Mercedita J. Macabulos (Dr. respondent is immediately executory in accordance with the valid rule of
Macabulos) who was then holding the position of Medical Officer V at the Department execution pending appeal uniformly observed in administrative disciplinary
of Education, Culture and Sports – National Capital Region (DECS-NCR) or the Chief cases
of the School Health and Nutrition Unit with dishonesty, grave misconduct,
oppression, conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service and acts
unbecoming a public official in violation of the Civil Service Laws and the Code of HELD: The Court of Appeals should have granted the motion for intervention filed by
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. Dr. Virtudes the Ombudsman. In its decision, the appellate court not only reversed the order of the
alleged that Dr. Macabulos incurred a cash advance of P45,000 and she was required Ombudsman but also delved into the investigatory power of the Ombudsman. Since
by the latter to produce dental and medical receipts for the liquidation of the cash the Ombudsman was not impleaded as a party when the case was appealed to the
advance. Court of Appeals in accordance with Section 6, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, the
Ombudsman had no other recourse but to move for intervention and reconsideration
of the decision in order to prevent the undue restriction of its constitutionally
Taking into account that Dr. Virtudes was not yet assigned at School Health and mandated investigatory power.
Nutrition Unit, DECS-NCR, she did not submit the receipts and invoices. Upon failure
to submit the receipts, Dr. Macabulos allegedly subjected her to several forms of
harassment. Dr. Macabulos denied the accusations and claimed that it was Dr. Antonia The Court of Appeals held that under Section 20(5) of R.A. 6770, the Ombudsman is
Lopez-Dee (Dr. Dee), the Supervising Dentist, who used the money to purchase already barred by prescription from investigating the complaint since it was filed
medical and dental supplies. more than one year from the occurrence of the complained act. The Court found this
interpretation by the appellate court unduly restrictive of the duty of the Ombudsman
as provided under the Constitution to investigate on its own, or on complaint by any
In support of her claim, she attached an unnotarized affidavit of Dr. Dee admitting person, any act or omission of any public official or employee, office or agency, when
said purchase using the cash advance of Dr. Macabulos. Dr. Virtudes asserted that it such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. The use of
3| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – OMBUDSMAN
the word ―may is ordinarily construed as permissive or directory, indicating that a
matter of discretion is involved.
THE SANGUNIANG BARANGAY OF DON MARIANO MARCOS VS, PUNONG
Thus, the word ―may, when used in a statute, does not generally suggest compulsion. BARANGAY SEVERINO MARTINEZ
The use of the word ―may‖ in Section 20(5) of R.A. 6770 indicates that it is within the GR No. 170626; March 3, 2008
discretion of the Ombudsman whether to conduct an investigation when a complaint
is filed after one year from the occurrence of the complained act or omission. The
Court of Appeals held that the order of the Ombudsman imposing the penalty of FACTS: Sangguniang Barangay is the legislative body of Barangay Don Mariano
dismissal is not immediately executory. Marcos, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, a local government unit created, organized and
existing as such under pertinent laws of the Republic of the Philippines. Martinez is
The Court of Appeals applied the ruling in Lapid v. Court of Appeals, that all other the incumbent Punong Barangay of the said local government unit. Martinez was
decisions of the Ombudsman which impose penalties that are not enumerated in administratively charged with Dishonesty and Graft and Corruption by THE
Section 27 of RA 6770 are neither final nor immediately executory. In all Sanggunian through the filing of a verified complaint before the Sangguniang Bayan
administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives, or decisions of the Office of the as the disciplining authority over elective barangay officials.
Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari
within ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of the order, directive or The Sanggunian filed with the Sangguniang Bayan an Amended Administrative
decision or denial of the motion for reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the Complaint against Martinez for Dishonesty, Misconduct in Office and Violation of the
Rules of Court. The above rules may be amended or modified by the Office of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Upon his failure to file an Answer to the
Ombudsman as the interest of justice may require. Amended Administrative Complaint, Martinez was declared by the Sangguniang
Bayan as in default. Pending the administrative proceedings, Martinez was placed
An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. In case the penalty is under preventive suspension for 60 days. Thereafter, the Sangguniang Bayan
suspension or removal and the respondent wins such appeal, he shall be considered rendered its Decision which imposed upon Martinez the penalty of removal from
as having been under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary and such office.
other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal. A
decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as The Decision was conveyed to the Municipal Mayor of Bayombong for its
a matter of course. The Office of the Ombudsman shall ensure that the decision shall implementation. The Municipal Mayor issued a Memorandum, wherein he stated that
be strictly enforced and properly implemented. The refusal or failure by any officer the Sangguniang Bayan is not empowered to order Martinez’s removal from service.
without just cause to comply with an order of the Office of the Ombudsman to remove, However, the Decision remains valid until reversed and must be executed by him. For
suspend, demote, fine, or censure shall be ground for disciplinary action against said the meantime, he ordered the indefinite suspension of Martinez since the period of
officer. Hence, in the case of In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. appeal had not yet lapsed. Martinez filed a Special Civil Action for Certiorari with a
Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of DPWH, the Court noted that Section 7 of A.O. 17 prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction before the trial
provides for execution of the decisions pending appeal, which provision is similar to court. The trial court issued an Order declaring the Decision of the Sangguniang Bayan
Section 47 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. and the Memorandum of the Mayor void.

More recently, in the 2007 case of Buencamino v. Court of Appeals, the primary issue It maintained that the proper courts, and not the Sanggunian, are empowered to
was whether the decision of the Ombudsman suspending petitioner therein from remove an elective local official from office. Thus, the Order of the Sangguniang Bayan
office for six months without pay was immediately executory even pending appeal in removing Martinez from service is void. As a consequence, the Mayor cannot prevent
the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the pertinent ruling in Lapid v. Court of Martinez from assuming his office on the basis of a void order. The trial court denied
Appeals has already been superseded by the case of In the Matter to Declare in the motion for reconsideration. Hence, the present petition was filed.
Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of DPWH, which clearly
held that decisions of the Ombudsman are immediately executory even pending
ISSUE: The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not the Sangguniang Bayan may
appeal.
remove Martinez, an elective local official, from office.

4| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – OMBUDSMAN
RULING: The pertinent legal provisions and cases decided by this Court firmly On the other hand, the most extreme penalty that the Sangguniang Panlungsod or
establish that the Sanggunaing Bayan is not empowered to do so. Section 60 of the Sangguniang Bayan may impose on the erring elective barangay official is suspension;
Local Government Code conferred upon the courts the power to remove elective local if it deems that the removal of the official from service is warranted, then it can
officials from office: resolve that the proper charges be filed in court.

Section 60. Grounds for Disciplinary Actions. — An elective local official may be
disciplined, suspended, or removed from office on any of the following grounds: x
xx

SALVADOR M. PEREZ VS. THE SANDIGANBAYAN

An elective local official may be removed from office on the grounds enumerated
above by order of the proper court. (Emphasis provided.) GR No. 166062; September 26, 2006

They contends that administrative cases involving elective barangay officials may be
filed with, heard and decided by the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan PETITIONER: Salvador Perez and Juanita Apostol
concerned, which can, thereafter, impose a penalty of removal from office. It further
claims that the courts are merely tasked with issuing the order of removal, after the
RESPONDENTS: Hon. Sandiganbayan (2nd Div), and the People of the Philippines,
Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan finds that a penalty of removal is
represented by Office of the Special Prosecutor
warranted. The aforementioned position would run counter to the rationale for
making the removal of elective officials an exclusive judicial prerogative.
SUMMARY: Salvador and Juanita are Mayor and Treasurer of San Manuel,
Pangasinan, respectively. They “willfully, unlawfully, and criminally caused the
The rule which confers to the proper courts the power to remove an elective local
purchase of 1 computer unit costing P120,000 acquisition by personal canvass,”
official from office is intended as a check against any capriciousness or partisan
violating Sec. 362 and 367 of the LGC.
activity by the disciplining authority. Vesting the local legislative body with the power
to decide whether or not a local chief executive may be removed from office, and only
relegating to the courts a mandatory duty to implement the decision, would still not No public bidding occurred and no Committee of Awards was constituted to approve
free the resolution of the case from the capriciousness or partisanship of the the procurement Salvador and Juanita gave Mobil Link Enterprises/Starlet Sales
disciplining authority. Thus, such interpretation would defeat the clear intent of the Center undue advantage or preference through manifest partiality, showing evident
law. Moreover, such an arrangement clearly demotes the courts to nothing more than bad faith and gross, inexcusable negligence, but this was not included in the original
an implementing arm of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, or Sangguniang Bayan. This information, so it was recommended by the Special Prosecutor that the information
would be an unmistakable breach of the doctrine on separation of powers, thus be amended to show the manner of the commission of the offense, based on the
placing the courts under the orders of the legislative bodies of local governments. Ombudsman’s margin notes in the original information. The amended information
was admitted. The petitioners challenge this, saying that the Sandiganbayan
committed GAD in accepting the amended information, which had no approval from
As the law stands, Section 61 of the Local Government Code provides for the the Ombudsman, amounting to denial of due process. The SC granted the petition.
procedure for the filing of an administrative case against an erring elective barangay
official before the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan. However, the
Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan cannot order the removal of an DOCTRINE: The Ombudsman may delegate powers to the Office of the Special
erring elective barangay official from office, as the courts are exclusively vested with Prosecutor, but such delegation must be shown by clear intent. The Ombudsman’s
this power under Section 60 of the Local Government Code. Thus, if the acts allegedly power of control would be seriously hampered if the former were authorized to file
committed by the barangay official are of a grave nature and, if found guilty, would informations in the first instance. This is because while the Ombudsman has full
merit the penalty of removal from office, the case should be filed with the regional discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in the
trial court. Once the court assumes jurisdiction, it retains jurisdiction over the case Sandiganbayan. Once the case has been filed with said court, it is the Sandiganbayan,
even if it would be subsequently apparent during the trial that a penalty less than and no longer the Ombudsman, which has full control of the case so much so that the
removal from office is appropriate. informations may not be dismissed, without the approval of the said court.

5| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – OMBUDSMAN
ISSUES: Whether or not the Office of the Special Prosecutor has the power to file The relevant case for this topic is G.R. No. 189063. Where upon Sandiganbayan’s
informations without delegation from the Ombudsman. finding that the Office of the Ombudsman had incurred inordinate delay in resolving
the complaint Cong. Jimenez had brought against the respondents, it dismissed
HELD/RATIO: NO. The Ombudsman’s margin notes order was to "study whether the Criminal Case No. SB-08-CRM-0266 (involves robbery) mainly to uphold their
accused, assuming arguendo that there was no overprice, gave unwarranted benefits, constitutional right to the speedy disposition of their case. The State contended that
advantage or preference to the seller of the subject computer” and “submit your the delay in the resolution of the case against the respondents was neither inordinate
recommendation soonest.” nor solely attributable to the Office of the Ombudsman.

It is clear that the recommendation must be submitted to one who has authority to Citing Mendoza-Ong v .Sandiganbayan, wherein the Court held that the speedy
implement such recommendation. The Ombudsman has the power to file disposition of cases was also consistent with reasonable delays, the State supported
informations, as well as the power to delegate his powers. Office Order No. 40-05 its contention by listing the various incidents that had caused the delay in the
delegates the disposition of administrative and criminal cases (filing informations) to investigation, and then laying part of the blame on the respondents themselves.
the Deputy Ombudsman, but NOT the Special Prosecutor (which is included in the
Office of the Ombudsman). All that is delegated to the Special Prosecutor is the ISSUE: WoN Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion when it dismissed the
discretional authority to review and modify the Deputy Ombudsman-authorized
information, but without departing from the basic resolution. Deputy Ombudsman case due to the violation of the respondents’ constitutional right to speedy disposition
and Special Prosecutor are given the same rank and salary (RA 6770), but they do of their cases
NOT have the same functions.
HELD: No. Sandiganbayan was right in dismissing the case upon finding that there
Since there is no express delegation, the Court looked into whether or not there was had been an inordinate delay in the resolution against respondents of the charge in
an implied delegation. RA 6770 provides that the powers of the OSP include: Criminal Case No. SB-08-CRM-0266. The right to the speedy disposition of cases is
conducting preliminary investigations and prosecute criminal cases w/in jurisdiction enshrined in Article III of the Constitution. It is not limited to the accused in criminal
of Sandiganbayan, enter into plea-bargaining agreements, and perform other duties proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases, including civil and administrative
assigned by Ombudsman. Respondents argue the doctrine of Qualified Political cases, and in all proceedings, including judicial and quasi-judicial hearings. The fact-
Agency, saying that since the amended information has not been disapproved by the finding investigation and preliminary investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman
Ombudsman, it has his tacit approval. The SC said no. lasted nearly five years and five months.

This doctrine does not apply to the Office of the Ombudsman, which is an apolitical The Office of the Ombudsman had taken an unusually long period of time just to
agency. Granted, this is a procedural defect and the OSP’s Memorandum (amended investigate the criminal complaint and to determine whether to criminally charge the
info) may later be approved by the Ombudsman. WHEREFORE, the instant Petition respondents in the Sandiganbayan. Such long delay was inordinate and oppressive,
for Certiorari is GRANTED. and constituted under the peculiar circumstances of the case an outright violation of
the respondents’ right under the Constitution to the speedy disposition of their cases.

The guarantee of speedy disposition under Section 16 of Article III of the Constitution
FACTS: The Court resolves the petitions for certiorari the State instituted to assail would be defeated is the State’s argument that the fact-finding investigation should
and nullify, in G.R. No. 188165, the Sandiganbayan’s dismissal of Criminal Case SB-08- not be considered a part of the preliminary investigation (because the former was
CRM-0265 entitled People of the Philippine v. Hernando Benito Perez, Rosario S. only preparatory in relation to the latter; and that the period spent in the former
Perez, Ernest Escaler, and Ramon A. Arceo , for violation of Section 3 (b) of Republic should not be factored in the computation of the period devoted to the preliminary
Act No. 3019, as amended; and, in G.R. No. 189063, the Sandiganbayan’s dismissal of investigation) is accepted. It is incumbent for the State to prove that the delay was
SB-08-CRM- 0266 entitled People of the Philippine v. Hernando Benito Perez, Rosario reasonable, or that the delay was not attributable to it. In both regards, the State
S. Perez, Ernest Escaler, and Ramon A. Arceo, for robbery under Article 293, in failed. There was really no sufficient justification tendered by the State for the long
relation to Article 294, of the Revised Penal Code. delay of more than five years in bringing the charges against the respondents before
the proper court.
6| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – OMBUDSMAN
Considering that an appeal under Administrative Order No. 17, the amendatory rule,
shall not stop the Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman from being executory, the
court hold that the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying
EDMUNDO JOSE T. BUENCAMINO VS. COURT OF APPEALS, OFFICE OF petitioner's application for injunctive relief. It bears stressing at this point that
THE OMBUDSMANS, AND CONSTANTINO PASCUAL Section 13(8), Article XI of the Constitution authorizes the Office of the Ombudsman
to promulgate its own rules.
GR No. 175895; April 12, 2007

2. NO, In interpreting the Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07, this Court
FACTS: Edmundo Jose T. Buencamino, petitioner, is the incumbent mayor of San held in Laja, citing Lopez, that "only orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the
Miguel, Bulacan, while Constantino Pascual, private respondent, is the Ombudsman in administrative cases imposing the penalties of public censure,
reprimand or suspension of not more than one month or a fine not equivalent to one
month salary shall be final and unappealable hence, immediately executory. In all
president of Rosemoor Mining and Development Corporation, a company engaged in other disciplinary cases where the penalty imposed is other than public censure,
the mining of marble blocks. Private respondent filed with the Office of the reprimand, or suspension of not more than one month, or a fine not equivalent to one-
Ombudsman, public respondent, an administrative complaint against petitioner for month salary, the law gives the respondent the right to appeal. In these cases, the
grave misconduct, abuse of authority and Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices. Office of order, directive or decision becomes final and executory only after the lapse of the
the Ombudsman declared petitioner administratively liable for abuse of authority and period to appeal if no appeal is perfected, or after the denial of the appeal from the
suspended him from office for a period of six (6) months without pay. said order, directive or decision. It is only then that execution shall perforce issue as
a matter of right. The fact that the Ombudsman Act gives parties the right to appeal
Aggrieved, petitioner filed with the CA, a Petition for Review with application for the from its decisions should generally carry with it the stay of these decisions pending
issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary injunction. appeal. Otherwise, the essential nature of these judgments as being appealable would
Thereafter, the appellate court issued a TRO but preliminary injunction was denied. be rendered nugatory."
He then filed a motion for reconsideration, but also denied. Hence, in an instant
petition for certiorari, Petitioner alleged that denial of preliminary injunction, the CA PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
gravely abused its discretion, the Decision of Ombudsman suspending him from office
is not immediately executory; and that enforcement of decision from the service
1. Verba legis. If statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given
during the pendency of his appeal, the Office of the Ombudsman violated Section 27
its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.
of RA 6770, (Ombudsman Act of 1989) and the rulings of the Court in Lapid v. Court
2. Only the Supreme Court En Banc can modify or abandon principle of law,
of Appeals, Lopez v. Court of Appeals, and Ombudsman v. Laja.
not any division of the court. Supreme Court becomes, to the extent applicable,
the criteria that must control the actuations not only of those called upon to
ISSUES: abide thereby but also of those duty-bound to enforce obedience thereto. SC
1. Whether or not the Office of Ombudsman violated RA 6770 rulings of the court rulings are binding on inferior courts.
2. Whether or not the rulings of the Court in Lapid v. Court of Appeals; Lopez v. 3. Meaning of law changed by amendment. An amended act should be given a
Court of Appeals, and Ombudsman v. Laja were violated construction different from the law prior to its amendment, for it is presumed
that the legislature would not have amended it had not it not wanted to change
RULING: its meaning.
1. No, Honorable Court emphatically declared that Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of
Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman was already amended by Administrative
Order No. 17 wherein the pertinent provision on the execution of the Ombudsman's
decision pending appeal is now similar to Section 47 of the "Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service" - that is, decisions of the Ombudsman are
immediately executory even pending appeal.

7| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – OMBUDSMAN
 August 27, 2003: Senator Honasan appeared with counsel at the DOJ to file a a
GREGORIO HONASAN II VS. THE PANEL OF INVESTIGATING Motion for Clarification questioning DOJ's jurisdiction over the case since the
PROSECUTORS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE imputed acts were committed in relation to his public office by a group of public
GR No. 159747; April 13, 2004 officials with Salary Grade 31 which should be handled by the Office of the
Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan
 Senator Honasan then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
LESSONS APPLICABLE: Rule on Interpretative Regulations (persons), Powers of the Court against the DOJ Panel and its members, CIDG-PNP-P/Director Eduardo
Ombudsman (consti), concurrent jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and the DOJ to Matillano and Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo, attributing grave abuse of
conduct preliminary investigation (consti) discretion on the part of the DOJ Panel in issuing the aforequoted Order of
LAW APPLICABLE: Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution, Art. 2 Civil Code September 10, 2003 directing him to file his respective counter-affidavits and
controverting evidence on the ground that the DOJ has no jurisdiction to conduct
FACTS: the preliminary investigation

 August 4, 2003: CIDG-PNP/P Director Edguardo Matillano filed an affidavit- ISSUES:

complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) which contains the following in
part: 1. Whether in regards to Ombudsman-DOJ Circular no. 95-001, the office of the
- July 27, 2003: crime of coup d’ etat was committed by military personnel Ombudsman should deputize the prosecutors of the DOJ to conduct the
who occupied Oakwood and Senator Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan, II preliminary investigation.
- On or about 11 p.m. June 4,2003: A meeting was held and presided by 2. Whether the Ombudsman-DOJ Joint Circular no. 95-001 is ineffective on the
Senator Honasan in a house located in San Juan, Metro Manila ground that it was not published
- Early morning of July 27, 2003: Capt. Gerardo Gambala, in behalf of the 3. Whether the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary
military rebels occupying Oakwood, made a public statement aired on investigation because the petitioner is a public officer with salary grade 31
national television, stating their withdrawal of support to the chain of (Grade 27 or Higher) thereby falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandigan
Bayan.
command of the AFP and the Government of President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo. Willing to risk their lives to achieve the National Recovery Agenda
(NRA) of Senator Honasan which they believe is the only program that would
solve the ills of society. HELD: Wherefore, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit
 Sworn statement of AFP Major Perfecto Ragil stated that: 1. No. Ombudsman cases involving criminal offenses may be subdivided into two
- June 4, 2003 about 11 pm: Senator Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan arrived with classes, to wit: (1) those cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, and (2) those falling
Capt. Turinga to hold the NRP meeting where they concluded the use of force, under the jurisdiction of the regular courts. The difference between the two,
violence and armed struggle to achieve the vision of NRP where a junta will aside from the category of the courts wherein they are filed, is on the authority
be constituted which will run the new government. They had a blood to investigate as distinguished from the authority to prosecute
compact and that he only participated due to the threat made by Senator
Honasan when he said “Kung kaya nating pumatay sa ating mga kalaban,
 The power to investigate or conduct a preliminary investigation on any
kaya din nating pumatay sa mga kasamahang magtataksil.”
Ombudsman case may be exercised by an investigator or prosecutor of the
- July 27, 2003: He saw on TV that Lieutenant Antonio Trillanes, Captain Office of the Ombudsman, or by any Provincial or City Prosecutor or their
Gerardo Gambala, Captain Alejano and some others who were present assistance, either in their regular capacities or as deputized Ombudsman
during the NRP meeting he attended, having a press conference about their prosecutors.
occupation of the Oakwood Hotel. He saw that the letter "I" on the arm bands  circular supports the view of the respondent Ombudsman that it is just an
and the banner is the same letter "I" in the banner is the same as their blood internal agreement between the Ombudsman and the DOJ
compact wound.

8| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – OMBUDSMAN
 The Constitution, The Ombudsman Act of 1989, Administrative order no. 8
of the office of the Ombudsman. The prevailing jurisprudence and under the GERARDO R. VILLASENOR AND RODEL A. MESA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN,
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, All recognize and uphold the PESQUERA
concurrent jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and the DOJ to conduct GR No. 180700, March 4, 3008
preliminary investigation on charges filed against public officers and
employees.
 The DOJ Panel need not be authorized nor deputized by the Ombudsman to FACTS: On August 18, 2001, disaster struck. In the wee hours of the morning, the
conduct the preliminary investigation for complaints filed with it because Quezon City Manor Hotel went ablaze resulting in the death of seventy-four (74)
the DOJ's authority to act as the principal law agency of the government and people and injuries to scores of others. Investigation into the tragedy revealed that
investigate the commission of crimes under the Revised Penal Code is the hotel was a veritable fire trap.
derived from the Revised Administrative Code which had been held in the
Natividad case13 as not being contrary to the Constitution. Thus, there is not Petitioners, together with other officials of the City Engineering Office of Quezon City,
even a need to delegate the conduct of the preliminary investigation to an are presently facing criminal charges before the 5th Division of the Sandiganbayan
agency which has the jurisdiction to do so in the first place. However, the for the crime of multiple homicide through reckless imprudence and for violation of
Ombudsman may assert its primary jurisdiction at any stage of the Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. They were also charged administratively with gross
investigation. negligence, gross misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service in
connection with the Manor Hotel inferno. In two separate Orders dated August 29,
2000 and September 7, 2001 in the administrative case, petitioners Villaseñor and
2. No. In the case of People vs. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil. 640 (1954). The only circulars Mesa were preventively suspended for a period of six (6) months, effective upon
and regulations which prescribe a penalty for its violation should be published receipt of the suspension order.
before becoming effective.
On September 20, 2006, during the pendency of the criminal case, respondent special
In the case of Taňada V. Tuvera, 146 Scra 453 (1986), The Honorable Court rules prosecutor Louella Mae OCO Pesquera filed a motion for suspension Pendente lite of
that: petitioners. Petitioners opposed the motion, contending that they had already been
suspended for six (6) months relative to the administrative case, based on the same
- Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is
facts and circumstances. They posited that any preventive suspension that may be
regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public,
warranted in the criminal case was already absorbed by the preventive suspension in
need not be published. Neither is publication required of the so called letters
the administrative case because both the criminal and administrative cases were
of instructions issued by the administrative superiors concerning the rules on anchored on the same set of facts.
guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in performance of their duties.
In the assailed Resolution of July 3, 2007, respondent court granted the prosecution’s
OMB-DOJ Joint Circulars no. 95-001 is merely an internal circular between the DOJ motion for suspension. It ordered the suspension of petitioners for a period of ninety
and the office of the Ombudsman, Outlining authority and responsibilities among (90) days. The dispositive portion reads, thus:
prosecutors of the DOJ and of the office of the Ombudsman in the conduct of
preliminary investigation. It does not regulate the conduct of persons or the In the equally assailed Resolution of October 10, 2007, petitioners’ motion for
public, in general. reconsideration was denied for lack of merit.

ISSUE: Petitioners have resorted to the present recourse, hoisting the lone issue of
3. No. Whether or not the offense is within exclusive jurisdiction or not will not
resolve the present petition so as not to pre-empt the result of the investigation “WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
conducted by the DOJ Panel. AND/OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TOLACK OF
JURISDICTION IN ORDERING THE SUSPENSION PENDENTE LITE OF HEREIN
PETITIONERS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY HAD ALREADY BEENPREVIOUSLY

9| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – OMBUDSMAN
SUSPENDED ADMINISTRATIVELY BASED ON THE SAMEFACTS AND committing malfeasance in office. The presumption is that unless the accused is
CIRCUMSTANCES. suspended he may frustrate his prosecution or commit further acts of malfeasance or
do both, in the same way that upon a finding that there is probable cause to believe
HELD: Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Our Ruling Mandatory nature of that a crime has been committed.
preventive suspension. It is well-settled that preventive suspension under Section 13
of R.A. No. 3019 is mandatory. It is evident from the very wording of the law:

Suspension and loss of benefits. – Any incumbent public officer against whom any
criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under Title 7, Book ATTY. RONALDO P. LEDESMA VS. COURT OF APPEALS ET.
II of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense involving fraud upon the government ACOMMISSION ON L.
or public funds or property, whether as a simple or as a complex offense and in GR No. 161629; July 29, 2005
whatever stage of the execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall
be suspended from office. x x x (Underscoring supplied)
FACTS: An investigation was requested on alleged anomalies surrounding the
A whole slew of cases reinforces this provision of law. In Luciano v. Provincial extension of the Temporary Resident Visas of two foreign nationals. Graft Investigator
Governor, the Court pronounced that suspension of a public officer under Section 13 resolved the administrative case suspending petitioner for a year. The criminal case
of R.A. No. 3019 is mandatory. This was reiterated in Luciano v. Mariano, People v. was dismissed.
Albano, Gonzaga v. Sandiganbayan, and Bunye v. Escareal.
ISSUE(S): Whether or not in finding petitioner administratively liable, Ombudsman
In the last mentioned case, the Court said: Adverting to this Court’s observation in has encroached into the power of the Bureau of Immigration over immigration
Ganzon v. CA, 200 SCRA271, 272, that the sole objective of an administrative matters.
suspension is “to prevent the accused from hampering the normal course of the
HELD: NO. The creation of the Office of the Ombudsman is a unique feature of the
investigation with his influence and authority over possible witnesses or to keep him
1987 Constitution. The Ombudsman and his deputies, as protectors of the people, are
off the records and other evidence” and “to assist prosecutors in firming up a case, if
mandated to act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against officers
any, against an erring official,” the petitioners insist that as no such reason for their
or employees of the government, or any of its subdivisions, agency or instrumentality.
suspension exists, then the order suspending them should be set aside as a grave
abuse of the court’s discretion. x x x x The Court finds no merit in those arguments.
Section 13 of R.A.No. 3019, as amended, unequivocally provides that the accused
public officials “shall be suspended from office” while the criminal prosecution is
pending in court. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS VS. CONRADO CRUZ ET. AL.
GR No. 186616; November 19, 2009
In Gonzaga v. Sandiganbayan, 201 SCRA 417, 422, 426, this Court ruled that such
preventive suspension is mandatory; there are no ifs and buts about it. (Underscoring
supplied)
FACTS: The present petition seeks a review of the RTC’s decision granting the petition
Again, in Bolastig v. Sandiganbayan, the Court stressed the mandatory natureof of the respondents on declaring Section 2 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9164 (entitled An
preventive suspension as follows: x x x It is now settled that Sec. 13 of Republic Act Act Providing for Syn-chronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections,
No. 3019 makes it mandatory for the Sandiganbayan to suspend any public official amending RA No. 7160, as amended, otherwise known as the Local Government Code
against whom a valid information charging violation of that law, Book II, Title 7 of the of 1991) unconstitutional:
Revised Penal Code, or any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds
or property is filed. The court trying a case has neither discretion nor duty to Sec. 2. Term of Office. The term of office of all barangay and sangguniang kabataan
offi-cials after the effectivity of this Act shall be three (3) years. No barangay elective
determine whether preventive suspension is required to prevent the accused from
official shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms in the same position:
using his office to intimidate witnesses or frustrate his prosecution or continuing
Provided, however, That the term of office shall be reckoned from the 1994 barangay
10 | E l i x i r C . L a n g a n l a n g a n
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – OMBUDSMAN
elections. Voluntary renunciation of office for any length of time shall not be for a three-year term and three-term limit for local elective officials, it left the length
considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which of term and the application of the three-term limit or any form of term limitation for
the elective official was elected. determination by Congress through legislation. Not only does this disparate
treatment recognize substantial distinctions, it recognizes as well that the
ANTECEDENT: Before the October 29, 2007 Synchronized Barangay and Constitution itself allows a non-uniform treatment. No equal protection violation can
Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) Elections, some of the then incumbent officials of several exist under these conditions. From another perspective, we see no reason to apply
barangays of Caloocan City filed with the RTC a petition for declaratory relief to the equal protection clause as a standard because the challenged proviso did not
challenge the constitutionality of the above-highlighted proviso, based on the result in any differential treatment between barangay officials and all other elective
following arguments: officials.

1. The term limit of Barangay officials should be applied prospectively and not
retroactively.
2. Implementation of paragraph 2 Section 2 of RA No. 9164 would be a violation of
the equal protection of the law. PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS
3. Barangay officials have always been a political. VS. HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO
GR No. 145184; March 14, 2008
ISSUE:

1. WON the term limit should apply prospectively and not retroactively. FACTS: President Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order No. 13 creating the
2. WON it violates the equal protection of the law. Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans (Committee). A behest
loan may involve civil liability for non-payment or non-recovery and may likewise
RULING: SC affirmed the constitutionality of Section 2, paragraph 2 of Republic Act entail criminal liability. Several loan accounts were referred to the Committee for its
No. 9164: investigation, including the loan transactions between now Integrated Circuits
Philippines (ICPI), and the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). After
1. No retroactive application was made because the three-term limit has been there examining and studying the loan transactions, the Committee filed with the Office of
all along as early as the second barangay law (RA No. 6679-changed the two-term the Ombudsman a sworn complaint for violation of Section 3(e)(g) of Republic Act
limit by providing for a three-consecutive term limit). after the 1987 Constitution (R.A.) No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, against the Concerned
took effect; it was continued under the LGC and can still be found in the current law. Members of the DBP Board of Governors, and Concerned Directors and Officers of
ICPI.
2. No. The equal protection guarantee under the Constitution is found under its
Section 2, Article III, which provides: Nor shall any person be denied the equal After evaluating the evidence submitted by the Committee, the Ombudsman issued
protection of the laws. Essentially, the equality guaranteed under this clause is the assailed Memorandum, finding that there was no probable cause to warrant the
equality under the same conditions and among persons similarly situated. It is filing of the instant case in court. To start with, the cause of action has prescribed and
equality among equals, not similarity of treatment of persons who are different from the aforesaid Administrative and Memorandum Orders both issued by the President
one another on the basis of substantial distinctions related to the objective of the law; in 1992, may not be retroactively applied to the questioned transactions which took
when things or persons are different in facts or circumstances, they may be treated place in 1980 because to do so would be tantamount to an ex post facto law. Petitioner
differently in law. alleges that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that:
Appreciation of how the constitutional equality provision applies inevitably leads to
the conclusion that no basis exists in the present case for an equal protection (i) the offenses subject of its criminal complaint had prescribed;
challenge. The law can treat barangay officials differently from other local elective (ii) Administrative Order No. 13 and Memorandum Order No. 61 are ex post
officials because the Constitution itself provides a significant distinction between facto laws; and
these elective officials with respect to length of term and term limitation. The clear (iii) there is no probable cause to indict private respondents for violation
distinction, expressed in the Constitution itself, is that while the Constitution provides under Section 3(e)(g) of R.A. No. 3019.
11 | E l i x i r C . L a n g a n l a n g a n
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – OMBUDSMAN
ISSUE: Whether or not the Ombudsman can acted with grave abuse of discretion The Ombudsman ruled that the requisites for the preventive suspension of a public
officer are present, and that their continued stay in office may prejudice the
RULING: NO. The counting of the prescriptive period commenced from the date of investigation relative to the OMB Cases filed against them.
discovery of the offense in 1992. Thus, the criminal offenses allegedly committed by
the private respondents had not yet prescribed when the complaint was filed. The Binay, Jr. filed a petition for certiorari before the CA seeking the nullification of the
constitutional proscription of ex post facto laws is aimed against the retrospectivity preventive suspension order, and praying for the issuance of a TRO and/or WPI to
of penal laws. Administrative Order No. 13 merely creates the Presidential Ad Hoc enjoin its implementation.
Fact- Finding Committee on Behest Loans and provides for its composition and
functions. Memorandum Order No. 61, on the other hand, simply provides the frame
Primarily, Binay, Jr. argued that he could not be held administratively liable for any
of reference in determining the existence of behest loans. Not being penal laws,
anomalous activity attending any of the five phases of the Makati Parking Building
Administrative Order No. 13 and Memorandum Order No. 61 cannot be characterized
project since: (a) Phases I and II were undertaken before he was elected Mayor of
as ex-post facto laws.
Makati in 2010; and (b) Phases III to V transpired during his first term and that his
re-election as City Mayor of Makati for a second term effectively condoned his
Furthermore, the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction in delving into the constitutionality administrative liability therefor, if any, thus rendering the administrative cases
of the subject administrative and memorandum orders. However, there was no against him moot and academic.
probable cause to base the action. Mistakes committed by a public officer are not
actionable, absent a clear showing that he was motivated by malice or gross
negligence amounting to bad faith. Petitioners utterly failed to show that private Prior to the hearing of the oral arguments before the CA, the Ombudsman filed the
respondents’ actions fit such description. In sum, petitioner does not persuade us that present petition before this Court, assailing the CA’s Resolution, which granted Binay,
the contract between ICPI and DBP was a behest loan. Jr.’s prayer for TRO.

The Ombudsman can hardly be faulted for not wanting to proceed with the The Ombudsman claims that the CA had no jurisdiction to grant Binay, Jr.’s prayer for
prosecution of the offense, convinced that he does not possess the necessary evidence a TRO.
to secure a conviction. The petition is DENIED. The assailed Memorandum and Order
of the Ombudsman in OMB-0-95-0443, are AFFIRMED. ISSUE: Whether or not the doctrine of condonation should apply in Binay’s case.

RULING: The petition is partly meritorious. This Court simply finds no legal authority
to sustain the condonation doctrine in this jurisdiction. It was a doctrine adopted from
OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND JEJOMAR one class of US rulings way back in 1959 and thus, out of touch from – and now
BINAY JR. rendered obsolete by – the current legal regime. In consequence, it is high time for
this Court to abandon the condonation doctrine that originated from Pascual, and
GR No. 217126-27; November 10, 2015
affirmed in the cases following the same, such as Aguinaldo, Salalima, Mayor Garcia,
Doctrine of Condonation Abandoned and Governor Garcia, Jr. which were all relied upon by the CA.

FACTS: A complaint/affidavit was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman against It should, however, be clarified that this Court’s abandonment of the condonation
Binay, Jr. and other public officers and employees of the City Government of Makati doctrine should be prospective in application for the reason that judicial decisions
(Binay, Jr., et al), accusing them of Plunder and violation of RA 3019, otherwise known applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution, until reversed, shall form part
as “The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,” in connection with the five phases of of the legal system of the Philippines.
the procurement and construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building.
The condonation doctrine was first enunciated in Pascual v. Hon. Provincial Board of
Before Binay, Jr., et al.’s filing of their counter-affidavits, the Ombudsman issued the Nueva Ecija, There is no truth in Pascual’s postulation that the courts would be
order placing Binay, Jr., et al. under preventive suspension for not more than six depriving the electorate of their right to elect their officers if condonation were not to
months without pay, during the pendency of the OMB Cases.

12 | E l i x i r C . L a n g a n l a n g a n
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS – OMBUDSMAN
be sanctioned. In political law, election pertains to the process by which a particular The Court rules that when Congress passed the first paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770
constituency chooses an individual to hold a public office. and, in so doing, took away from the courts their power to issue a TRO and/or WPI to
enjoin an investigation conducted by the Ombudsman, it encroached upon this
In this jurisdiction, there is, again, no legal basis to conclude that election Court’s constitutional rule-making authority. Through this provision, Congress
automatically implies condonation. Neither is there any legal basis to say that every interfered with a provisional remedy that was created by this Court under its duly
democratic and republican state has an inherent regime of condonation. If promulgated rules of procedure, which utility is both integral and inherent to every
condonation of an elective official’s administrative liability would perhaps, be court’s exercise of judicial power. Without the Court’s consent to the proscription, as
allowed in this jurisdiction, then the same should have been provided by law under may be manifested by an adoption of the same as part of the rules of procedure
our governing legal mechanisms. May it be at the time of Pascual or at present, by no through an administrative circular issued therefor, there thus, stands to be a violation
means has it been shown that such a law, whether in a constitutional or statutory of the separation of powers principle.
provision, exists.
In addition, it should be pointed out that the breach of Congress in prohibiting
Therefore, inferring from this manifest absence, it cannot be said that the electorate’s provisional injunctions, such as in the first paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770, does not
will has been abdicated. only undermine the constitutional allocation of powers; it also practically dilutes a
court’s ability to carry out its functions. This is so since a particular case can easily be
mooted by supervening events if no provisional injunctive relief is extended while the
FACTS: The Ombudsman’s argument against the CA’s lack of subject matter
court is hearing the same.
jurisdiction over the main petition, and her corollary prayer for its dismissal, is based
on her interpretation of Section 14, RA 6770, or the Ombudsman Act, which reads in
full: Since the second paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 limits the remedy against
“decision or findings” of the Ombudsman to a Rule 45 appeal and thus – similar to the
fourth paragraph of Section 27, RA 6770- attempts to effectively increase the
Section 14. Restrictions. – No writ of injunction shall be issued by any court to
Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction without its advice and concurrence, it is
delay an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman under this Act, unless
therefore concluded that the former provision is also unconstitutional and perforce,
there is a prima facie evidence that the subject matter of the investigation is
invalid. Contrary to the Ombudsman’s posturing, Fabian should squarely apply since
outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman.
the above-stated Ombudsman Act provisions are in part materia in that they “cover
the same specific or particular subject matter,” that is, the manner of judicial review
No court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against the decision or over issuances of the Ombudsman.
findings of the Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court, on pure question of law.
Note that since the second paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 is clearly determinative
The Ombudsman’s maintains that the first paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 textually of the existence of the CA’s subject matter jurisdiction over the main CA-G.R. SP No.
prohibits courts from extending provisional injunctive relief to delay any 139453 petition, including all subsequent proceedings relative thereto, as the
investigation conducted by her office. Despite the usage of the general phrase “[n]o Ombudsman herself has developed, the Court deems it proper to resolve this issue ex
writ of injunction shall be issued by any court,” the Ombudsman herself concedes that mero motu (on its own motion):
the prohibition does not cover the Supreme Court.
Constitutional questions, not raised in the regular and orderly procedure in the trial
ISSUE: Are the first and second paragraphs of Sec. 14 of R.A. No. 6770, valid and are ordinarily rejected unless the jurisdiction of the court below or that of the
constitutional? appellate court is involved in which case it may be raised at any time or on the court’s
own motion. The Court ex mero motu may take cognizance of lack of jurisdiction at
RULING: The first paragraph is declared INEFFECTIVE until the Court adopts the any point in the case where that fact is developed. The court has a clearly recognized
same as part of the rules of procedure through an administrative circular duly issued; right to determine its own jurisdiction in any proceeding.
The second paragraph is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND INVALID.

13 | E l i x i r C . L a n g a n l a n g a n
Law on Public Officers, Election, & Administrative – Atty. Robert Raypon
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020