CONCERNED OFFICALS OF MWSS v VASQUEZ, PLDPPMA 240 SCRA 502 VITUG; January 25, 1995 NATURE Petition for

certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction FACTS - MWSS conducted bidding for two projects concerning its water distribution system in Metro Manila. The Philippine Large Diameter Pressure Pipes Manufacturers Association (PLDPPMA) then questioned the award of the projects with the Office of the Ombudsman (Vasquez), charging an apparent plan on the part of the MWSS to favor certain suppliers (those offering fiberglass pipes over those offering steel pipes) through the technical specifications, and urging the Ombudsman to conduct an investigation thereon and hold in abeyance the award of the contracts. The Ombudsman then issued the assailed order, directing the MWSS to: set aside the recommendation of an MWSS committee to award the contact to a contractor offering fiberglass pipes, and award the subject contract to a complying and responsive bidder - the officials of MWSS filed the instant petition with the SC, contending that the ombudsman acted beyond the competence of his office when he assumed jurisdiction over the complaint, when the same is clearly among the excepted cases enumerated in the Ombudsman Act. Also, that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion by arbitrarily and capriciously interfering with the exercise of sound discretion of the MWSS ISSUE 1. WON the Ombudsman had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint filed by the PLDPPMA and correspondingly issue the challenged orders HELD 1. NO Ratio The Reasoning On the basis of all the provisions regarding the Office of the Ombudsman, SolicitorGeneral insists that the authority of the Ombudsman is sufficiently broad enough to cloth it with sufficient power to look into the alleged irregularities in the bidding conducted by the MWSS - The reason for the creation of the Ombudsman in the 1987 Consti and for the grant to it of broad investigative authority, is to insulate said office from the long tentacles of officialdom that are able to penetrate judges' and fiscals' offices, and others involved in the prosecution of erring public officials, and through the exertion of official pressure and influence, quash, delay, or dismiss investigations into malfeasances and misfeasances committed by public officers. It was deemed necessary, therefore, to create a special office to investigate all criminal complaints against public officers regardless of whether or not the acts or omissions complained of are related to or arise from the performance of the duties of their office. The Ombudsman Act makes perfectly clear that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses 'all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance that have been committed by any officer or employee as mentioned in Section 13 hereof, during his tenure of office. - the powers, functions and duties of the Ombudsman have generally been categorized into: Investigatory Power; Prosecutory Power; Public Assistance Functions; Authority to Inquire and Obtain Information; and Function to Adopt, Institute and Implement. This case concerns the investigatory power and Public Assistance Duties of the Ombudsman

- the Ombudsman, in resolving the complaint, considered 3 issues: (1) WON the technical specifications prescribed by MWSS in the projects have been so designed as to really favor Fiberglass Pipes-Contractors/ Bidders; (2) WON the MWSS has the technical knowledge and expertise with fiberglass pipes; and (3) WON the contractors and local manufacturers of fiberglass pipes have the experience and qualification to undertake the projects. While the broad authority of the Ombudsman to investigate any act or omission which "xxx appears illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient" may be yielded, it is difficult to equally concede, however, that the Constitution and the Law have intended to likewise confer upon it veto or revisory power over an exercise of judgment or discretion by an agency or officer upon whom that judgment or discretion is lawfully vested. It seems that the Ombudsman, in issuing the challenged orders, has not only directly assumed jurisdiction over, but likewise preempted the exercise of discretion by, the Board of Trustees of MWSS. Indeed, the recommendation of the MWSS Committee to award the contract appears to be yet pending consideration and action by the MWSS Board of Trustees. We can only view the assailed order to be more of an undue interference in the adjudicative responsibility of the MWSS Board of Trustees rather than a mere directive requiring the proper observance of and compliance with the law. Disposition Petition is granted. Order annulled and set aside. LASTIMOSA v VASQUEZ 243 SCRA 497 MENDOZA; April 6, 1995 NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioner to set aside the orders of the Ombudsman with respect to the two proceedings: complaint for grave misconduct, insubordination, gross neglect of duty and maliciously refraining from prosecuting crime and a charge for indirect contempt. FACTS - February 18, 1993 > Dayon, public health nurse at Cebu, filed with the Office of the OmbudsmanVisayas a criminal complaint for frustrated rape and an administrative complaint for immoral acts, abuse of authority and grave misconduct against the Municipal Mayor of Santa Fe, Rogelio Ilustrisimo. After an investigation, the investigating officer found no prima facie evidence and recommended its dismissal. But the Ombudsman, Vasquez, disapproved the recommendation and directed that Mayor Ilustrisimo be charged with attempted rape. Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas Mojica referred the case to Cebu Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar for the "filing of appropriate information with the Regional Trial Court of Danao City. The case eventually went to First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Gloria G. Lastimosa. - Lastimosa conducted a PI and found that only acts of lasciviousness had been committed. With the approval of Kintanar, she filed an information for acts of lasciviousness. As no case for attempted rape had been filed by the Prosecutor's Office, Mojica ordered Kintanar and Lastimosa to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt for "refusing and failing to obey the lawful directives" of the Office of the Ombudsman. - Mojica issued an order placing Lastimosa and Kintanar under preventive suspension for a period of six (6) months as approved by Ombudsman Vasquez - September 6, 1994 > Lastimosa filed the petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the orders directing them to file of the action (for Attempted Rape) against the Mayor; instructing Lastimosa and Kintanar to explain in writing why they should not be punished for indirect

Contempt of the Office of the Ombudsman "for refusing and failing to file the appropriate Information for Attempted Rape against the Mayor; stating that the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor to comply with the directive of the Office of the Ombudsman that a charge for attempted rape be filed against the Mayor in recognition of the authority of said Office; approving of the placement of Lastimosa and Kintanar under preventive suspension for a period of six (6) months, without pay; directing Assistant Regional State Prosecutor to implement preventive suspension; and designating Assistant Regional State Prosecutor Concepcion as Acting Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu - Petitioner claims: Office of the Ombudsman and the prosecutor's office have concurrent authority to investigate public officers or employees and that when the former first took cognizance of the case against Mayor Ilustrisimo, it did so to the exclusion of the latter. In any event, the Office of the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the case against the mayor because the crime involved (rape) was not committed in relation to a public office. Therefore the Office of the Ombudsman has no authority to place her and Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar under preventive suspension for refusing to follow his orders and to cite them for indirect contempt for such refusal. ISSUES 1. WON the Office of the Ombudsman has the power to call on the Provincial Prosecutor to assist it in the prosecution of the case for attempted rape against Mayor Ilustrisimo 2. WON Office of the Ombudsman has the power to punish for contempt and impose preventive suspension HELD 1. YES Ratio When a prosecutor is deputized, he comes under the "supervision and control" of the Ombudsman which means that he is subject to the power of the Ombudsman to direct, review, approve, reverse or modify his (prosecutor's) decision. Petitioner cannot legally act on her own and refuse to prepare and file the information as directed by the Ombudsman. Reasoning - Ombudsman is authorized to call on prosecutors for assistance. Sec 31 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (RA6770) provides: Designation of Investigators and Prosecutors. The Ombudsman may utilize the personnel of his office and/or designate of deputize any fiscal, state prosecutor or lawyer in the government service to act as special investigator or prosecutor to assist in the investigation and prosecution of certain cases. Those designated or deputized to assist him as herein provided shall be under his supervision and control. Obiter - The office of the Ombudsman has the power to "investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient." This power has been held to include the investigation and prosecution of any crime committed by a public official regardless of whether the acts or omissions complained of are related to, or connected with, or arise from, the performance of his official duty. It is enough that the act or omission was committed by a public official. Hence, the crime of rape, when committed by a public official like a municipal mayor, is within the power of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute. 2. YES - Sec 15(g) of the Ombudsman Act gives the Office of the Ombudsman the power to "punish for contempt, in accordance with the Rules of Court and under the same procedure and with the same penalties provided therein." - Suspension is not a punishment or penalty for the acts of dishonesty and misconduct in office, but only as a preventive measure. Suspension is a preliminary step in an administrative investigation. If

after such investigation, the charges are established and the person investigated is found guilty of acts warranting his removal, then he is removed or dismissed. This is the penalty. There is, therefore, nothing improper in suspending an officer pending his investigation and before the opportunity to prove his innocence. Disposition Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the Motion to Lift Order of Preventive Suspension is DENIED BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE v OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN 380 SCRA 424 de Leon, Jr., J; April 11, 2002 NATURE Special civil Action . Certiorari and Prohibition FACTS - The Office of the Ombudsman received information from an informant for reward regarding the anomalous grant of tax refunds to Distillera Limtuaco and La Tondena Distilleries. On the basis of this information, the Ombudsman directed via a subpoena duces tecum, Atty. Mansequiao of the legal department of the BIR to appear before him together with the complete case dockets of the two companies. - BIR resisted this summons on the grounds that the grant of the tax refund had already been decided by the Sandiganbayan in People vs Larin, that the BIR had exclusive authority to grant a tax credit, that the proper authority to review is with the Court of Tax Appeal, that there must be a pending action before the issuance of a subpoena can be made, and that the subpoena did not specifically described the documents sought to be produced. - The Ombudsman denied the motion of the BIR and reiterated it instructions to the BIR to produce the documents sought. - The BIR filed this Petition for certiorari, prohibition, and preliminary injunction, and temporary restraining order with the SC ISSUE/S 1. WON the Ombudsman could validly exercise its power to investigate only when there exist an appropriate case 2. WON it violated due process in issuing subpoena without first giving BIR the summary of complaint and requiring it to submit a written reply HELD 1. No. The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. The 1987 Constitution provides that the Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and the result thereof. The Ombudsman Act makes it perfectly clear that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance that have been committed by any officer or employeeduring his tenure. 2. Yes. The SC held that the procedure of immediately issuing the subpeona duces tecum was violative of the right to due process and did no comply with Section 26, paragraph 2 of the Ombudsman Act (RA 6770). The law clearly provides that if there is reasonable ground to investigate further, the investigator shall first furnish the respondent public official or employee

with a summary of the complaint and require him to submit a written answer within 72 hours from receipt of said complaint. As noted, the BIR was never given a copy of the complaint but was summarily ordered to appear before the Ombudsman and to produce the case dockets of the tax refunds granted to the two companies. Clearly, the Ombudsman failed to afford BIR with the basic due process in conducting the investigation. Disposition Petition is granted. Ombudsman is prohibited from proceeding with the case and its orders are annulled and set aside. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v ENOC G.R. Nos. 145957-68 MENDOZA; January 25, 2002 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari FACTS - Respondents were employed at the Office of the Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC), Davao del Sur with salaries below grade 27. - They were charged with 11 counts of malversation through falsification, based on alleged purchases of medicine and food assistance for cultural community members, and one count of violation of R.A. No. 3019, 3(e), in connection with the purchases of supplies for the OSCC without bidding/canvass. - Respondents moved to quash the informations saying that the Ombudsman has no authority to prosecute graft cases falling within the jurisdiction of regular courts. This motion was granted by the RTC and the cases were dismissed without prejudice, however, to their refiling by the appropriate officer. - The Office of the Ombudsman filed the instant petition. ISSUE WON the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute cases before the regular courts. HELD - YES. Ombudsman has powers to prosecute not only graft cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but also those cognizable by the regular courts. The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. It pertains to any act or omission of any public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. The law does not make a distinction between cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and those cognizable by regular courts. It has been held that the clause any illegal act or omission of any public official is broad enough to embrace any crime committed by a public officer or employee. - The jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman should not be equated with the limited authority of the Special Prosecutor under Section 11 of RA 6770. The Office of the Special Prosecutor is merely a component of the Office of the Ombudsman and may only act under the supervision and control and upon authority of the Ombudsman. Its power to conduct preliminary investigation and to prosecute is limited to criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. - The Ombudsman is mandated by law to act on all complaints against officers and employees of the government and to enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability in every case where the

evidence warrants. To carry out this duty, the law allows him to utilize the personnel of his office and/or designate any fiscal, state prosecutor or lawyer in the government service to act as special investigator or prosecutor to assist in the investigation and prosecution of certain cases. Those designated or deputized to assist him work under his supervision and control. The law likewise allows him to direct the Special prosecutor to prosecute cases outside the Sandiganbayans jurisdiction in accordance with Section 11(4c) of RA 6770. Disposition WHEREFORE, the order, dated October 7, 2000, of the Regional Trial Court, branch 19 of Digos, Davao del Sur is SET ASIDE and Criminal Case Nos. 374(97) to 385(97) are hereby REINSTATED and the Regional Trial Court is ORDERED to try and decide the same. FUENTES v OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN GR NO. 124295 PARDO; October 23, 2001 NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS - Pursuant to the government's plan to construct its first fly-over in Davao City, the RP represented by the DPWH filed an expropriation case against the owners of the properties affected by the project (namely, Tessie Amadeo, Reynaldo Lao and Rev. Alfonso Galo). The case was presided by Judge Renato A. Fuentes. - The govt won the expropriation case. - The properties subject of the levy as described as all scrap iron/junks found in the premises of the DPWH. An auction was conducted wherein Alex Bacquial emerged as the highest bidder. However, Bacquial together with Sheriff Norberto Paralisan attempted to withdraw the auctioned properties but they were prevented from doing so because many of these were still serviceable and were due for repair and rehabilitation. (as opposed to their classification as scrap iron/junk) - So Alex Baquial filed an ex-parte urgent motion for the issuance of a 'break through' order to enable him to effect the withdrawal of the auctioned properties. The motion was granted by Judge Fuentes that same day. Thus, Bacquial succeeded in hauling off the scrap iron/junk equipment in the depot, including the repairable equipment within the DPWH depot. He hauled equipment from the depot for five successive days until the lower court issued another order temporarily suspending the writ of execution it earlier issued in the expropriation case and directing Bacquial not to implement the writ. The lower court issued another order upholding the validity of the writ of execution - On the basis of letters from Congressman Manuel M. Garcia of the Second District of Davao City and Engineer Ramon A. Alejo, the Court Administrator, the SC directed Judge Renato A. Fuentes and Sheriff Norberto Paralisan to comment on the report recommending the filing of an administrative case against the sheriff and other persons responsible for the anomalous implementation of the writ of execution. Also, the DPWH filed an administrative complaint against Sheriff Norberto Paralisan for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, in violation of Article IX, Section 36 (b) of P. D. No. 807. - After considering the facts, the SC ordered the sheriffs dismissal. From this order, the office of the Court Administrator was also directed to conduct an investigation on Judge Renato Fuentes and to charge him if the result of the investigation so warrants. The Office of the Solicitor General is likewise ordered to take appropriate action to recover the value of the serviceable or repairable equipment which were unlawfully hauled by Alex Bacquial.

- Thus, Director Antonio E. Valenzuela of the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao recommended that petitioner Judge Renato A. Fuentes be charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3 (e) and likewise be administratively charged before the Supreme Court with acts unbecoming of a judge. Fuentes. filed with the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao a motion to dismiss complaint and/or manifestation to forward all records to the Supreme Court. The motion was dismissed hence this petition. ISSUE 1. WON the Ombudsman may conduct an investigation of acts of a judge in the exercise of his official functions alleged to be in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, in the absence of an administrative charge for the same acts before the Supreme Court. HELD NO. The Ombudsman may not initiate or investigate a criminal or administrative complaint before his office against petitioner judge, pursuant to his power to investigate public officers. The Ombudsman must indorse the case to the Supreme Court, for appropriate action. Article VIII, Section 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals to the lowest municipal trial court clerk. Hence, it is the Supreme Court that is tasked to oversee the judges and court personnel and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation of the laws of the land. No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the independence of the judiciary and the doctrine of separation of powers. No other entity or official of the Government, not the prosecution or investigation service of any other branch, not any functionary thereof, has competence to review a judicial order or decision--whether final and executory or not--and pronounce it erroneous so as to lay the basis for a criminal or administrative complaint for rendering an unjust judgment or order. That prerogative belongs to the courts alone. Dispositive WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Ombudsman is directed to dismiss the case and refer the complaint against petitioner Judge Renato A. Fuentes to the Supreme Court for appropriate action. LEDESMA v CA (DESIERTO) G.R. No. 161629 YNARES-SANTIAGO; July 29, 2005 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari to reverese and set aside CA decision FACTS - Atty Ronaldo Ledesma is the chaiman of the 1st division of the Board of Special Inquiry (BSI) of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID). Agusto Somalio with the Fact Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FIIB) of the Office of the Ombudsman filed a complaint requesting for an investigation on alleged anomalies surrounding the extension of the Temporary Resident Visas (TRVs) of 2 foreigners. The FIIB investigation revealed 7 other cases of TRV extensions with similar irregularities. - The FIIB, as nominal complainant filed with Adjudication Bureau (AAB) of the Office of the Ombudsman a formal complaint against the petitioner. Atty. Artherl Caronongan (board member)

and Ma. Elena Ang (exec asst) were also charged administratively. The case against the petitioner was treated as both criminal and administative for 9 countsof violationof the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for falsification of public documents and 9 counts of Dishonesty, grave Misconduct, Falsification of Public Documents and Gross Neglect of Duty. - The complaint alleged the ff illegal acts: (a) irregularily in granting TRVs beyond the prescbed period and (b) using photocopied applications for a TRV extension wthout the applicants fixing their signatures to validate the correctness of the information. Ladesma and Coarongan allegedly signed the Memorandum of Transmittal to the Board of Commission (BOC) of the BID, forwarding the applications for TRV extension of several aliens whose papers were questionable. - Graft Investigation Officer Marlyn Reyes resolved the administrative cases in a resolution recommending that Ledesma be suspended from the service for 1 year for Conduct Prejudicial to the Interest of the Service, that Caronongan be dismissed for being moot and academic and the case against Ang be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. - Asst Ombudsman Abelardo Aportadera reviewed the joint resolution which was approved by Ombudsman Desierto. - Pending the approval by Desierto, he approved the resolution of Graft Investigation Officer Marilou Ancheta-Mejica dismissing criminal charges for insufficiency of evidence. - Petitioner filed an MFR in the administrative case alleging that the BOC which reviewed the applications for extension approved theTRVs in question thereby effectively declared the applicationd regular and in order and waived any infurmity thereon. - Graft Officer Reyes recommended the denial of the MFR which was approved by Desierto but reduced the suspension from 1yr to 9mos without pay. - Petitionerfiled a petition for review with the CA with a preliminary prohobitory mandatory injunction and/or temporary restraining order to enjoin public respondents from the implementation of the order of suspension. CA issued the TRO. - CA affirmed the suspension but reduced it to 6mos and 1day without pay. MFR was denied. ISSUE/S 1. WON CA manifestly overlooked relevant facts which would have justified a conclusion in favor of the petitioner 2. WON CA erred in finding that the ombudsman is not merely advisory on the Bureau of Immigration 3. WON CA failed to consider that the Ombudsmand's resolution finding Ledesma administratively liable constitutes an indirect encroachment intot he power of the Bureau of Immigration over immigration matters HELD 1. NO Reasoning Petitioner undermines his position in the BID and his role in the processing of the subject applications. The BSI reviews the applications and when it finds them in order, executes a Memorandum of Tranmittal to the BOC certifying to the regularity of the application. All heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinated. He cannot feign good faith when the irregularities of the TRV extention application were patently clear on its face. The contention that the BOC's approval of the defective application for TRV extension cured any infirmaties absolved petitioner's administrative lapse. The main thrust of the case is to determine whether petitioner committedany misconduct, nonfeasance, misfeasance or mal feasance in the performance of his duties. 2and3. NO Ratio The creation of the Office of the Ombudsman is a unique feature of the 1987 Constitution. The Ombudsman and his deputies are mandated to act promptly on complaints filed in any form or

manner against officers or employeed of the Government. Foremost among its powers is the authority to investigate and prosecute public officers and employees. Reasoning Ledesma argues that to uphold CA's ruling expands authority granted by the constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman. The authority of the Ombudsman to conduct administrative investigations as in the present case is settled. Section 19 of RA 6770 providesa that the Ombudsman shall act on all complaints relating, but not limited to acts or omissions which: (a) Are contrary to law or regulation; (b) Are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or discriminatory; (c) Are inconsistent with the general course of an agencys functions, though in accordance with law; (d) Proceed from a mistake of law or an arbitrary ascertainment of facts; (e) Are in the exercise of discretionary powers but for an improper purpose; or (f) Are otherwise irregular, immoral or devoid of justification. Under Section 13, subparagraph (3), of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman can only recommend the removal of the public official or employee found to be at fault, to the public official concerned. The Solicitor General and the Office of the Ombudsman argue that the word recommend must be taken in conjunction with the phrase and ensure compliance therewith and not its literal meaning. The Constitutional Commission left to Congress to empower the Ombudsman with prosecutorial functions which it did when RA 6770 was enacted. Disposition WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED.

ESTARIJA v RANADA 492 SCRA 652 QUISUMBING; Jun 26, 2006 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari FACTS Captain Edgardo V. Estarija, Harbor Master of the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), was found guilty by the Ombudsman of dishonesty and grave misconduct for having been demanding monies for the approval and issuance of berthing permits and monthly contribution from the Davao Pilots Association, Inc. (DPAI). He was dismissed from the service. ISSUES 1. WON there is substantial evidence to hold petitioner liable for dishonesty and grave misconduct 2. WON the power of the Ombudsman to directly remove, suspend, demote, fine or censure erring officials is unconstitutional since the under the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsmans administrative authority is merely recommendatory HELD 1. YES. Reasoning: a. Estarija was caught red-handed in an entrapment operation. When Estarija went to the office of Adrian Cagata to pick up the money, his doing so was indicative of his willingness to commit the crime. b. In an administrative proceeding, the quantum of proof required for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence, that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

2. NO. Rep. Act No. 6770 provides for the functional and structural organization of the Office of the Ombudsman. In passing Rep. Act No. 6770, Congress deliberately 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 ensuring accountability in public office. Moreover, the legislature has vested the Ombudsman with broad powers to enable him to implement his own actions. Reasoning a. Jurisprudence - In Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, we held that Rep. Act No. 6770 is consistent with the intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution. They gave Congress the discretion to give the Ombudsman powers that are not merely persuasive in character. Thus, in addition to the power of the Ombudsman to prosecute and conduct investigations, the lawmakers intended to provide the Ombudsman with the power to punish for contempt and preventively suspend any officer under his authority pending an investigation when the case so warrants. He was likewise given disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies except members of Congress and the Judiciary. b. intent of the framers of the Constitution - Based on the record of the Constitutional Commission, they clarified that the powers of the Ombudsman are not exclusive. They are not foreclosing the possibility that in the future, the Assembly may have to give additional powers to the Ombudsman. 3. The Constitution does not restrict the powers of the Ombudsman in Section 13, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, but allows the Legislature to enact a law that would spell out the powers of the Ombudsman. Through the enactment of Rep. Act No. 6770, specifically Section 15, par. 3, the lawmakers gave the Ombudsman such powers to sanction erring officials and employees, except members of Congress, and the Judiciary. DISPOSITION The petition is DENIED. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS MASING Puno January 22, 2008 The principal and office clert of Davao City Integrated Special School were administratively charged before the OMB for Mindanao for allegedly collecting unauthorized fees, failing to remit authorized fees and to account for public funds. Issue: WON the OMB may directly discipline public school teachers and employees. Held: Yes. The authority of the OMB to act on complaints filed against public officers and employees is explicit in Article XI, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, Article XI, section 13, which delineates the powers, functions and duties of the OMB and such enumeration is non-exclusive. Then RA 6770 gave OMB such other powers that it may need to efficiently perform the task given by the Consti. In fine, the manifest intent of the lawmakers was to bestow on the Office of the OMB full administrative disciplinary authority in accord with the constitutional deliberations. In 1973, it was limited only in cases of failure of justice. In 1987, it was intended to play a more active role in the

enforcement of laws on anti-graft and corrupt practices and other offenses committed by public officers and employees. Not just a passive one but an activist watchman. In Office of the OMB vs Laja, it was emphasized that the OMBs order to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure, or prosecute an officer or employee is not merely advisory or recommendatory but is actually mandatory. Implementation of the order imposing the penalty is, however to coursed through the proper officer. The authority of the OMB to conduct administrative investigations is beyond cavil. As the principal and primary complaints and action center against erring public officers and employees, it is mandated by no less than Section 13(1), Article XI of the Constitution. In conjunction therewith, Section 19 of RA 6770 grants to the OMB the authority to act on all administrative complaints. Fabella case, the procedure set there was for administrative investigations conducted by DECS. This is not also applicable because they were filed with violations of civil service laws by the DECS secretary unlike in the present case where they were charged with violations of RA 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees