G.R. No.

160675 June 16, 2006

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEAS !S"#$een$% D"&"'"on( )n* NICOMEDES ARMIA, DEIA
BATASIN+IN, JAMES FUENTES, OSCAR GADOR, SANTOS GUIGA,OMA, JR.,
CARITO MI-O.A, ERNESTO NARAJA, NESON OBESO,
*
SENEN SERI-O, )n*
MARTIN ,ASE, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CAEJO, SR., J.:
The Office of the Ombudsman fied the instant petition for revie! on certiorari assaiin" the
Decision
#
dated October $%, &%%$ of the Court of 'ppeas (C') in C'*+.R. SP No. ,-$#$,
!hich had decared that the Office of the Ombudsman has no po!er to impose the penat.
of suspension. 'ccordin" to the appeate court, its po!er is imited on. to the
recommendation of the penat. of remova, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or
prosecution of a pubic officer or empo.ee found to be at faut.
/actua and Procedura 'ntecedents
0oan and Thomas Corominas, and 1aria Constancia Corominas*2im fied !ith the Office of
the Ombudsman (3isa.as) a crimina compaint for vioation of 'rtice &4# (Other /orms of
Trespass) of the Revised Pena Code a"ainst herein Edmondo 'rre"adas, Nicomedes
'rmia, Deia 5atasin*in, 0ames /uentes, Oscar +ador, Santos +ui"a.oma, 0r., Carito
1i6o7a, Neson Obeso, Senen Seri6o, Ernesto Nara8a, and 1artin 9ase, a empo.ees of
the Department of Environment and Natura Resources (DENR), Re"iona Office No. 3II,
5aniad, 1andaue Cit.. The case !as doc:eted as O15*3IS*CRI1*--*#&&;. The same
crimina compaint !as aso treated b. the Office of the Ombudsman as an administrative
compaint for abuse of authorit. and misconduct. The administrative case !as doc:eted as
O15*3IS*'D1*--*#%<<.
It !as ae"ed that the above*named DENR empo.ees conspired to enter the parce of and
o!ned b. the Corominas fami. !ithout see:in" permission from the atter or their
representative and despite the bi" =NO TRESP'SSIN+= si"n attached to the perimeter
fences encosin" the said propert..
E>cept for 'rre"adas, !ho e>ecuted his o!n affidavit, 'rmia, et a. e>ecuted a 8oint
counter*affidavit decr.in" the char"e a"ainst them as maicious, unfounded and untrue. 5.
!a. of refutation, the. ae"ed that the. entered the Corominas andhodin" pursuant to the
Order dated September #<, #--- of the Re"iona Tria Court (RTC) of Cebu Cit., 5ranch -
thereof, in connection !ith Civi Case No. CE5*#;,$- (entited Repubic of the Phiippines v.
2arra7aba, et a.), invovin" a compaint for annument and canceation of tite.
The said Order stated?
@AERE/ORE, the Court hereb. +rants the 1otion. The Court hereb. orders the reocation
surve. of the Buestioned ots and the Sudon Nationa Par: based on the technica
description of the officia "overnment cadastra surve. du. approved b. the Repubic of the
Phiippines, 5ureau of 2ands. E>penses for the reocation surve. sha be shoudered 8oint.
b. paintiff and paintiff*intervenors. Reasonabe notice of the dateCdates of reocation surve.
shoud be furnished the defendants throu"h their counses and to this Court.
SO ORDERED.
&
In compiance !ith the fore"oin" order, the DENR Re"iona E>ecutive Director issued
Trave Order Nos. --*#%*#-, ##*%#, and --*##*## authori7in" 'rmia, et a. to =conduct
reocation surve. of the corners of Procamation No. D,, S*$, and 2ot No. #4<D<, Cad. #&
E>t.=
$
ConseBuent., on October &D, #---, 'rmia, et a., as the desi"nated DENR Surve.
Team, to"ether !ith t!o members of the Phiippine Nationa Poice (PNP), Cebu Cit. Poice
Office, paid a courtes. ca to the baran"a. captain of Sudon II to inform him that the.
!oud conduct a reocation surve. of the Sudon Nationa Par:. Ao!ever, the baran"a.
captain !as not around so the team reBuested the baran"a. secretar. to rea. the messa"e
to him.
The foo!in" da., the DENR Surve. Team, the members of the PNP and t!o baran"a.
tanods of Sudon II, Cebu Cit., commenced the reocation surve.. The team initia.
identified the 1unicipa 5oundar. 1ovement (151) No. 4, simiar to Cit. 5oundar.
1ovement (C51) #D, Cad. #& E>tension Cebu Cadastre, as the tie point reference.
Thereafter, !ith the use of the Eectronic Distance 1easurin" (ED1) and Theodoite, it !as
abe to reocate the boundar. of the Sudon Nationa Par: in accordance !ith the RTC
Order in Civi Case No. CE5*#;,$-, and to estabish corners #;, #4, #-, and &% !ithin #D
da.s.
To estabish and monument corners &% and &#, the DENR Surve. Team as:ed permission
from a person inside 2ot No. #4<,, to be ao!ed to put a sta:e inside the said ot to serve
as a traverse station. On November #&, #---, the team !as abe to estabish and
monument corner &% inside 2ot No. #4<,,. On the other hand, it had difficut. in
estabishin" corner &# because it fe on a ver. steep sope.
The DENR Surve. Team then submitted its Report
<
dated November &D, #--- to"ether !ith
the S:etch Pan and notified the RTC in Civi Case No. CE5*#;,$- that the reocation
surve. of the ot sub8ect thereof and the Sudon Nationa Par: had been competed and
terminated.
'rmia, et a. concuded their 8oint counter*affidavit b. vehement. den.in" the char"e that
the., conspirin" !ith each other, trespassed on the Corominas propert.. The. maintained
that the. !ere mere. actin" in the performance of their officia functions and comp.in" !ith
a court order. 1oreover, the. coud not def. the said court order and the trave orders, est
the. be punished for contempt of court or sub8ected to discipinar. action. The. intimated
that the soe reason that compainants fied the char"e a"ainst them !as to prevent the
DENR from fiin" a reversion case a"ainst the o!ners of 2ot No. #4<,,, a portion of !hich
!as ascertained to be !ithin the Sudon Nationa Par:.
D
/or his part, 'rre"adas averred in his counter*affidavit that he !as not part of the DENR
Surve. Team tas:ed to reocate and monument the !estern boundar. corners of the Sudon
Nationa Par:. Ae met !ith the "roup brief. on October &D, #--- but since then, he had not
returned nor had been ph.sica. present inside the said par: or area that he had ae"ed.
trespassed on. Aence, the char"e a"ainst him !as baseess and maicious.
,
In the Resoution
;
dated 'u"ust $#, &%%#, Charina Navarro*Eui8ano, +raft Investi"ation
Officer (+IO) I of the Office of the Ombudsman, dismissed the crimina compaint in O15*
3IS*CRI1*--*#&&; for ac: of probabe cause. The said resoution !as recommended for
approva b. 3ir"inia Paanca*Santia"o, +IO III, and approved b. the Primo C. 1iro, Deput.
Ombudsman for the 3isa.as.
Ao!ever, in the administrative case (O15*3IS*'D1*--*#%<<), the Office of the
Ombudsman rendered the Decision
4
dated October &<, &%%#, findin" that, e>cept for
'rre"adas, the other named DENR empo.ees are "uit. of simpe misconduct and imposed
on them the penat. of suspension for one month. The decreta portion of the decision
reads?
@AERE/ORE, premises considered, it is hereb. deemed that respondents, name.?
Nicomedes Rivera 'rFmGiaH Deia 5atasin*inH 0ames 1a"aona /uentesH Oscar Taton"o.
+adorH Santos +ui"a.oma, 0r.H Carito Imere7 1ino7aH Ernesto Subin"subin" Nara8aH
Neson ObesoH Senen Caaurian SerenoH and, 1artin 9ococa 9ase are "uit. of Simpe
1isconduct, and are hereb. meted the penat. of suspension for one month.
The compaint a"ainst Edmondo 'rFrGe"adas is hereb. dismissed for insufficienc. of
evidence.
-
' motion for reconsideration thereof !as fied b. 'rmia, et a. but the same !as denied b.
the Office of the Ombudsman in the Order
#%
dated 0anuar. #%, &%%&.
'rmia, et a. thus fied !ith the C' a petition for certiorari ae"in" "rave abuse of discretion
on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman in findin" them "uit. of simpe misconduct and
imposin" on them the penat. of one month suspension. The. ae"ed that the. coud not be
"uit. of simpe misconduct considerin" that the. simp. compied !ith a court order and
directive of their superiors for them to conduct a reocation surve. of the Sudon Nationa
Par:. In addition, the. pointed out that the o!nership of the Corominas fami. over a parce
of and !ithin the said par: !as sti in issueH hence, no ri"ht of the said fami. had been
vioated in conductin" the court*ordered surve.. 'rmia, et a. aso assaied the denia of
their motion for reconsideration on the "round that under Repubic 'ct No. ,;;% (R'
,;;%)
##
a decision imposin" the penat. of not more than one month is fina and
unappeaabe.
In its Decision dated October $%, &%%$, the appeate court "ranted the petition of 'rmia, et
a. It affirmed the findin" of the Office of the Ombudsman that 'rmia, et a. !ere "uit. of
simpe misconduct. Ao!ever, it rued that the Office of the Ombudsman committed "rave
abuse of discretion in imposin" on them the penat. of suspension for one month. Citin" the
case of Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman,
#&
the appeate court decared that the Office
of the OmbudsmanJs po!er is imited on. to the recommendation of the penat. of remova,
suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a pubic officer or empo.ee found to
be at faut. 'ccordin"., it has no po!er to impose the penat. of suspension on 'rmia, et
a.
The dispositive portion of the assaied C' decision reads?
@AERE/ORE, the Petition for Certiorari is hereb. +R'NTED. The decision of the Office of
the Ombudsman dated October &<, &%%#, as !e as the Order dated 0anuar. #%, &%%& in
O15*3IS*'D1*--*#%<< is hereb. SET 'SIDE.
SO ORDERED.
#$
'""rieved, the Office of the Ombudsman forth!ith sou"ht recourse to this Court.
The PetitionerJs 'r"uments
In support of its petition, the Office of the Ombudsman (the petitioner) ae"es as foo!s?
@ITA DIE RESPECT, TAE COIRT O/ 'PPE'2S (SIKTEENTA DI3ISION) SERIOIS29
ERRED IN ITS DECISION D'TED OCTO5ER $%, &%%F$G IN C'*+.R. SP NO. ,-$#$ @AEN
IT '+REED IN TAE /INDIN+S O/ TAE O//ICE O/ TAE O15IDS1'N IN TAE
'D1INISTR'TI3E DISCIP2IN'R9 C'SE O15*3IS*'D1*--*#%<<, 5IT NONETAE2ESS
PROCEEDED TO RE3ERSE 'ND SET 'SIDE TAE O15IDS1'N DECISION TAEREIN
CITIN+ ON29 TAE O5ITER DICTI1 IN TAE C'SE O/ T'PI'DOR 3. O//ICE O/ TAE
O15IDS1'N, +.R. NO. #&-#&<, #D 1'RCA &%%& (SECOND DI3ISION) TO TAE
E//ECT TA'T TAE O//ICE O/ TAE O15IDS1'N A'S NO 'ITAORIT9 TO DIRECT29
DIS1ISS 'N ERRIN+ PI52IC O//ICI'2 OR E1P2O9EE /RO1 +O3ERN1ENT
SER3ICE, CONSIDERIN+ TAE /O22O@IN+?
(I) TAE P'SSIN+ ST'TE1ENT IN T'PI'DOR 3. O//ICE O/ TAE
O15IDS1'N, +.R. NO. #&-#&<, #D 1'RCA &%%& A'S RE1'INED 'N
O5ITER DICTI1 @AICA DOES NOT A'3E TAE ST'TIS O/ ' 5INDIN+
PRECEDENTH
(II) SEC. #$, 'RT. KI O/ TAE #-4; CONSTITITION 3ESTS TAE O//ICE
O/ TAE O15IDS1'N NOT ON29 @ITA TAE 'ITAORIT9 TO
=RECO11END= 'D1INISTR'TI3E S'NCTIONS ON ERRIN+ PI52IC
SER3'NTS 5IT '2SO @ITA TAE PO@ER TO ENSIRE CO1P2I'NCE
@ITA ITS =RECO11END'TION=H /IRTAER, IT IS TAE CONSTITITION'2
INTEND1ENT TO 2E'3E TO TAE 2E+IS2'TIRE TAE PRERO+'TI3E TO
/IRTAER DE/INE OR REIN/ORCE SICA 'D1INISTR'TI3E
DISCIP2IN'R9 'ITAORIT9H
(III) SECS. #$, #D(#) 'ND ($), #,, #-, &#, 'ND &D O/ REPI52IC 'CT NO.
,;;% (TAE O15IDS1'N 'CT O/ #-4-) C2OTAE TAE O//ICE O/ TAE
O15IDS1'N @ITA '22 TAE CONCO1IT'NT PRERO+'TI3ES O/ '
PO@ER TO DISCIP2INE, INC2IDIN+ TAE PO@ER TO 'SSESS
PEN'2TIES 'ND TO C'ISE TAE S'1E TO 5E 1INISTERI'229
I1P2E1ENTED 59 TAE CONCERNED '+ENC9, 'ND @AICA /I22
'D1INISTR'TI3E DISCIP2IN'R9 PO@ER A'S TI1E 'ND TI1E '+'IN
5EEN 3'2ID'TED 'ND '//IR1ED 59 TAE AONOR'52E COIRTH
(I3) TAE +ENER'2 'D1INISTR'TI3E DISCIP2IN'R9 'ITAORIT9 O/
TAE O//ICE O/ TAE O15IDS1'N, @AICA IS SI1I2'R TO ITS
P2EN'R9 'ND INEI'2I/IED CRI1IN'2 IN3ESTI+'TOR9 PO@ER,
INC2IDES TAE 2ESSER PO@ER O/ I1P2E1ENT'TION O/ DI29*
ISSIED 0ID+1ENTSH 'ND
(3) ' +ENER'2 'PP2IC'TION O/ TAE T'PI'DOR O5ITER DICTI1
2E'DS TO P'R'29LIN+ CON/ISION, 2E+'2 CA'OS 'ND
INRE'SON'52E '5SIRDITIES, 'S @E22 'S TO TAE 'CCE2ER'TION
O/ TAE CRIPP2IN+ 'ND DE5I2IT'TIN+ E//ECTS O/ INE//ICIENC9
'ND +R'/T 'ND CORRIPTION.
#<
Petitioner assais the appeate courtJs reiance on Tapiador in decarin" that the po!er of
the Office of the Ombudsman is imited on. to the recommendation of the penat. of
remova, suspension, demotion, fine, censure or prosecution of a pubic officer or empo.ee
found to be at faut. 'ccordin" to petitioner, the statement made b. the Court in Tapiador
reatin" to the Office of the OmbudsmanJs ac: of authorit. to impose a penat. is mere
obiter dictum.
Petitioner submits that apart from the po!ers and functions of the Office of the Ombudsman
enumerated in the Constitution, it e>press. authori7ed Con"ress to "rant the Office of the
Ombudsman additiona po!ers. Pursuant to this constitutiona fiat, Con"ress enacted
Repubic 'ct No. ,;;% vestin" in the Ombudsman fu administrative discipinar. po!ers.
Citin" the pertinent provisions
#D
in Repubic 'ct No. ,;;%, petitioner posits that it possesses
the foo!in" po!ers? =(#) FitG can, on its o!n, investi"ate an. apparent ie"ait., irre"uarit.,
impropriet., or inefficienc. committed b. an. pubic officer or empo.ee not e>cepted from
its discipinar. authorit.H (&) it can and must act on administrative compaints a"ainst themH
($) it can conduct administrative ad8udication proceedin"sH (<) it can determine their "uitH
(D) at its discretion, it can fi> the penat. in case of "uitH (,) it can order the head of the
office or a"enc. to !hich the "uit. pubic officer beon"s to impement the penat. imposedH
and (;) it can ensure compiance !ith the impementation of the penat. it fi>ed.=
#,
5. decarin" that the Office of the Ombudsman can on. recommend, but cannot direct.
impose, the penat. in administrative cases, the appeate court ae"ed., in effect, nuified
and invaidated the provisions of Repubic 'ct No. ,;;% reatin" to its administrative
discipinar. po!ers. Stated in another manner, the appeate court has ae"ed. deemed
that the Office of the Ombudsman cannot ma:e a determination of "uit for an administrative
offenseH it cannot assess a penat.H and it cannot cause its decisions to be impemented.
Petitioner stresses that the "rant of administrative discipinar. authorit. to the Office of the
Ombudsman is not prohibited b., or inconsistent !ith, the Constitution. It invo:es the
e"isative histor. of Repubic 'ct No. ,;;% to buttress its caim that it !as the intention of
the a!ma:ers to provide for an independent constitutiona bod. that !oud serve as =the
protector of the peope= !ith =rea po!ers.=
#;
Petitioner opines that the statutor. "rant of discipinar. po!ers to the Office of the
Ombudsman M compete in a its components incudin" the determination of "uit,
assessment of commensurate penat. and compusion on the head of a"enc. concerned to
impement the same under pain of administrative sanctions M !as encoura"ed and ushered
in b. the Constitution.
#4
/urther, its framers intended the Office of the Ombudsman to
e>ercise discipinar. authorit. as an indispensabe and ma8or rampart in its operationa
effectiveness.
In this connection, petitioner reiterates that this discipinar. authorit. necessari. incudes
the authorit. to determine the penat. in an administrative proceedin" and cause its
impementation. Specifica., Section #$
#-
of Repubic 'ct No. ,;;% states that the
Ombudsman has the authorit. to enforce administrative iabiit. !here the evidence
!arrants. Section #D
&%
provides, in the aternative, that the Ombudsman ma. proceed
administrative. a"ainst an errin" pubic officer and threatens !ith administrative sanction
the refusa of an. officer, !ithout 8ust cause, to impement the order of the Ombudsman
imposin" administrative penaties. Section &D
&#
prescribes the ran"e of penaties that the
Ombudsman ma. enforce a"ainst pubic officers it finds administrative. "uit.. /ina.,
Section &;
&&
pronounces as not susceptibe to revie! on appea administrative penaties not
hi"her than suspension for thirt. ($%) da.s or fine not e>ceedin" the saar. for the same
period.
Section #$($), 'rtice KI of the Constitution is aso cited b. petitioner. The said provision
reads that the Ombudsman has the authorit. =to direct the officer concerned to ta:e
appropriate action a"ainst a pubic officia or empo.ee at faut, and recommend his
remova, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure compiance
there!ith.= 'ccordin" to petitioner, the cause =ensure compiance there!ith= ta:en to"ether
!ith the term =recommend= connotes an eement of compusion such that the atter does not
mere. si"nif. =to advise= or =to prescribe.= Rather, the cause =ensure compiance
there!ith= prescribes that the Ombudsman procedura. pass on to the head of office
concerned the imposition of the penat. on the pubic officer at faut, and then compes said
head to enforce the same penat.. This eement of compusion, petitioner theori7es, !as
provided b. the framers of the Constitution in order to :eep the Ombudsman from becomin"
a =toothess ti"er,= a =eunuch= or a =scarecro!.=
&$
It is petitionerJs submission that a contrar. ruin", i.e., to imit its po!er on. to recommend
the penat. in administrative discipinar. cases, !oud ead to e"a and practica absurdities.
'mon" them, it !oud ae"ed. run counter to the fact that the Office of the Ombudsman is
an independent constitutiona bod.. 2i:e!ise, heads of office, e."., a municipa ma.or,
!oud have the authorit. to adopt or re8ect the OmbudsmanJs decision, as if in revie!, !hen
no such recourse is provided b. a!. The probem of ho! the various administrative
penaties that have aread. been enforced b. the Office of the Ombudsman !oud be
treated !as aso raised.
In fine, petitioner maintains that it meted a 8ust and commensurate discipinar. penat. of
one*month suspension on 'rmia, et a. upon its findin" that the. !ere "uit. of simpe
misconduct. Such findin" !as arrived at b. petitioner in the e>ercise of its administrative
discipinar. authorit. and on. after proper ad8udication proceedin"s. The appeate court, in
reversin" this 8ud"ment on the soe "round that petitioner has no authorit. to impose the
penat. but mere. to recommend it citin" the obiter dictum in Tapiador, ae"ed. committed
reversibe error. Petitioner thus ur"es this Court to reverse and set aside the assaied
appeate courtJs decision and to affirm the Office of the OmbudsmanJs authorit. to impose
the penat. in O15*3IS*'D1*--*#%<<.
The RespondentsJ Counter*'r"uments
'rmia, et a. (the respondents) maintain that the Office of the Ombudsman has no authorit.
to impose administrative sanctions on errin" pubic officias. It is their position that
subpara"raph (4) of Section #$, 'rtice KI of the Constitution !hich states that the
Ombudsman sha =perform such other functions or duties as ma. be provided b. a!= is
circumscribed b. subpara"raph ($) thereof !hich en8oins the Ombudsman to recommend
the remova, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of pubic officias found to
be at faut.
'ccordin" to respondents, subpara"raph (4) of Section #$, 'rtice KI is a catch*a phrase
intended to besto! on the Office of the Ombudsman such other po!ers necessar. to
dischar"e its function as the constitutiona !atchdo" of the "overnment. Ao!ever, the said
provision does not incude po!ers inconsistent !ith those aread. enumerated. Aence, its
recommendator. po!er to impose penaties in subpara"raph ($) of the same section
necessari. forecoses the "rant of the po!er to actua. impose the said penaties.
Refutin" petitionerJs assertion that the framers of the #-4; Constitution intended the Office
of the Ombudsman to be more than a recommendator. institution, respondents aver that
the cear intent !as to den. the Ombudsman punitive po!ers. In support of this averment,
respondents refer to the deiberations of the Constitutiona Commission !here some
members thereof said that the Ombudsman !as to have neither prosecutor. nor punitive
po!ers.
Respondents further submit that Repubic 'ct No. ,;;% !ithhed punitive po!ers from the
Office of the Ombudsman and mere. authori7ed it to recommend or su""est sanctions.
The. cite Section #D thereof particuar. subpara"raph ($) thus?
SEC. #D. Po!ers, /unctions and Duties. M The Office of the Ombudsman sha have the
foo!in" po!ers, functions and duties?
> > > >
($) Direct the officer concerned to ta:e appropriate action a"ainst a pubic officer or
empo.ee at faut or !ho ne"ects to perform an act or dischar"e a dut. reBuired b. a!,
and recommend his remova, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and
ensure compiance there!ithH or enforce its discipinar. authorit. as provided in Section &#
of this 'ctH Provided, That the refusa b. an. officer !ithout 8ust cause to comp. !ith an
order of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure, or prosecute an
officer or empo.ee !ho is at faut or !ho ne"ects to perform an act or dischar"e a dut.
reBuired b. a! sha be "round for discipinar. action a"ainst said officerH
'"ain refutin" petitionerJs ar"ument that the term =recommend= construed to"ether !ith the
cause =ensure compiance there!ith= imports an eement of compusion and !arrants direct
imposition b. the Office of the Ombudsman of the penaties, respondents contend that to
recommend necessari. e>cudes the po!er to direct. impose the penat.. Echoin" the
appeate courtJs ruin", respondents invo:e Tapiador in ar"uin" that the Office of the
Ombudsman has no authorit. to direct. impose on them the penat. of suspension for one
month, but on. to recommend the said penat.. 'ccordin"., the. pra. that the petition be
denied for utter ac: of merit.
The CourtJs Ruin"
The petition is meritorious.
In decarin" that the Office of the Ombudsman on. has the po!er to recommend, but not to
impose, the penat. of remova, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a
pubic officer or empo.ee found to be at faut, the appeate court main. reied on the
foo!in" statement made b. the Court in Tapiador, thus?
> > > 5esides, assumin" ar"uendo, that petitioner !ere administrative. iabe, the
Ombudsman has no authorit. to direct. dismiss the petitioner from the "overnment service,
more particuar. from his position in the 5ID. Inder Section #$, subpara"raph $, of 'rtice
KI of the #-4; Constitution, the Ombudsman can on. =recommend= the remova of the
pubic officia or empo.ee found to be at faut, to the pubic officia concerned.
&<
Reiance b. the appeate court on the fore"oin" statement is mispaced. 's correct.
pointed out b. petitioner, the fore"oin" statement is mere obiter dictum. In fact, in 2edesma
v. Court of 'ppeas,
&D
the Court cate"orica. pronounced that the statement in Tapiador on
the OmbudsmanJs po!er =is, at best, mere. an obiter dictum= and, as such, =cannot be
cited as a doctrina decaration of the Supreme Court?=
> > > F'G cursor. readin" of Tapiador reveas that the main point of the case !as the faiure
of the compainant therein to present substantia evidence to prove the char"es of the
administrative case. The statement that made reference to the po!er of the Ombudsman is,
at best, mere. an obiter dictum and, as it is unsupported b. sufficient e>panation, is
susceptibe to var.in" interpretations, as !hat precise. is before us in this case. Aence, it
cannot be cited as a doctrina decaration of this Court nor is it safe from 8udicia
e>amination.
&,
2i:e!ise in 2edesma, the Court re8ected the ar"ument that the po!er of the Office of the
Ombudsman is on. advisor. or recommendator. in nature. It cautioned a"ainst the itera
interpretation of Section #$($), 'rtice KI of the Constitution !hich directs the Office of the
Ombudsman to =recommend= to the officer concerned the remova, suspension demotion,
fine, censure, or prosecution of an. pubic officia or empo.ee at faut. Not!ithstandin" the
term =recommend,= accordin" to the Court, the said provision, construed to"ether !ith the
pertinent provisions in Repubic 'ct No. ,;;%, is not on. advisor. in nature but is actua.
mandator. !ithin the bounds of a!.
The Court further e>pained in 2edesma that the mandator. character of the OmbudsmanJs
order imposin" a sanction shoud not be interpreted as usurpation of the authorit. of the
head of office or an. officer concerned. This is because the po!er of the Ombudsman to
investi"ate and prosecute an. ie"a act or omission of an. pubic officia is not an e>cusive
authorit. but a shared or concurrent authorit. in respect of the offense char"ed. 5. statin"
therefore that the Ombudsman =recommends= the action to be ta:en a"ainst an errin"
officer or empo.ee, the provisions in the Constitution and in Repubic 'ct No. ,;;%
intended that the impementation of the order be coursed throu"h the proper officer.
ConseBuent. in 2edesma, the Court affirmed the appeate courtJs decision !hich had, in
turn, affirmed an order of the Office of the Ombudsman imposin" the penat. of suspension
on the errin" pubic officia.
In the present case, the Court simiar. uphods the Office of the OmbudsmanJs po!er to
impose the penat. of remova, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a
pubic officer or empo.ee found to be at faut, in the e>ercise of its administrative
discipinar. authorit.. The e>ercise of such po!er is !e founded in the Constitution and
Repubic 'ct No. ,;;%.
The mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman is e>pressed in Section #&, 'rtice KI of the
Constitution in this !ise?
Sec. #&. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the peope, sha act prompt.
on compaints fied in an. form or manner a"ainst pubic officias or empo.ees of the
+overnment, or an. subdivision, a"enc., or instrumentait. thereof, incudin" "overnment*
o!ned or controed corporations, and sha, in appropriate cases, notif. the compainants of
the action ta:en and the resut thereof.
Section #$ thereof vests in the Office of the Ombudsman the foo!in" po!ers, functions,
and duties?
(#) Investi"ate on its o!n, or on compaint b. an. person, an. act or omission of an.
pubic officia, empo.ee, office or a"enc., !hen such act or omission appears to be
ie"a, un8ust, improper, or inefficientH
(&) Direct, upon compaint or at its o!n instance, an. pubic officia or empo.ee of
the +overnment, or an. subdivision, a"enc. or instrumentait. thereof, as !e as of
an. "overnment*o!ned and controed corporation !ith ori"ina charter, to perform
and e>pedite an. act or dut. reBuired b. a!, or to stop, prevent and correct an.
abuse or impropriet. in the performance of dutiesH
($) Direct the officer concerned to ta:e appropriate action a"ainst a pubic officia or
empo.ee at faut, and recommend his remova, suspension, demotion, fine,
censure, or prosecution, and ensure compiance there!ithH
(<) Direct the officer concerned, in an. appropriate case, and sub8ect to such
imitations as ma. be provided b. a! to furnish it !ith copies of documents reatin"
to contracts or transactions entered into b. his office invovin" the disbursement or
use of pubic funds or properties, and report an. irre"uarit. to the Commission on
'udit for appropriate actionH
(D) ReBuest an. "overnment a"enc. for assistance and information necessar. in the
dischar"e of its responsibiities, and to e>amine, if necessar., pertinent records and
documentsH
(,) Pubici7e matters covered b. its investi"ation !hen circumstances so !arrant
and !ith due prudenceH
(;) Determine the causes of inefficienc., red tape, mismana"ement, fraud and
corruption in the +overnment and ma:e recommendations for their eimination and
the observance of hi"h standards of ethics and efficienc.H and
(4) Promu"ate its rues of procedure and e>ercise such other po!ers or perform
such functions or duties as ma. be provided b. a!.
In 'cop v. Office of the Ombudsman,
&;
the Court reco"ni7ed that the fore"oin" enumeration
is not e>cusive and that the framers of the Constitution had "iven Con"ress the ee!a. to
prescribe, b. subseBuent e"isation, additiona po!ers to the Ombudsman. The
observation of Commissioner Christian 1onsod, Buoted in 'cop, is apropos?
1R. 1ONSOD (reactin" to statements of Commissioner 5as Ope)?
1a. !e 8ust state that perhaps the honorabe Commissioner has oo:ed at it in too much of
an absoutist position. The Ombudsman is seen as a civi advocate or a champion of the
citi7ens a"ainst the bureaucrac., not a"ainst the President. On one hand, !e are tod he
has no teeth and he ac:s other thin"s. On the other hand, there is the interpretation that he
is a competitor to the President, as if he is bein" brou"ht up to the same eve as the
President.
@ith respect to the ar"ument that he is a toothess anima, !e !oud i:e to sa. that !e are
promotin" the concept in its form at the present, but !e are aso sa.in" that he can e>ercise
such po!ers and functions as ma. be provided b. a! in accordance !ith the direction of
the thin:in" of Commissioner Rodri"o. @e do not thin: that at this time !e shoud prescribe
this, but !e eave it up to Con"ress at some future time if it fees that it ma. need to
desi"nate !hat po!ers the Ombudsman need in order that he be more effective. This is not
forecosed.
So, this is a reversibe disabiit., uni:e that of a eunuchH it is not an irreversibe disabiit..
&4
Con"ress thus enacted Repubic 'ct No. ,;;% to provide for the functiona and structura
or"ani7ation of the Office of the Ombudsman. It substantia. reiterates the constitutiona
provisions reatin" to the Office of the Ombudsman. /urther, Section #$ thereof restates the
mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman in this !ise?
Sec. #$. 1andate. M The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the peope, sha
act prompt. on compaints fied in an. form or manner a"ainst officers or empo.ees of the
+overnment, or of an. subdivision, a"enc. or instrumentait. thereof, incudin" "overnment*
o!ned or controed corporations, and enforce their administrative, civi and crimina iabiit.
in ever. case !here the evidence !arrants in order to promote efficient service b. the
+overnment to the peope.
Section #D thereof substantia. reiterates Section #$, 'rtice KI of the Constitution. In
particuar, subpara"raph ($) of Section #D of Repubic 'ct No. ,;;% restates Section #$($),
'rtice KI of the Constitution, Buoted ane! beo!?
Sec. #D. Po!ers, /unctions and Duties. M The Office of the Ombudsman sha have the
foo!in" po!ers, functions and duties?
> > > >
($) Direct the officer concerned to ta:e appropriate action a"ainst a pubic officer or
empo.ee at faut or !ho ne"ects to perform an act or dischar"e a dut. reBuired b. a!,
and recommend his remova, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and
ensure compiance there!ithH or enforce its discipinar. authorit. as provided in Section &#
of this 'ct? Provided, That the refusa b. an. officer !ithout 8ust cause to comp. !ith an
order of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure or prosecute an officer
or empo.ee !ho is at faut or !ho ne"ects to perform an act or dischar"e a dut. reBuired
b. a! sha be a "round for discipinar. action a"ainst said officer.
The authorit. of the Ombudsman to conduct administrative investi"ations is be.ond cavi. It
is mandated b. no ess than Section #$(#), 'rtice KI of the Constitution.
&-
In con8unction
there!ith, Section #- of Repubic 'ct No. ,;;% "rants to the Ombudsman the authorit. to
act on a administrative compaints?
Sec. #-. 'dministrative Compaints. M The Ombudsman sha act on a compaints reatin",
but not imited, to acts or omissions !hich?
(#) 're contrar. to a! or re"uationH
(&) 're unreasonabe, unfair, oppressive or discriminator.H
($) 're inconsistent !ith the "enera course of an a"enc.Js functions, thou"h in
accordance !ith a!H
(<) Proceed from a mista:e of a! or an arbitrar. ascertainment of factsH
(D) 're in the e>ercise of discretionar. po!ers but for an improper purposeH or
(,) 're other!ise irre"uar, immora or devoid of 8ustification.
Other provisions in Repubic 'ct No. ,;;%, i:e!ise, pertain to the e>ercise b. the Office of
the Ombudsman of its administrative discipinar. authorit.. /or e>ampe, Section #- states
that Repubic 'ct No. ,;;% sha app. =to a :inds of mafeasance, misfeasance, and non*
feasance that have been committed b. an. officer or empo.ee > > >, durin" his tenure of
office.= Section &# defines the 8urisdiction of its discipinar. authorit. to incude =a eective
and appointive officias of the +overnment and its subdivisions, instrumentaities and
a"encies, incudin" members of the Cabinet, oca "overnment, "overnment*o!ned, or
controed corporations and their subsidiaries, e>cept over officias !ho ma. be removed
on. b. impeachment or over 1embers of Con"ress, and the 0udiciar..=
Section &&
$%
thereof vests in the Office of the Ombudsman the po!er to investi"ate an.
serious misconduct in the office ae"ed. committed b. officias removabe b.
impeachment, for the purpose of fiin" a verified compaint for impeachment, if !arranted.
Such po!er, i:e!ise, incudes the investi"ation of private persons !ho conspire !ith pubic
officers and empo.ees. Section &$
$#
reBuires that the administrative investi"ations
conducted b. the Office of the Ombudsman sha be in accordance !ith its rues of
procedure and consistent !ith due process. The Office of the Ombudsman is, ho!ever,
"iven the option to refer certain compaints to the proper discipinar. authorit. for the
institution of appropriate administrative proceedin"s a"ainst errin" pubic officers or
empo.ees.
Sti in connection !ith their administrative discipinar. authorit., the Ombudsman and his
deputies are e>press. "iven the po!er to preventive. suspend pubic officias and
empo.ees facin" administrative char"es in accordance !ith Section &< of Repubic 'ct No.
,;;%?
Sec. &<. Preventive Suspension. M The Ombudsman and his Deput. ma. preventive.
suspend an. officer or empo.ee under his authorit. pendin" an investi"ation, if in his
8ud"ment the evidence of "uit is stron", and (a) the char"e a"ainst such officer or
empo.ee invoves dishonest., oppression or "rave misconduct, or ne"ect in the
performance of dut.H (b) the char"es !oud !arrant remova from the serviceH or (c) the
respondentJs continued sta. in office ma. pre8udice the case fied a"ainst him.
The preventive suspension sha continue unti the case is terminated b. the Office of the
Ombudsman but not more than si> months, !ithout pa., e>cept !hen the dea. in the
disposition of the case b. the Office of the Ombudsman is due to the faut, ne"i"ence or
petition of the respondent, in !hich case the period of such dea. sha not be counted in
computin" the period of suspension herein provided.
Section &D thereof sets forth the penaties as foo!s?
Sec. &D. Penaties. M (#) In administrative proceedin"s under Presidentia Decree No. 4%;,
the penaties and rues provided therein sha be appied.
(&) In other administrative proceedin"s, the penat. ran"in" from suspension !ithout pa. for
one .ear to dismissa !ith forfeiture of benefits or a fine ran"in" from five thousand pesos
(PD,%%%.%%) to t!ice the amount maversed, ie"a. ta:en or ost, or both at the discretion
of the Ombudsman, ta:in" into consideration circumstances that miti"ate or a""ravate the
iabiit. of the officer or empo.ee found "uit. of the compaint or char"es.
's referred to in the above provision, under Presidentia Decree No. 4%;,
$&
the penaties that
ma. be imposed b. the discipinin" authorit. in administrative discipinar. cases are
remova from the service, transfer, demotion in ran:, suspension for not more than one .ear
!ithout pa., fine in an amount not e>ceedin" si> monthsJ saar., or reprimand.
$$
Section &; of Repubic 'ct No. ,;;% provides for the period of effectivit. and finait. of the
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman?
Sec. &;. Effectivit. and /inait. of Decisions. M (#) ' provisionar. orders of the Office of the
Ombudsman are immediate. effective and e>ecutor..
' motion for reconsideration of an. order, directive or decision of the Office of the
Ombudsman must be fied !ithin five (D) da.s after receipt of !ritten notice and sha be
entertained on. on an. of the foo!in" "rounds?
(#) Ne! evidence has been discovered !hich materia. affects the order, directive or
decisionH
(&) Errors of a! or irre"uarities have been committed pre8udicia to the interest of
the movant. The motion for reconsideration sha be resoved !ithin three ($) da.s
from fiin"? Provided, That on. one motion for reconsideration sha be entertained.
/indin"s of facts b. the Office of the Ombudsman !hen supported b. substantia evidence
are concusive. 'n. order, directive or decision imposin" the penat. of pubic censure or
reprimand, suspension of not more than one monthJs saar. sha be fina and unappeaabe.
FIn a administrative discipinar. cases, orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the
Ombudsman ma. be appeaed to the Supreme Court b. fiin" a petition for certiorari !ithin
ten (#%) da.s from receipt of the !ritten notice of the order, directive or decision or denia of
the motion for reconsideration in accordance !ith Rue <D of the Rues of Court.G
$<
The above rues ma. be amended or modified b. the Office of the Ombudsman as the
interest of 8ustice ma. reBuire.
' these provisions in Repubic 'ct No. ,;;% ta:en to"ether revea the manifest intent of
the a!ma:ers to besto! on the Office of the Ombudsman fu administrative discipinar.
authorit.. These provisions cover the entire "amut of administrative ad8udication !hich
entais the authorit. to, inter aia, receive compaints, conduct investi"ations, hod hearin"s
in accordance !ith its rues of procedure, summon !itnesses and reBuire the production of
documents, pace under preventive suspension pubic officers and empo.ees pendin" an
investi"ation, determine the appropriate penat. imposabe on errin" pubic officers or
empo.ees as !arranted b. the evidence, and, necessari., impose the said penat..
The e>panation of Senator Ed"ardo 'n"ara, one of the sponsors of Senate 5i No. D$<
!hich, as consoidated !ith Aouse 5i No. #$,<,, became R' ,;;%, is instructive?
Senator 2aure. 5ecause, 1r. President, in the i"ht of another section of the bi, !ith
respect to Section #$, discipinar. authorit., first, the Ombudsman here is "ranted the po!er
of discipinin" pubic officers and empo.ees, !hie other bodies ma. not be so authori7edH
second, the Constitution itsef empo!ers the Office of the Ombudsman mere. to
investi"ate and revie!H but the bi here authori7es the Ombudsman, and "rants the po!er
of discipinin" pubic officers and empo.ees. It "oes be.ond the constitutiona provision.
Senator 'n"ara. @e, if the +enteman is throu"h !ith his statementN
Senator 2aure. @e, .es.
Senator 'n"ara. I do not a"ree that this bi is "oin" be.ond !hat the Constitution has
prescribed for the OmbudsmanH because, as I understand it, the constitutiona provision
!as construed in the proceedin"s of the Constitutiona Commission and in fact, eft it to the
2e"isature to determine the po!ers and functions to be aocated to the Ombudsman. It did
not sa. or it did not prohibit the 2e"isature from "rantin" discipinar. po!er that !e are no!
"rantin" to the Ombudsman. 5ut over and be.ond that interpretation, 1r. President, is the
Buestion that one must a!a.s as:, if he !ants this institution of the Ombudsman to be
effective, rather than simp. be i:e the other !atchdo"s the past administrations created.
Then !e beieve, the Committee beieves, that !e must "ive the Ombudsman the
necessar. teeth in order to impement its o!n decision. @e beieve that this is fu. in
accord !ith the /iipino custom and tradition, and based on our historica e>perience. Short
of not "ivin" the Ombudsman the discipinin" authorit., I thin: !e mi"ht as !e :iss the
s.stem "oodb.e, because it !i be i:e the same !atchdo"s created in the past*toothess
and inutie.
$D
Senator 'n"ara, b. !a. of rep. to the Bueries of Senator Neptai +on7aes, further
e>pained?
Senator +on7aes. ' ri"ht. There are certain admissions and, ho!ever reuctant. "iven, at
east, et us "o further because the +enteman is invo:in" the !hoe of Section #$. I mi"ht
rea. be !ron", and I !ant to be corrected this ear..
No!, under para"raph (&), it sa.s?
Direct, upon compaint or at its o!n instance, an. pubic officia or empo.ee of the
+overnment, or an. subdivision thereof to perform and e>pediteN
probab. a ministeria act because it sa.s?
N an. act or dut. reBuired b. a! or to stop, prevent and correct an. abuse or impropriet.
in the performance of duties.
There is neither a "rant of discipinin" authorit., nor can !e imp. one from this specific
provisionH on. from this specific provision.
Senator 'n"ara. 1. ans!er, a"ain, 1r. President, is that one cannot derive that broad,
s!eepin" concusion soe. on the basis of this provision.
Senator +on7aes. There is none soe. on this provision. 2et us "o to ($)?
Direct the officer concerned to ta:e appropriate action a"ainst a pubic officia or empo.ee
at faut * *
There is a determination, that is, at faut, and this is ver. important,
*recommend his remova, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure
compiance there!ith.
1r. President, the po!er here, even after a determination of faut, is mere. to recommend
to the appropriate office or a"enc. the imposition of administrative sanctions, !hich, under
this a!, instead are to be imposed b. the Ombudsman himsef or direct.. Coud not the
+enteman see a confict bet!een these t!o provisions, 1r. PresidentO
Senator 'n"ara. I do not see an. confict, 1r. President. 's I said, the "rant of discipinar.
po!er is somethin" that the Constitution does not forbid.
Senator +on7aes. @e, !e !i ta:e it different..
Senator 'n"ara. '"ain, the Buestion is? Is it necessar. to "rant the Ombudsman such a
po!er in order to ma:e it effectiveO That is a means necessar. to the end, to the ob8ective.
Senator +on7aes. Is it, therefore, no! another po!erO
Senator 'n"ara. I submit that the means, that is, the discipinar. po!er, is necessar. to
achievin" that ob8ective of ma:in" an effective Ombudsman.
$,
The e"isative histor. of Repubic 'ct No. ,;;% thus bears out the concusion that the Office
of the Ombudsman !as intended to possess fu administrative discipinar. authorit.,
incudin" the po!er to impose the penat. of remova, suspension, demotion, fine, censure,
or prosecution of a pubic officer or empo.ee found to be at faut. The a!ma:ers
envisioned the Office of the Ombudsman to be =an activist !atchman,= not mere. a passive
one.
$;
'nd this intent !as "iven vaidation b. the Court in I. v. Sandi"anba.an,
$4
!here it
stated that?
Cear., the Phiippine Ombudsman departs from the cassica Ombudsman mode !hose
function is mere. to receive and process the peopeJs compaints a"ainst corrupt and
abusive "overnment personne. The Phiippine Ombudsman, as protector of the peope, is
armed !ith the po!er to prosecute errin" pubic officers and empo.ees, "ivin" him an
active roe in the enforcement of a!s on anti*"raft and corrupt practices and such other
offenses that ma. be committed b. such officers and empo.ees. The e"isature has vested
him !ith broad po!ers to enabe him to impement his o!n actions. > > >
't this point, it is noted that the Office of the Ombudsman and the appeate court invariab.
found respondents "uit. of simpe misconduct. The Court affirms this findin" foo!in" the
sautar. rue that factua findin"s of administrative bodies are accorded "reat respect b. this
Court.
$-
@AERE/ORE, premises considered, the petition is +R'NTED. The Decision dated
October $%, &%%$ of the Court of 'ppeas in C'*+.R. SP No. ,-$#$ is RE3ERSED 'ND
SET 'SIDE. The Decision dated October &<, &%%# of the Office of the Ombudsman in O15*
3IS*'D1*--*#%<< is REINST'TED.
SO ORDERED.