Scribd
Upload
54 views1 page

Ombudsman Authority Over School Employees

The Ombudsman charged a former school principal and clerk with collecting unauthorized fees and failing to account for public funds. The respondents filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Department of Education had jurisdiction over them, not the Ombudsman. The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman does have authority to discipline public school teachers and employees based on two provisions of the Constitution outlining the Ombudsman's powers. The Ombudsman Act further granted the Ombudsman other powers needed to efficiently perform its constitutional tasks, showing the legislative intent to give the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority over public officers and employees.

Uploaded by

abakada_kaye
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
54 views1 page

Ombudsman Authority Over School Employees

The Ombudsman charged a former school principal and clerk with collecting unauthorized fees and failing to account for public funds. The respondents filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Department of Education had jurisdiction over them, not the Ombudsman. The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman does have authority to discipline public school teachers and employees based on two provisions of the Constitution outlining the Ombudsman's powers. The Ombudsman Act further granted the Ombudsman other powers needed to efficiently perform its constitutional tasks, showing the legislative intent to give the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority over public officers and employees.

Uploaded by

abakada_kaye
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

FACTS: Former Principal of the Davao City Integrated Special School, and Jocelyn A.

Tayactac, an ofce clerk in the ame chool, !ere adminitratively charged "efore
the #fce of the #m"$dman for allegedly collecting $na$thori%ed fee, failing to
remit a$thori%ed fee, and to acco$nt for p$"lic f$nd. &epondent 'led a motion
to dimi on the gro$nd that the #m"$dman ha no ($ridiction over them.
&epondent alleged that the D)CS ha ($ridiction over them !hich hall e*ercie
the ame thro$gh a committee to "e contit$ted $nder Section + of &ep$"lic Act
,&.A.- .o. /012, other!ie kno!n a the 3The 4agna Carta for P$"lic School
Teacher.5
ISSUE: Whether or not the #m"$dman may directly dicipline p$"lic chool teacher
and employee6
RULING: Yes. The a$thority of the #m"$dman to act on complaint 'led againt
p$"lic ofcer and employee i e*plicit in Article 7I, Section 89 of the 8+:1
Contit$tion. Article 7I, Section 8; of the ame Contit$tion delineate the po!er,
f$nction and d$tie of the #m"$dman. The en$meration of thee po!er i non<
e*cl$ive. Congre enacted &.A. .o. 0112, other!ie kno!n a The #m"$dman
Act of 8+:+, giving the #fce $ch other po!er that it may need to efciently
perform the tak given "y the Contit$tion. In 'ne, the manifet intent of the
la!maker !a to "eto! on the #fce of the #m"$dman f$ll adminitrative
diciplinary a$thority in accord !ith the contit$tional deli"eration.

You might also like