Khan v Office of the Ombudsman

• The issue in this case is whether or not the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to
investigate employees of GOCC organized under Corporation Code

• 1987 Constitutions provides the powers and function of the Office of the
Ombudsman, Section 13(2): Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance,
any public official or employees of the Government, 0or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as ny government-owned or
controlled corporation with original charter to perform and expedite any act
or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent and correct any abuse or
impropriety in the performance of duties.
o The ombudsman exercises jurisdiction over public officials or
employees of GOCC with original charters, being so, it can only
investigate and prosecute acts or omissions of the officials or
employees of government corporations.
o Though the government later on acquired the controlling interest of
PAL, the fact remains that it did not have an original charter and it
officers and employees could not be investigated or prosecuted by the
Ombudsman
o Public officers are those endowed with the exercise of sovereign
executive, legislative or judicial functions.

• the Supreme Court ruled that the Office of the Ombudsman has no
jurisdiction to investigate employees of government- owned or -
controlled corporations organized under the Corporation Code. Based
on Sec. 13 (2), Art. XI, of the Constitution, the Office of the
Ombudsman exercises jurisdiction only over public
officials/employees of GOCCs with original charters.

NEXT SLIDE

Orap v. Sandiganbayan

• The issue in the case of Orap V. Sandiganbayan whether or not

Sandiganbayan has validly acquired jurisdiction in cases involving violations
of RA 3019 or the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
• The court held that the Special Prosecutor may prosecute before the
Sandiganbayan judges accused of graft and corruption, even if they
come under the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court.

NEXT SLIDE
Inting v Tanodbayan

• In this petition, petitioner raises the issue of jurisdiction. According to him,

the respondent Tanodbayan was without jurisdiction to review and nullify the
resolutions of the City Fiscal of Davao.

• The court ruled that: that pursuant to PD 1607, the Tanodbayan

could review and reverse the findings of the City Fiscal, and order
him to withdraw certain charges, inasmuch as the President’s power
of control (in this instance) is exercised not by the Secretary of
Justice but by the Tanodbayan because the offense/s charged were
allegedly committed by a public functionary in connection with her
office. But the prosecution of election offenses is a function
belonging to the COMELEC and may not be discharged by the
Tanodbayan

• It is not true that the Tanodbayan's authority to file and prosecute is limited
to civil and administrative cases and in offenses made in relation to the
office. Presidential Decree No. 1630 provides that "he may file and prosecute
civil and administrative cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such
other offenses committed by public offices and employees, including those in
government-owned or controlled corporations in relation to their office."
o The same Presidential Decree also provides:
 Sec. 18. Prosecution of Public Personnel or Other Person. If the
Tanodbayan has reason to believe that any public official
employee, or other person has acted in a manner waranting
criminal or disciplinary action or proceedings, he shall conduct
the investigation and shall file and prosecute the corresponding
criminal or administrative case before the Sandiganbayan or the
proper court or before the proper administrative agency.
o The Tanodbayan is an administrative body whose main purpose is to
give effect to the constitutional right of the people to petition the
government for redress of grievances and to promote higher standards
of integrity and efficiency in the government service.
o Section 6 of Article XIII of the Constitution specifically provides that
the National Assembly shag create an office of the Ombudsman, to be
known as Tanodbayan, which "shall receive and investigate complaints
relative to public office, including those in government-owned or
controlled corporations, make appropriate recommendations, and in
case of failure of justice as defined by law, file and prosecute the
corresponding criminal, civil or administrative case before the proper
court or body."
o This provision and the laws creating and conferring upon the
Tanodbayan investigative authority over certain offenses are
sufficiently broad enough as to include the power now in question.
 NEXT SLIDE

Lastimosa v Vasquez

• Petitioner contends that 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. For this reason it is argued that 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.

• The issue is whether the Office of the Ombudmsan has the power to call on
the provincial prosecutor to assist it in the prosecution of the case for
attempted rape against the Mayor

• The Ombudsman is also granted by law the power to cite for

contempt, and this power may be exercised by the Ombudsman while
conducting preliminary investigation because preliminary
investigation is an exercise of quasijudicial functions

NEXT SLIDE

• The Court ruled that 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." 14 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 15 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.
o In the existence of his power, the Ombudsman is authorized to call on
prosecutors for assistance. §31 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (R.A.
No. 6770) 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.
(Emphasis added)
Acop v Office of the Ombudsman

• The issue in this case is whether it is the office of the Ombudsman or the
Office of the Special Prosecutor which has jurisdiction to conduct preliminary
investigation

• The court ruled that when one considers that by express mandate of
paragraph 8, Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution, the Ombudsman may
"exercise such other powers or perform functions or duties as may be
provided by law," it is indubitable then that Congress has the power to place
the Office of the Special Prosecutor under the Office of the Ombudsman. In
the same vein, Congress may remove some of the powers granted to the
Tanodbayan by P.D. No. 1630 and transfer them to the Ombudsman; or
grant the Office of the Special Prosecutor such other powers and functions
and duties as Congress may deem fit and wise. This Congress did through
the passage of R.A. No. 6770.

• Through the said law, the Office of the Special Prosecutor was made an
organic component of the Office of the Ombudsman, while the Ombudsman
was granted the following powers, among others:
(1) 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. It has primary jurisdiction over cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of its primary
jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory
agency of Government, the investigation of such cases;
xxx xxx xxx
(10) Delegate to the Deputies, or its investigators or representatives
such authority or duty as shall ensure the effective exercise or
performance of the powers, functions, and duties herein or herein after
provided.

• Under the Constitution, the Ombudsman shall have other duties and
functions as may be provided by law. Accordingly, the Congress can,
by statute, prescribe other powers, functions and duties to the
Ombudsman. Thus, because he is authorized under R.A. 6770 to
utilize the personnel of his office to assist in the investigation of
cases, the Ombudsman may refer cases involving non-military
personnel for investigation by the Deputy Ombudsman for Military
Affairs [Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman, 248 SCRA 566]. The
Ombudsman can also investigate criminal offenses committed by
public officers which have no relation to their office [Vasquez v.
Alino, 271 SCRA 67].

NEXT SLIDE