III.

OMBUDSMAN

 It is a Constitutional Office. Hence, it may not be abolished or changed by ordinary legislation.

 The appointments of the Ombudsman and his deputies requires no confirmation by the
Commission.

1. COMPOSITION1
 Ombudsman know as Tanodbayan
 One Overall Deputy
 One Deputy for Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao
 Separate Deputy for the military establishment may also be appointed.

2. QUALIFICATIONS AND APPOINTMENT

QUALIFICATIONS:
 Natural born Citizens at the time of their appointment
 Forty years old
 Recognized probity and independence
 Members of the Philippine Bar
 Must not have been candidates for any elective office in the immediately preceding
election.
 The Ombudsman must have ten years or more been judge or engaged in the practice of
law in the Philippines.
 Subject to the same disqualifications and prohibitions as provided for in Section 2 of
Article IX-A of this Constitution.

APPOINTMENT:

 Appointed by the President from a list of at least six nominees prepared by the Judicial
and Bar Council and from a list of three nominees for every vacancy thereafter.
 Appointments shall require no confirmation.
 All vacancies shall be filled within three months after they occur.

3. TERMS2
 7 years but not staggered without reappointment.
 They shall not be qualified to run for any office in the election immediately succeeding
their cessation from office.

4. POWERS AND FUNCTION

 PRIMARY FUNCTION: Shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner
against public officials or employees of the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or

1
Section 5, Article XI, Constitution
2
Sec. 11, Art. XI, Constitution
 instrumentality, including GOCC. Shall notify the complainants of the action taken and
the results thereof. 3
 Section 13 states the powers, functions and duties of the Ombudsman as follows:

1. Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission

of any public official, employee, office, or agency, when such act or
omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.

2. Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or

employee of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, as well as of any 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.

3. Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public

official or employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension,
demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.

4. Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law, to furnish it with copies of
documents relating to contracts or transactions entered by his office
involving the disbursement or use of public funds or properties and report
any irregularity to the Commission on Audit for appropriate action.

5. Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary

in the discharge of its responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary,
pertinent records and documents.

6. Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so

warrant and with due prudence.

7. Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud,

and corruption in the Government and make recommendations for their
elimination and the observance of high standards of ethics and efficiency.

8. Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or

perform such functions or duties as may be provided by law.

 The Ombudsman shall also enjoy fiscal autonomy. 4

5. SALARY
 They receive the same salary with chairman and members of the Constitution. It cannot
be decreased during their term of office. 5
3
Sec. 13, Article XI, Constitution
4
Sec. 14, Article XI, Constitution
5
Sec. 10, Art. XI, Constitution
 Ifurung v. Carpio-Morales, G.R. No. 232131, April 24, 2018

Petitioner alleges that assailed provision which gives the newly appointed Ombudsman and his
deputies the appointment to a full term of seven (7) years, is constitutionally infirm. Moreover,
he alleges that the successor to the positions of the Ombudsman and deputies should serve only
the unexpired term of the predecessor. He claims that Ombudsman Morales should have ceased
to hold office on 1 February 2015 considering that the unexpired term of the supposed fourth
seven-year term ended on that date; thus, Ombudsman Morales has been holding the position
in a de facto capacity since February 2, 2015 up to the present. This observation, petitioner
claims, holds true with the other respondent deputies. 
Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor’s General, claim that the petitioner failed to
appreciate the verbal legis approach to constitutional construction. Respondents allege that the
deliberations of the framers of the Constitution reveal their intent to grant the Ombudsman and
his deputies the same rank and salary as the Chair and members of the Constitutional
Commissions but not by the staggered term. 
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner citing Sec. 11. The Ombudsman and his
Deputies shall serve for a term of seven years without reappointment. They shall not be
qualified to run for any office in the election immediately succeeding their cessation from office.
The quoted provisions of the Constitution is clear and explicit: (a) the Ombudsman and the
deputies shall serve the term of seven years; (b) that the Ombudsman and the deputies shall not
be reappointed; and (c) the Ombudsman and the deputies shall not run for any office in the
election immediately succeeding their cessation from office. Contrary to the position of the
petitioner, Sec. 11, Art. XI by itself is clear and can stand on its own. This can only mean that it
was the intent of the framers that the appointment to the positions of the Ombudsman and the
deputies, whether it be for the expired or unexpired term of the predecessor, shall always be for
a full term of seven years.

IV. THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

 It is limited to and charged with the prosecution of graft and corruption cases.
 It continues to be governed by P.D. 1607, except where its powers were transferred by
the Constitution to the Ombudsman.

Jardiel v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-58575, September 21, 1983 (EB)

 The Supreme Court held in this case that the Petitioner’s contention that the findings of the
Ministry of Justice Election Task Force (Annex "G", Petition) dismissing the complaint against
petitioner for insufficiency of evidence is res judicata is untenable. The Task Force was
deputized by the COMELEC to the end that violators throughout the Philippines of laws
relative to elections would be charged in Court and correspondingly penalized. The charges
filed before it were for election offenses which are criminal in nature. It was not a body
exercising judicial functions. To the COMELEC belongs the prerogative to enforce all laws
relative to the conduct of elections and to see to it that elections are free, honest and
orderly. It cannot be "estopped" by any finding or recommendation by any Task Force
organized to assist it in the performance of its functions.

Orap v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. Nos. L-50508-11, October 11, 1985 (EB)

The Supreme Court held in this case that the respondent Sandiganbayan ruled that the
Tanodbayan has such authority. The Tanodbayan functions not only as an ombudsman, but as
prosecutor as well. As ombudsman, his investigatory powers are limited to complaints initiated
against officers and personnel of administrative agencies, as defined in Section 9(a) of the law.
As prosecutor, however, the authority of the Tanodbayan is primary and without exceptions. His
powers are defined in Sections 17 and 19 of P.D. 1607. Section 17 of the Decree, in unequivocal
term, confers upon the Tanodbayan, through the Chief Special Prosecutor and the Special
Prosecutors, the exclusive authority to "conduct preliminary investigation of all cases cognizable
by the Sandiganbayan, to file informations therefor, and to direct and control the prosecution of
said cases therein." If, as petitioner contends, judges, and other court personnel lie outside the
investigatory power of the Tanodbayan, then no judge or court employee could ever be brought
to justice for crimes and offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, for lack of proper officer or
entity authorized to conduct the preliminary investigation on complaints of such nature against
them. This absurd situation the law could never have intended, considering that the Office of
the Tanodbayan was purposely created 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." The informations in question have complied
with the substantial and formal requirements of the law. They carry the certification of the
investigating prosecutor as to the existence of a prima facie case. They also bear the approval of
the Chief Special Prosecutor, as required by Section 11 of PD 1606. As petitioner is charged with
violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which are within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan as defined under Section 4 of P.D. 1606, the said court validly acquired
jurisdiction over the information in question.  
Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 79690-707, October 7, 1988 (EB)

The Supreme Court in this case resolved the issue on whether the Special Prosecutor have the
authority to conduct preliminary investigations and to direct the filing of criminal cases with the
Sandiganbayan. The Court held that it is not allowed. Under the 1987 Constitution, the
Ombudsman (as distinguished from the incumbent Tanodbayan) is charged with the duty to:

Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official,
employee, office or agency, when such act or commission appears to be illegal, unjust,
improper, or inefficient (Sec. 13, par. 1)

The Constitution likewise provides that:

The existing Tanodbayan shall hereafter be known as the office of the Special Prosecutor. It shall
continue to function and exercise its powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law,
contempt except those conferred on the office of the Ombudsman created under this
Constitution. (Art. XI, Section 7).

Now then, inasmuch as the aforementioned duty is given to the Ombudsman, the incumbent
Tanodbayan (caged Special Prosecutor under the 1987 constitution and who is supposed to
retain powers and duties NOT GIVEN to the Ombudsman) is clearly without authority to conduct
preliminary investigations and to direct the filing of criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan,
except upon orders of the Ombudsman. This right to do so was lost effective February 2, 1987.
From that time, he has been divested of such authority.

BIR v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 115103, April 11, 2002

The Supreme Court held in this case that the determination of whether to grant a tax refund
falls within the exclusive expertise of the BIR. Nonetheless, when there is a suspicion of even
just a tinge of impropriety in the grant of the same, the Ombudsman could rightfully ascertain
whether the determination was done in accordance with law and identify the persons who may
be held responsible thereto. In that sense, the Ombudsman could not be accused of unlawfully
intruding into and intervening with the BIR's exercise of discretion.

Laurel v. Desierto, G.R. No. 145368, April 12, 2002

The Supreme Court reiterated in this case that the The power to investigate and to prosecute
granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. It pertains toany 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 Committee for National Centennial Celebrations performs
executive function. Therefore, it is a public office subject to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

V. ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH

 The right of the State to recover ill-gotten wealth is not barred by prescription, laches or
estoppel.6
 Criminal cases on the violation of R.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practice Act, involving
ill-gotten wealth are still subject to prescription.

Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212761-62, July 31, 2018 (EB)

The Supreme Court ruled in this case decided in favor of the respondents. It held that the Ombudsman
did not gravely abuse its discretion in finding probable cause to indict Estrada and the other petitioners
for plunder and R.A. 3019. Under Sections 1 and 3, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
probable cause is needed to be established by the investigating officer, to determine whether there is
sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the
respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial, during preliminary investigation.
Thus, probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite
the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the
person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. It is merely based on opinion and
reasonable belief. In determining probable cause, the average person weighs facts and circumstances
without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he or she has no technical
knowledge

Panlilio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 92276, June 26, 1992 (EB)

The Supreme Court in this case noted that under Section 15 (11) of Republic Act No. 6770, the
Ombudsman was vested only with the power to investigate and to initiate the proper action for the
recovery of ill-gotten wealth and/or unexplained wealth amassed after February 25, 1986 and the
prosecution of the parties therein, thereby implicitly maintaining the authority of the PCGG to conduct
preliminary investigation of ill-gotten wealth and/or unexplained wealth amassed before February 25,
1986. 

This does not mean, however, that the Ombudsman does not have primary jurisdiction over ill-gotten
wealth and/or unexplained wealth amassed before February 25, 1986, It has, and been reiterated. The
ruling in Cojuangco, that despite Section 15 (11) of Republic Act No. 6770, the Ombudsman has primary
jurisdiction to investigate such cases. The Ombudsman, however, may decline in exercising its primary
jurisdiction, as in the case at bar, thereby giving the concurrent government agency concerned, the
PCGG, the task of conducting the preliminary investigation.

6
Sect. 15, Article XI, 1987 Constitution
VI. LOANS

 The President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the
Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman are prohibited to obtain loan, guaranty, or
other form of financial accommodation for any business purposes, directly or indirectly, from
any government owned or controlled corporation, financial institution or to any firm in which
they have controlling interest during their tenure. 7

VI. ASSETS AND LIABILITIES

 Upon assumption of office and as required by law thereafter, a public officer or employee shall
submit under oath a statement of its assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN).

 President, Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet, Congress, Supreme Court, Constitutional

Commissions, other Constitutional Offices, and officers of the Armed forces with general or flag
rank, shall only disclose their SALN in the manner provided by law.

Abid-Babano v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 201176, August 28, 2019 (EB)

The Supreme Court in this case did not agree with the decision made by the Court of Appeals and the
Office of the President on finding her guilty of simple neglect of duty for her failure to disclose in her
SALN certain motor vehicles belonging to her husband, himself a public servant required to file his
own SALN. The Court stated that the requirement under Republic Act No. 6713 1 and similar laws
that the sworn statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN) to be filed by every government
official must include assets, liabilities, and net worth of the spouse of the filer is construed not to
include the assets, liabilities, and net worth of spouses whose property regime during the marriage is
by law or by agreement prior to the marriage one of complete separation of property.

VII. CHANGE OF CITIZENSHIP

 It is prohibited that the Public Officers and Employees change their citizenship during their
tenure.8
 It is because of the basic principle that the qualifications of Public Officials and employees
are continuing requirements.9

7
Sec. 16, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution
8
Sec. 18, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution
9
Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2014 Edition