The Office of the Ombudsman has its own authority and capability to investigate government officials who may be involved in any irregularities and wrongdoings.
This was clarified by the Supreme Court in its ruling on the case against former officials of the Palawan provincial government who were implicated in the irregular use of the government’s share from the Malampaya Fund.
In its decision, the Supreme Court held the former officials accountable for the allegations against them and upheld the Ombudsman’s ruling that dismissed them from service and perpetually disqualified them from running for or holding any government position.
Their retirement benefits were also forfeited.
It can be recalled that four cases were filed against the officials following a special audit conducted by the Commission on Audit (COA) concerning alleged irregularities in the selection of contractors and implementation of projects, as well as in the bidding process and documentation.
However, the Supreme Court clarified that the Ombudsman does not need to wait for the COA’s findings before conducting an investigation into government officials allegedly involved in irregularities.
Under Article XI, Section 13(1) of the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman has the authority and power to conduct its own investigations, whether on its own initiative or in response to a complaint filed to the agency.
The SC explained that the Ombudsman and COA independently exercise their respective powers under the law.
While the COA focuses on auditing the use of public funds and transactions of government agencies, the Ombudsman is tasked with investigating and holding government officials accountable when they are found to have been involved in irregularities.
The High Court added that the COA’s findings and reports may assist the Ombudsman in its investigation, but these are not prerequisites for the Ombudsman to proceed with an investigation.