Bucoy: Ombudsman probe OK if used to file impeach case vs Sara Duterte
House of Representatives prosecution panel spokesperson Antonio Bucoy — File photo
MANILA, Philippines — The only time that the Office of the Ombudsman can investigate an impeachable official is if it intends to use the results of the probe to file a verified complaint before the House of Representatives, prosecution spokesperson Antonio Bucoy said.
Bucoy, during an online press briefing on Tuesday, said that there are two provisions in Republic Act No. 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989 that supports the notion of an impeachment trial having precedence over an Ombudsman investigation.
The impeachment prosecutor said this amid questions if Vice President Sara Duterte can be investigated by the Office of the Ombudsman while an impeachment trial at the Senate is looming.
“The impeachment proceedings are of primordial consideration. That is the highest pursuit of accountability for an impeachable official. Under the Ombudsman Act, Republic Act No. 6770, there are two provisions there stating that the Ombudsman cannot investigate an impeachable official because the mechanism stated under the Constitution is an impeachment, over which the Senate has jurisdiction,” he said in Filipino.
“Second, there is a provision stating that if there would be an investigation, the Ombudsman can investigate an impeachable official if the goal is to file a verified impeachment complaint. That’s it,” he added.
Bucoy was referring to Sections 21 and 22 of RA No. 6770. Section 21 states that the Ombudsman has “disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the Government” except “over officials who may be removed only by impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the Judiciary.”
Section 22, meanwhile, states that the Ombudsman shall have the power to investigate “any serious misconduct in office allegedly committed by officials removable by impeachment, for the purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment, if warranted.”
This should prompt the Ombudsman, Bucoy said, to take a back seat and wait for the impeachment proceedings first.
“So now, the impeachment proceedings should already start since the impeachment court has acquired jurisdiction, the Ombudsman should wait, await the outcome of the impeachment proceeding,” he said.
“Thus the Ombudsman should take a back seat and look at the evidence that will be presented during the trial. So what should happen is the impeachment court which has acquired jurisdiction should be given the chance to pursue trial until the matter is decided upon,” he added.
Last June 10, the House of Representatives adopted the report of its committee on good government and public accountability, which recommended the filing of criminal charges against Vice President Sara Duterte and other officials from the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd).
This was for the alleged misuse of confidential funds within the two offices, from 2022 to 2023.
Just nine days after that — and three days after receiving the copy of the committee report — the Office of the Ombudsman asked Duterte to respond to the complaints based on the committee report.
READ: Ombudsman to Sara Duterte: Respond to misuse of funds complaints
However, Duterte is already expected to face trial before the Senate impeachment court, after she was impeached last February 5.
On Monday, committee chairperson and Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua admitted that he and the rest of the prosecution panel for Duterte’s impeachment trial were surprised with the Ombudsman’s quick action on the issue.
Chua said he also believes that the impeachment should be prioritized as jurisprudence states that impeachable officials must be impeached first before a criminal case can be filed against him or her.
According to the lawmaker, a provision in G.R. No. 146486 Office of the Ombudsman versus Court of Appeals — a Supreme Court (SC) Second Division decision dated March 4, 2005 — states that an Ombudsman and his or her deputies being impeachable officials must be impeached first before they are charged.
In the decision, the SC mentioned jurisprudence, particularly a 1995 ruling on petitions seeking the disbarment of former Ombudsman Aniano Desierto. The ruling stated that “the Ombudsman and other constitutional officers who are required by the Constitution to be members of the Philippine Bar and are remova[ble] only by impeachment, are immunized from liability possibly for criminal acts or for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or other claimed misbehavior.”
READ: Jurisprudence says impeach first before criminal case — Chua
Other lawmakers, meanwhile, raised concerns over this quick action from the Ombudsman. Mamamayang Liberal party-list Representative-elect Leila de Lima noted that the Ombudsman has filed a low number of cases before Sandiganbayan, compared to the number of complaints that it receives.
De Lima feared that these developments might lead to a dismissal of the criminal complaint against Duterte and eventually undermine the pending impeachment trial.
READ: De Lima uneasy about Ombudsman’s move on complaints vs VP Duterte
According to de Lima, Ombudsman Samuel Martires’ decision asking Duterte to answer the issues raised by the House panel was “out of character,” because the Office of the Ombudsman has been slow in acting on cases involving Duterte’s father, former president Rodrigo Duterte, and their allies.
Martires, a retired Supreme Court associate justice, was appointed by the older Duterte to the post. He is set to leave by July 2025 as his term expires. /das
