Independence of the Office of the Ombudsman

 The independence of the Office of the Ombudsman in the Philippines is

crucial for its role as a protector of the people against government
misconduct.
 Established under the 1987 Constitution, it operates with a seven-year
term for its officials, who cannot be reappointed, ensuring protection
from political pressures.
 The Ombudsman has fiscal autonomy, allowing it to manage its budget
independently, and possesses broad powers to investigate and
prosecute public officials.
 While Section 8(2) of Republic Act No. 6770 permits the President to
remove a Deputy Ombudsman, this does not compromise the overall
independence of the office.
 The Ombudsman is mandated to act on complaints against
government officials without interference, emphasizing accountability
and integrity in public service. Thus, while it enjoys independence, this
does not shield officials from disciplinary actions for wrongdoing,
reinforcing the Ombudsman's role in maintaining governmental
integrity.

QUALIFICATIONS READ NALANG

 Must be natural-born citizens of the Philippines.

 At least 40 years old.

 Must have recognized probity and independence.

 Must be members of the Philippine Bar.

 Must not have been candidates for any elective national or local office
in the immediately preceding election (whether regular or special).

 Ombudsman must have been a judge or engaged in the practice of law

in the Philippines for at least 10 years.

APPOINTMENTS

 So under JBC parin yung mamimili for atleast 21 nominee of who may
appoint by the president.
  For each vacancy thereafter, a list of 3 nominees shall be provided, and the vacancy must
be filled within 3 months.
 Each list of nominees must be published in a newspaper of general circulation.
o Why? Because this is a legal matter
 When organizing the Office of the Ombudsman, regional, cultural, or ethnic
considerations must be taken into account to ensure the Office is representative of the
nation's regional, ethnic, and cultural make-up.

RANKS AND SALARIES

 The Ombudsman and his Deputies will have the same ranks, salaries,
and privileges as the Chairman and members of a Constitutional
Commission.

 Their salaries cannot be decreased during their term of office.

 Members of the prosecution, investigation, and legal staff of the Office

of the Ombudsman will receive salaries not less than those given to
comparable positions in other government offices.

TERMS

Term of Office. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, including the Special
Prosecutor, shall serve for a term of seven (7) years without reappointment.

Removal and Filling of Vacancy

 The Ombudsman or their deputies can be removed from office for

serious offenses, such as: Treason, Bribery, Graft and Corruption, Other
serious crimes, or Betrayal of public trust
 When itcomes to Removal Process: The President can remove a Deputy
Ombudsman or the Special Prosecutor for any of the same reasons as
the Ombudsman, but this must follow due process, meaning they
should have a fair chance to defend themselves.
 When it comes to Filling Vacancies: If the Ombudsman leaves office
due to death, resignation, removal, or permanent disability, a new
Ombudsman must be appointed for a full term. If the Overall Deputy
cannot take over as Acting Ombudsman, the President can choose any
other deputy or the Special Prosecutor to act in that role.
  And for Temporary Absence: If the Ombudsman is temporarily absent
or unable to perform their duties, the Overall Deputy will take over
those responsibilities until the Ombudsman returns.

This structure helps ensure that the Office of the Ombudsman remains
functional and accountable while protecting it from arbitrary actions.

PROHIBITION AND DISQUALIFICATIONS

The provisions regarding the Ombudsman, Deputies, and Special

Prosecutor in the Philippines establish strict rules to ensure their
integrity and independence during their tenure.

 No Other Employment: The Ombudsman and their deputies cannot

hold any other job or position while in office.
 Prohibition on Professions: They are not allowed to practice any
profession, engage in business, or have financial interests in
government contracts or privileges.
 Conflict of Interest: They must avoid any situation that could create
a conflict of interest in their duties.
 Post-Term Restrictions: They cannot run for any public office in the
election immediately after their term ends.
 Two-Year Prohibition: For two years after leaving office, they cannot
appear or practice before the Ombudsman.
 Disqualification of Relatives and Partners: Relatives (up to the fourth
civil degree) or business partners of the Ombudsman or deputies
cannot represent clients or engage in transactions with the
Ombudsman’s office within one year before their appointment.

So, These rules are designed to maintain the integrity and independence of
the Office of the Ombudsman and prevent corruption or undue influence.
So the duty of special prosecutor, clearly discussed in the case of ORAP VS
SANDIGANBANYAN:

FACTS:
  In this case, kinasohan yung MTC judge (JUDGE Vicente Orap) and his
clerks for anti-graft and corruption somewhere in Pangasinan. Nag
conduct ngayon ng preliminary investigation yung mga special
prosecutor, hinold at prinosecute nila yung case.
 The Sandiganbayan ruled that the Tanodbayan has such authority.
 So sinabi ng Sandiganbayan na may authority daw ang mga special
prosecutor to prosecute criminal cases within their jurisdiction.
o As in the Article 11, Section 12 of the 1987 constitution clearly
states that: The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of
the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or
manner against public officials or employees of the Government,
or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in
appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken
and the result thereof.
o So malinaw sakop niya parin ang judiciary.

 So ang claim nila judge orap dito, wala daw jurisdiction ang
Sandiganbayan, ang mga special prosecutors sa paghold and pag
prosecute ng case nila. Dapat daw supreme court ang maghatol
sakanila.
 So ang ginawa nila Judge Orap, nagfile sila ng petition sa Supreme
Court

ISSUE:

The issue posed in this petition for certiorari and prohibition may be
postulated thus: has the Tanodbayan has the authority to conduct a
preliminary investigation of a complaint charging a municipal judge and his
clerk of court with violation of Section 3(e) of RA. 3019 and, upon a finding of
prima facie case, proceed to file the corresponding information before the
Sandiganbayan and prosecute the same?

RULING:

The Supreme court ruled on the Sandiganbayan

Ang sabi ng supreme court dito

The Chief Special Prosecutor, the Assistant Chief Special Prosecutor and the
Special Prosecutors shall have 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 Provided, however that the Tanodbayan may upon recommendation
of the Chief Special Prosecutor, designate any fiscal, state prosecutor or
lawyer in the government service to act as Special Prosecutor to assist in the
investigation and prosecution of all cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan
who shall not receive any additional compensation except such allowances,
per diems and travelling expenses as the Tanodbayan may determine in
accordance with existing laws, rules and regulations.

So ano yung batas na inapply nila?

Section 19 of PD. 1607. 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 warranting criminal or disciplinary action
or proceedings, he shall cause him to be investigated by the Office of the
Chief Special Prosecutor who shall file and prosecute the corresponding
criminal or administrative case before the Sandiganbayan or the proper court
or before the proper administrative agency. In case of failure of justice, the
Sandiganbayan shall make the appropriate recommendations to the
administrative agency concerned.

So yon, yung batas na inapply nila and aligned siya sa section 13 of article
11 of the 1987 constitution

ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH

Under the Jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan

ll-gotten wealth refers to assets or properties acquired through illegal or

unethical means, particularly by public officers in the Philippines. So it is
legally defined under Republic Act No. 7080, also known as the Anti-Plunder
Law. This law outlines various methods through which public officials may
unlawfully amass wealth, emphasizing the protection of public funds and the
integrity of governmental operations.

According to Republic Act No. 7080, ill-gotten wealth encompasses any asset,
property, or material possession obtained through a series of illegal actions
or schemes. The law specifies several methods that constitute the
acquisition of ill-gotten wealth:
  Misappropriation of Public Funds: This includes the misuse or
malversation of government resources, such as raids on the public
treasury.
 Receiving Pecuniary Benefits: Public officers may receive commissions,
gifts, kickbacks, or other financial incentives from individuals or
entities in connection with government contracts or projects.
 Fraudulent Conveyance of Assets: This involves the illegal transfer or
disposition of government-owned assets.
 Acceptance of Shares or Interests: Public officials may unlawfully
accept shares of stock or other forms of interest in private enterprises,
sometimes tied to promises of future employment.
 Establishing Monopolies: Creating monopolistic practices or
implementing policies that favor specific individuals or interests can
also lead to ill-gotten gains.
 Abuse of Official Position: Taking advantage of one's authority or
influence to enrich oneself at the expense of the public is a significant
aspect of ill-gotten wealth. Legal Framework and Implications.

So as in the case of Estrada vs Sandiganbayan, eto yung pangqquestion ni

Estrada about the ambiguity of vague daw regarding the constitutionality ng
RA 7080 also known as anti-plunder law.

FACTS:

 Eto kasing si Estrada he faced multiple charges including plunder for

allegedly amassing ill-gotten wealth exceeding 4billion during his
presidency. So nag file ang ombudsman ng mga informations against
him including accusations of receiving bribes from illegal gambling
(jueteng) and misappropriation of public funds.
 Ngayon si Estrada, nagfile siya ng petition sa Supreme court
challenging the constitutionality of the Plunder law

So ang ISSUE

 Whether the plunder law Unconstitutional for being Vague

RULING

 The Supreme Court ruled that Plunder Law is Constitutional addressing

that the court found that RA 7080 is not Vague as it provides clear
 definitions and standards that a person or ordinary intelligence can
understand, Therefore, it does not violate due process.

LOANS

SECTION 16. No loan, guaranty, or other form of financial accommodation for

any business purpose may be granted, directly or indirectly, by any
government-owned or controlled bank or financial institution to the
President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the
Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Commissions, the Ombudsman, or to
any firm or entity in which they have controlling interest, during their tenure.

So bakit hindi dapat sila ma grant to loan for any business purposes?

Because thereby upholding the principle that public office is a public trust,
it is designed to prevent any potential misuse of public resources for
personal gain.

So kapag loan kasi, money issue yan, So dapat lang na hindi sila ma grant
to loan for any business purposes, because sometimes, “money is the
root of all evil”