The Ombudsman

Jhoanne B. Sotelo
1D

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 PREVIOUS OMBUDSMEN

MA. SIMEON V. ANIANO A.

MERCEDITAS MARCELO CONRADO M.
DESIERTO
NAVARRO- 2002 - November VASQUEZ
1995-2002
GUTIERREZ 30, 2005 1988-1995
December 2005
to May 6, 2011

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 PRESENT OMBUDSMAN

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

July 26, 2011 to present

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 KEY OFFICIALS
Hon. Melchor Arthur
Carandang
Hon. Gerard Mosquera
Hon. Paul Elmer Clemente
Hon . Rodolfo Elman
Hon. Cyril Ramos
JHOANNE B. SOTELO
Over All Deputy
Ombudsman and Acting
Special Prosecutor
Deputy Ombudsman for
Luzon
Deputy Ombudsman for
Visayas
Deputy Ombudsman for
Mindanao
Deputy Ombudsman for the
Military and Other Law
Enforcement Offices
 THE OMBUDSMAN

Constitutional office
May not be abolished nor may its composition be changed by
ordinary legislation
The appointment requires no confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments
Same rank and salary as the chairman and associate
commissioners respectively of the Constitutional
Commissions and enjoy the same security of compensation.
Fiscal autonomy and the power to appoint its own officials
and employees in accordance with civil service laws
May only be removed through impeachment
Exercises both criminal and administrative jurisdiction

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 1. COMPOSITION

SECTION 5

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 O M B U D S M A N T O B E K N O W N A S
TANODBAYAN

1 O V E R A L L D E P U T Y A N D A T L E A S T 1
DEPUTY EACH FOR LUZON, VISAYAS,
AND MINDANAO

S E P A R A T E D E P U T Y F O R T H E
MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 2. Qualifications and Appointment

SECTION 8

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 N A T U R A L - B O R N C I T I Z E N

A T L E A S T 4 0 Y E A R S O L D

M E M B E R O F P H I L I P P I N E B A R

M U S T N O T H A V E B E E N C A N D I D A T E S F O R A N Y
ELECTIVE OFFICE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING
ELECTION

M U S T H A V E B E E N 1 0 Y E A R S O R M O R E A J U D G E O R
ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE
PHILIPPINES

D U R I N G T H E I R T E N U R E T H E Y S H A L L B E S U B J E C T T O
THE SAME DISQUALIFICATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 2. Qualifications and Appointment

SECTION 9

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 S H A L L B E A P P O I N T E D B Y T H E P R E S I D E N T F R O M A
LIST OF :

A T L E A S T 6 N O M I N E E S P R E P A R E D B Y J U D I C I A L A N D
BAR COUNCIL
3 N O M I N E E S F O R E V E R Y V A C A N C Y

S U C H A P P O I N T M E N T R E Q U I R E S N O C O N F I R M A T I O N

A L L V A C A N C I E S S H A L L B E F I L E D W I T H I N 3 M O N T H S
AFTER THEY OCCUR

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 3. TERM

ARTICLE IX
SECTION 11

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 S H A L L S E R V E F O R A T E R M O F 7
YEARS WITHOUT REAPPOINTMENT

N O T A L L O W E D T O R U N F O R A N Y
OFFICE IN THE ELECTION
IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING THEIR
CESSATION FROM OFFICE

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 4. Powers and Functions

SECTION 12

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 S H A L L A C T P R O M P T L Y O N C O M P L A I N T S F I L E D I N
ANY FORM OR MANNER AGAINST:

PUBLIC OFFICIALS
E M P L O Y E E S O F T H E G O V E R N M E N T
A N Y S U B D I V I S I O N
A G E N C Y
I N S T R U M E N T A L I T Y
G O V E R N M E N T - O W N E D O R C O N T R O L L E D
CORPORATIONS

S H A L L I N A P P R O P R I A T E C A S E S , N O T I F Y T H E
COMPLAINANTS OF THE ACTION TAKEN AND THE
RESULT

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 4. Powers and Functions

SECTION 13

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 1. Investigate on its own, or on complaint by
any person:
act
or omission of any:

Public official
Employee
Office
or Agency

when such act or omission appears to be

Illegal
Unjust
Improper
or Inefficient

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 2. Direct upon complaint or at its own
instance any:
Public official
Employee of the government
Subdivision
Agency
or Instrumentality
Government-owned or controlled
corporation with original charter

to perform and expedite any act or

duty required by law
to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse
or impropriety in the performance of
duties
JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 3. Direct the officer concerned to take
appropriate action against:

a public official
employee at fault

and recommend his

removal,
suspension
demotion
fine
censure
Prosecution

And ensure compliance

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 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 into 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

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 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

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 7. Determine the causes of:
Inefficiency
red tape
Mismanagement
Fraud
And corruption in government
and make recommendation 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.
JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 4. Powers and Functions

SECTION 14

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 F I S C A L A U T O N O M Y

I T S A P P R O V E D A N N U A L
APPROPRIATIONS SHALL BE
AUTOMATICALLY AND
REGULARLY RELEASED.

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 MANILA HOSTAGE CRISIS

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 GONZALES III v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
SEPTEMBER 4, 2012

FACTS:
The Ombudsman approved the decision finding Insp. Rolando Mendoza and his
fellow police officers guilty of Grave Misconduct and meted the penalty of
DISMISSAL from the service.
Deputy Ombudsman Gonzales reviewed and denied Mendozas Motion for
reconsideration and forwarded his recommendation to the Office of the
Ombudsman in whose office it remained pending for final review.
The prolonged inaction precipitated the desperate hostage taking of Mendoza in
Quirino Grandstand which ended in the tragic murder of 8 Hong Kong Chinese
Nationals.
The Incident Investigation and Review Committee (IRRC) recommended that its
findings with respect to petitioner Gonzales be referred to the Office of the President
and while said administrative case was pending before the Office of the President, a
complaint against petitioner was dismissed by the Ombudsman finding no probable
cause for violation of Anti- Graft and Corrupt practices Act and Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standard
Gonzales was found guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty and Grave Misconduct
constituting betrayal of public trust by the Office of the President and meted out the
penalty of DISMISSAL from service
JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 GONZALES III v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
SEPTEMBER 4, 2012

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Office of the President has jurisdiction to exercise
administrative disciplinary power over a Deputy Ombudsman
Whether or not the dismissal of Gonzales as Deputy Ombudsman by the Office of
the President is legal
RULING:
YES, The Ombudsmans administrative disciplinary power over a Deputy
Ombudsman is not exclusive. Section 8 of R.A. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989)
grants the President the power to remove the Deputy Ombudsman from Office after
due process.
NO, his removal must be for any grounds provided in the removal of the
Ombudsman. The alleged ground of betrayal of public trust was not present in his
case. The President while he may be vested with authority cannot order the removal
of petitioner as Deputy Ombudsman, there being no intentional wrongdoing of the
grave and serious kind amounting to a betrayal of public trust
Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement to his former position as Deputy
Ombudsman while the case was being investigated by the Office of the Ombudsman
for the imposition of the corresponding administrative sanctions , if any.

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 Quarto v. The Hon. Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo
October 5, 2011

FACTS:
DPWH Internal Audit Service discovered that several emergency repairs
and/or purchase of spare parts of hundreds of DPWH service vehicles, which
were approved and paid by the government did not actually take place.
The petitioner denied the allegation while the respondents admitted the
existence of irregularities and offered to testify against the DPWH officials in
exchange for their immunity from prosecution
The Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan several information charging a
number of DPWH officials and employees.
On the other hand, the Ombudsman granted the respondents request for
immunity
The petitioner initially filed a certiorari petition with the Sandiganbayan
questioning the immunity but was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction and
was advised to instead question the Ombudsmans action before this court

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 Quarto v. The Hon. Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo
October 5, 2011

ISSUE:
Whether or not the grant of immunity to the respondents was attended by
grave abuse of discretion
RULING:
NO, pursuant to R.A. No. 6770 which specifically empowers the
Ombudsman to grant immunity in any hearing, inquiry or proceeding
being conducted by the Ombudsman or under its authority, in the
performance or in the furtherance of its constitutional functions and
statutory objectives.
The petition is DISMISSED.

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman
March 15, 2002

FACTS:
The petitioner Tapiador ,BID Special Investigator and Technical
Assistant in the office of the Associate Commissioner allegedly
demanded and received from Walter Beck the amount of 10,000.00 in
exchange for the issuance of an alien certificate of registration.
The said ACR was subsequently withheld deliberately by the petitioner
despite repeated demands by Beck unless the latter pay an additional
amount of 7,000 pesos.
The Ombudsman found the petitioner liable for grave misconduct in
the administrative aspect of the case and imposed the penalty of
dismissal from the government service
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Ombudsman has the authority to dismiss the
petitioner from the government service

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman
March 15, 2002

RULING:
No, the Ombudsman has no authority to directly dismiss the petitioner
from the government service, more particularly from his position in the
BID . Under Section 13 (3), of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the
Ombudsman can only recommend the removal of the public official
or employee found to be at fault, to the public official concerned
The petition is GRANTED

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 Ledesma v. Office of the Ombudsman
July 29, 2005

FACTS:
Petitioner Atty. Ledesma, Chairman of the First Division of the Board of
Special Inquiry of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) allegedly
committed anomalies surrounding the extension of the Temporary Resident
Visas (TRVs) of 2 foreign nationals
Graft investigation officer resolved the administrative case and recommended
the suspension of Petitioner Atty. Ledesma for 1 year
Petitioner filed motion for reconsideration which was denied by respondent
Ombudsman but reduced the period of suspension from 1 year to 9 months
without pay
Court of Appeals affirmed petitioners suspension but reduced the period from
9 months to 6 months and 1 day without pay.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Ombudsmans resolution against petitioner constitutes an
indirect encroachment into power of the BIR over immigration matters .

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 Ledesma v. Office of the Ombudsman
July 29, 2005

RULING:
NO, R.A. 6770 otherwise known as The Ombudsman Act 1989
mandated the Ombudsman and his deputies not only to act promptly
on complaints but also to enforce the administrative, civil and criminal
liability of government officers and employees in every case where
evidence warrants to promote efficient service by the Government to
the people.
The Ombudsman recommendation is not merely advisory in nature
but is actually mandatory within the bounds of law
The petition is DENIED

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 Office of the Ombudsman v. Valera
September 30, 2005

FACTS:
Ombudsman Marcelo issued a Memorandum directing petitioner
Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio to act in his stead and place.
Petitioner Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio issued the Order placing
respondent Valera under preventive suspension for six months without
pay because he found that respondent Valera entered into a
compromise agreement with Steel Asia Manufacturing Corp.
The appellate court set aside order of preventive suspension and
directed petitioner Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio to desist from
taking any further action
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio has the
authority to place respondent Valera under preventive suspension in
behalf of the Ombudsman

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 Office of the Ombudsman v. Valera
September 30, 2005

RULING:
No, Petitioner Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio found that the
preventive suspension of respondent Valera was warranted under
Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770. However, since under the said provision
only the Ombudsman or his Deputy may exercise the power of
preventive suspension, petitioner Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio
could only recommend to the Ombudsman or, in this case because of
the latters inhibition, to the designated Deputy Ombudsman to place
respondent Valera under preventive suspension
The petition is DENIED

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 Caoibes v. Ombudsman
July 19, 2001

FACTS:
Respondent Judge Alumbres, filed before the Office of the
Ombudsman a criminal complaint against petitioner Judge Caoibes for
physical injuries, malicious mischief for the destruction of
complainants eyeglasses and assault upon person in authority.
Petitioner Judge Caoibes contended that the Supreme Court not the
Office of the Ombudsman has the authority to make a preliminary
determination of the respective culpability of petitioner and
respondent
Office of the Ombudsman denied the motion for referral to the
Supreme court
Office of the Ombudsman denied the motion for reconsideration and
required petitioner to submit a counter affidavit within 5 days from
receipt

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 Caoibes v. Ombudsman
July 19, 2001

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the
case
RULING:
NO, it is the Supreme Court which is vested with exclusive
administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel.
The Ombudsman is duty bound to have all cases against judges and
court personnel filed before it, referred to the Supreme court for
determination as to whether an administrative aspect is involved .
It is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges and court
personnels compliance with all laws, and take the proper
administrative action against them if they commit any violation.
Petition is GRANTED

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 Khan, Jr. v. Office of the Ombudsman
July 20,2006

Facts:
Private respondents Torralba and Bandala charged petitioners Khan
and Malabanan (former officers of PAL) before the Deputy
Ombudsman for violation of RA 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act)
Respondents accused petitioner of using their positions in PAL to
secure a contract for Synergy Services Corporation, corporation engage
in hauling and janitorial services in which they are shareholders
Petitioner filed omnibus motion to dismiss the complaint which the
Deputy Ombudsman denied
Petitioner appealed the order to the Ombudsman
Treating the appeal as a motion for reconsideration, the Ombudsman
dismissed it

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
 Khan, Jr. v. Office of the Ombudsman
July 20,2006

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Ombudsman has jurisdiction
RULING:
No, the Office of the Ombudsman exercises jurisdiction over public
officials/employees of GOCCs with original charters. Although the
government later on acquired the controlling interest in PAL, the fact
remains that the latter did not have an original charter and its
officers/employees could not be investigated and/or prosecuted by the
Ombudsman.
The petition is GRANTED

JHOANNE B. SOTELO
JHOANNE B. SOTELO