Republic of tH Philippines i 02 JUL 2013

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES belo P
Quezon City as
SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

HOUSE BILL NO. 980

Introduced by Rep. NIEL “JUNJUN® C. TUPAS, JR.
5* District, Iloilo

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Republic Act No. 6770 otherwise known as “The Ombudsman Act of 1989” (R.A.

6770) was enacted into law in pursuance of the constitutional provision on the creation of
the Office of the Ombudsman. Having been created to serve as the watchdog of the
people against erring public officials, the Office of the Ombudsman no doubt plays a very
important role in the system of checks and balances in our government.

However, it has been observed that R.A. 6770 contains some provisions which are
not clearly defined. This lack of clarity in the law has resulted in the flip-flopping of
decisions by the courts as to the interpretation of some provisions and terms found
therein. Among the provisions/terms that need to be clarified or defined are (i) the
authority of the Office of the Ombudsman to put a public officer who is the subject of an
investigation under preventive suspension; and (ii) the effectivity of decisions issued by
the Office of the Ombudsman.

Definition of Public Officers subject to “Preventive Suspension”

The authority of the Ombudsman or Deputy to issue a preventive suspension
should be limited to those public officers under the authority of the Ombudsman who are
currently occupying the same position by virtue of which the acts charged arose. This is
to ensure that the very purpose for the preventive suspension is achieved and that the
preventive suspension is imposed by the Office of the Ombudsman not as a penalty or as
a tool for harassment but as a necessary act to prevent any influence by the public officer
to interfere, prevent or delay any investigation against him. There have been many
instances in the past when a public officer was put under preventive suspension by the
Office of the Ombudsman although the said officer was no longer holding the same office
by virtue of which the act charged arose and was therefore no longer able to influence the
investigation in his former office. This negates the purpose of the preventive suspension.

Effectivity of Decisions

Section 27 of R.A. 6770 tries to provide for the effectivity and finality of the
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman. However, the reason for laying down the
rules in the law is defeated by the last paragraph of the very same section which allows
the Office of the Ombudsman to amend or modify the rules on the effectivity and finality
of its decisions. This has resulted in the flip-flopping of the rules on the effectivity and
finality of decisions as the Office of the Ombudsman sees fit. The courts have also been
confused on the issue as can be seen from the flip-flopping of decisions on the effectivity
of the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman.

In fact, the Office of the Ombudsman has amended its rules through
Administrative Order No. 17 which provides that an appeal shall not stop a decision of
the Ombudsman from being executory. This is impractical and unfair since it makes a


decision which can possibly be reversed on appeal practically final: it defeats the purpose
of an appeal. If the public officer is immediately punished but is acquitted on appeal, the
adverse effects of the immediate execution of the decision/findings of the Office of the
Ombudsman on him cannot be quantified and has no monetary value. The adverse effect
is even worse if the public officer concerned is an elective official since the electorate
will be deprived of their representative. In other words, the damage caused by the
immediate execution of an adverse decision pending appeal is irreparable. Such a rule can
also be used for malicious prosecution and political oppression. Therefore, there is a need
to clearly lay down in the law the rules on the finality of the decisions of the Office of the
Ombudsman as well as to clarify the rules in the execution of said decisions to prevent
‘the Office of the Ombudsman from tampering with such rules and to make sure that it
does not contravene the Constitution in the performance of its function.

For the foregoing reasons, there is a need to clearly define (i) the authority of the
Office of the Ombudsman to preventively suspend a public official under investigation
under Republic Act No. 6770; and (ii) the effectivity of the decisions of the Office of the
Ombudsman. The authority of the Office of the Ombudsman to preventively suspend a
public official who is under investigation should cover only those who are still holding
the same position by virtue of which the act subject of the investigation arose. The
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman should not be immediately effective and
executory pending appeal

Approval of this bill is earnestly sought

—fos-

TEL/“SUNJUN” C. TUPAS,


Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

HOUSE BILL NO. 980

~ Introduced by Rep. NIEL “JUNJUN” C. TUPAS, JR.
S* District, I

“AN ACT
AMENDING SECTIONS 24 AND 27 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6770,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “THE OMBUDSMAN ACT OF 1989”, TO DEFINE
THE “PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION” AUTHORITY OF THE OMBUDSMAN
AND HIS DEPUTY OVER ELECTIVE AND APPOINTIVE OFFICIALS, AND
THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE DECISIONS OF THE OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN”

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress so assembled:

SECTION 1 — Section 24 paragraph 1 of Republic Act No. 6770 is hereby
amended as follows

“Sec. 24. Preventive Suspension. - The Ombudsman or his
Deputy, AFTER GIVING THE RESPONDENT THE OPPORTUNITY
TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING, may PENDING THE
INVESTIGATION, preventively suspend any officer or employee under
his authority WHO CURRENTLY HOLDS THE SAME POSITION BY
VIRTUE OF WHICH THE ACT SUBJECT OF AN INVESTIGATION
AROSE, [pending an investigation] if in his judgment, the evidence of
guilt is strong, THERE IS A GREAT PROBABILITY THAT THE
CONTINUANCE IN OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT COULD
INFLUENCE THE WITNESS OR POSE A THREAT TO THE SAFETY
AND INTEGRITY OF THE RECORDS AND OTHER EVIDENCE;
and (a) the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty,

oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty;
OR (b) the charges would warrant removal from the service [or (c) the
respondent's continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against
him.”

“The preventive suspension shall continue until the case is
terminated by the Office of the Ombudsman but not more than [six (6)]
THREE (3) months, without pay, except when the delay in the


disposition of the case by the Office of the Ombudsman is due to the
fault, negligence or petition of the respondent, in which case the period
of such delay shall not be counted in computing the period of suspension
herein provided

THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN SHALL RESOLVE
THE CASE NOT LATER THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FROM THE DATE,
THE SAME IS SUBMITTED FOR RESOLUTION”

SEC. 2. Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 is hereby amended as follows:

“Section 27. [Effectivity and] Finality of Decisions ~ (1) All
provisionary orders of the Office of the Ombudsman are immediately
effective and executory.

A motion for reconsideration of any order, directive or decision of
the Ombudsman must be filed within five (5) days after receipt of
written notice and shall be entertained only on any of the following
grounds:

(1). New evidence has been discovered which materially
affects the order, directive or decision;

(2). Errors of law or irregularities have been committed
prejudicial to the interest of the movant. The motion for reconsideration
shall be resolved within three (3) days from filing: Provided. That only

‘one motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.

Finding of facts by the Office of the Ombudsman when supported
by substantial evidence are conclusive. [Any] [o]OrderS, directives, or
decisions OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN IN
ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY CASES imposing the penalty of
public censure or reprimand or suspension of not more than one (1)

month's salary, shall be final and unappealable

IN ALL OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY CASES
WHERE THE PENALTY IMPOSED IS OTHER THAN PUBLIC
CENSURE OR REPRIMAND OR SUSPENSION OF NOT MORE


THAN ONE (1) MONTH'S SALARY. THE ORDER, DIRECTIVE, OR
DECISION SHALL BECOME FINAL ONLY AFTER THE LAPSE OF
THE PERIOD TO APPEAL IF NO APPEAL IS PERFECTED, OR
AFTER THE FINAL DENIAL OF THE APPEAL FROM THE SAID
ORDER, DIRECTIVE OR DECISION. A DECISION THAT HAS NOT
YET BECOME FINAL CANNOT BE EXECUTED OR
IMPLEMENTED PENDING APPEAL.

[In all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives or
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the
Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari within ten (10) days
from receipt of the written notice of order, directive or decision or denial
of the motion for reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the

Rules of Court,]

[The above rules may be amended or modified by the Office of
the Ombudsman as the interest of justice may require ]

SECTION 3. Repealing Clause. — All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders,

proclamation and/or administrative regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions

of this Act are hereby amended, modified superseded or repealed accordingly.

SECTION 4. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days from

its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general

circulation.

Approved