Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

HOUSE BILLNO. 36914

Introduced by Reps. NIEL “JUNJUN” C. TUPAS, JR., LORENZO R. TANADA ITI,
JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA, RAULA. DAZA, HENEDINA R. ABAD

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
ngt 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
ig 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.

er te te

Cor
jenincto’s.aw}va Rotates



Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

HOUSE BILL NO. 3 691

“Introduced by Reps. NIEL “JUNJUN” C. TUPAS, JR., LORENZO R. TANADA
Ill, JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA, RAUL A. DAZA, HENEDINA R. ABAD

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 OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN OR 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 the House of Representatives of the Philippines in
Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Section 24, paragraph lof Republic Act No. 6770 is hereby
afnended as follows:

“Section 24. Preventive Suspension. - The Ombudsman or his Deputy
may 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, AND GIVEN THE GRAVITY OF
THE OFFENSE, THERE IS GREAT PROBABILITY THAT THE
CONTINUANCE IN OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT COULD INFLUENCE
THE WITNESSES 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 servicef; or (c) the respondent’s continued stay in office
may prejudice the case filed against him]

XXX XXX XXX
SECTION 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.

Findings of fact 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 the 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, proclamations 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 after fifteen
(15) days from its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2)
newspapers of general circulation.

Approved,