The Supreme Court affirmed that the Ombudsman’s office has the constitutional authority to prosecute cases and oversee the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP). This decision clarifies that Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6770, which grants the Ombudsman these powers, does not violate the Constitution, setting a firm precedent for the Ombudsman’s role in combating public corruption. The ruling reinforces the Ombudsman’s independence and broad authority, ensuring that the office can effectively pursue cases against erring public officials.

Countrywide Funds and Constitutional Conflict: Can the Ombudsman Oversee the Special Prosecutor?

In Carmelo F. Lazatin, Marino A. Morales, Teodoro L. David and Angelito A. Pelayo v. Hon. Aniano A. Desierto as Ombudsman, and Sandiganbayan, Third Division, the petitioners challenged the Ombudsman’s disapproval of the Office of the Special Prosecutor’s (OSP) resolution, which recommended dismissing criminal cases against them. The core of the issue revolved around whether the Ombudsman had the constitutional authority to overturn decisions made by the OSP, particularly concerning cases involving the alleged misuse of Countrywide Development Funds (CDF). Petitioners argued that the Ombudsman’s role was limited to investigation and recommendation, not prosecution, and that R.A. No. 6770, which places the OSP under the Ombudsman’s office, was unconstitutional.

The petitioners anchored their arguments on Section 13, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, asserting that it only empowers the Ombudsman to investigate and recommend cases, not to prosecute. They contended that the power to prosecute lies solely with the OSP, which they believed should be a separate and distinct entity from the Ombudsman’s office. The petitioners highlighted that R.A. No. 6770, by making the OSP an organic component of the Office of the Ombudsman, effectively encroached upon the OSP’s constitutional mandate.

Furthermore, the petitioners claimed that the funds in question were used to reimburse Congressman Lazatin for personal funds advanced for projects benefiting Pinatubo victims. They insisted that absolving them from liability was warranted due to the urgent need for these projects. These claims sought to justify the financial transactions and alleviate any suspicion of malversation of public funds.

The Supreme Court, however, firmly rejected these arguments, citing the landmark case of Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman. The Court reiterated that granting prosecutorial powers to the Ombudsman is constitutionally sound. Specifically, paragraph 8, Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution allows the Ombudsman to “exercise such other functions or duties as may be provided by law.”

x x x While the intention to withhold prosecutorial powers from the Ombudsman was indeed present, the Commission [referring to the Constitutional Commission of 1986] did not hesitate to recommend that the Legislature could, through statute, prescribe such other powers, functions, and duties to the Ombudsman. x x x As finally approved by the Commission after several amendments, this is now embodied in paragraph 8, Section 13, Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers) of the Constitution

This provision empowers Congress to prescribe additional functions and duties to the Ombudsman. The Supreme Court emphasized that this includes the authority to prosecute cases, which Congress exercised through R.A. No. 6770. Building on this principle, the Court affirmed the constitutionality of Section 3 of R.A. No. 6770, which places the OSP under the Office of the Ombudsman.

x x x the petitioners conclude that the inclusion of the Office of the Special Prosecutor as among the offices under the Office of the Ombudsman in Section 3 of R.A. No. 6770 (“An Act Providing for the Functional and Structural Organization of the Office of the Ombudsman and for Other Purposes”) is unconstitutional and void.

The Court clarified that the Tanodbayan, later known as the Office of the Special Prosecutor, would continue to function and exercise its powers, except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman. This arrangement, the Court reasoned, allowed Congress to grant additional powers to the Ombudsman while ensuring the OSP’s continued operation under the Ombudsman’s supervision.

The Supreme Court also addressed the petitioners’ plea to revisit the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6770 and set aside the principle of stare decisis. The Court underscored the importance of stare decisis et non quieta movere, which means adhering to precedents and not unsettling established principles. This doctrine, embodied in Article 8 of the Civil Code, ensures stability and certainty in judicial decisions. Absent strong and compelling reasons, the Court will uphold its prior rulings to maintain predictability and public confidence in the judiciary.

The doctrine of stare decisis enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires courts in a country to follow the rule established in a decision of the Supreme Court thereof. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land. The doctrine of stare decisis is based on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument.

The Court found no compelling reason to deviate from its established jurisprudence. The petitioners failed to demonstrate how the Ombudsman’s actions constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Court reiterated that certiorari is a remedy for correcting errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The issue of whether the evidence supported a finding of probable cause pertained to the latter, and thus, the Petition for Certiorari was deemed inappropriate.

It is a fundamental aphorism in law that a review of facts and evidence is not the province of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, which is extra ordinem – beyond the ambit of appeal. In certiorari proceedings, judicial review does not go as far as to examine and assess the evidence of the parties and to weigh the probative value thereof. It does not include an inquiry as to the correctness of the evaluation of evidence. Any error committed in the evaluation of evidence is merely an error of judgment that cannot be remedied by certiorari.

The Court emphasized the independence of the Ombudsman, envisioned as the champion of the people and preserver of public service integrity. It cited Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto, underscoring that the Court would not interfere with the Ombudsman’s exercise of investigatory and prosecutory powers as long as they are supported by substantial evidence. This independence is crucial to ensure that the Ombudsman’s office is insulated from outside pressure and improper influence.

Under Sections 12 and 13, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution and RA 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989), the Ombudsman has the power to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of a public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has been the consistent ruling of the Court not to interfere with the Ombudsman’s exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers as long as his rulings are supported by substantial evidence. Envisioned as the champion of the people and preserver of the integrity of public service, he has wide latitude in exercising his powers and is free from intervention from the three branches of government. This is to ensure that his Office is insulated from any outside pressure and improper influence.

The Court concluded that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion. The Ombudsman was acting within the bounds of R.A. No. 6770 and properly exercised its power of control and supervision over the OSP when it disapproved the Resolution dated September 18, 2000. This decision reinforces the Ombudsman’s role as a crucial check on public corruption, with the authority to oversee and, if necessary, override the decisions of the OSP.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the Ombudsman has the constitutional authority to overrule the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) in dismissing criminal cases against public officials. The petitioners argued that the Ombudsman’s power is limited to investigation and recommendation, not prosecution, and that R.A. No. 6770 is unconstitutional.
What is the doctrine of stare decisis?	Stare decisis is the legal principle that courts should adhere to precedents and not disturb settled matters. It promotes stability and predictability in the legal system by ensuring that similar cases are decided alike, unless there are strong reasons to deviate from established jurisprudence.
What is grave abuse of discretion?	Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
What does R.A. No. 6770 entail?	R.A. No. 6770, also known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, provides for the functional and structural organization of the Office of the Ombudsman. It grants the Ombudsman prosecutorial powers and places the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) under its supervision and control.
Why did the petitioners challenge the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6770?	The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6770 because they believed it encroached upon the OSP’s constitutional mandate by making it an organic component of the Office of the Ombudsman. They argued that the OSP should be a separate and distinct entity with the sole power to prosecute cases.
What was the Court’s basis for upholding the Ombudsman’s prosecutorial powers?	The Court relied on paragraph 8, Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution, which allows the Ombudsman to “exercise such other functions or duties as may be provided by law.” It interpreted this provision as granting Congress the power to legislate additional functions to the Ombudsman, including prosecutorial powers.
What was the significance of Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman in this case?	Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman set the precedent that the Ombudsman has prosecutorial powers in accordance with the Constitution. The Court in Lazatin cited Acop to reinforce its ruling that R.A. No. 6770, which granted the Ombudsman these powers, does not violate the Constitution.
Can the Court interfere with the Ombudsman’s decisions?	The Court generally does not interfere with the Ombudsman’s exercise of investigatory and prosecutory powers as long as the rulings are supported by substantial evidence. Interference is warranted only if the Ombudsman acts with grave abuse of discretion.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision in Lazatin v. Desierto reaffirms the constitutional authority of the Ombudsman to prosecute cases and oversee the Office of the Special Prosecutor. This ruling reinforces the Ombudsman’s crucial role in combating public corruption, ensuring the office remains independent and empowered to hold public officials accountable.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: CARMELO F. LAZATIN v. HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, G.R. No. 147097, June 05, 2009