Andres vs. Martires: Who Holds Jurisdiction Over VP Duterte’s Threats?

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C Biraogo — December 3, 2024

KILL threats from the second-highest office in the land? The alleged incendiary remarks by Vice President Sara Duterte against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., his wife, and House Speaker Martin Romualdez have shaken the political landscape and ignited fierce legal debate. With Ombudsman Samuel Martires dismissing jurisdiction over the matter, the question remains: Are our laws too weak to hold the powerful accountable? In this article, we dissect the legal arguments fueling this explosive controversy.

The Debate Unfolds: Controversy and Context

At the center of this debate is Ombudsman Martires’ statement that his office cannot investigate the alleged threats due to their “private” nature, asserting that such utterances fall outside the scope of official acts. On the other hand, DOJ Undersecretary Jesse Andres has argued that Duterte’s statements, given her position, are not immune from scrutiny under existing laws.

Several investigations are ongoing, including one by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code (Grave Threats) and potential application of the Anti-Terrorism Law. The House of Representatives is also examining the Vice President’s confidential fund expenditures in a related but distinct matter, highlighting the multifaceted nature of these allegations.

The Legal Rationale Behind Martires’ Decisions

Mandate of the Ombudsman
- The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction is primarily defined under Republic Act 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) and Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Ombudsman investigates:
  - Violations of RA 3019 and related crimes under the Revised Penal Code.
  - “Offenses committed in relation to office.”
- Martires argues that Duterte’s threats, characterized as “personal,” do not fall under these categories since they are not acts performed in her capacity as Vice President.
Private vs. Public Utterances
- Martires’ distinction between personal and official actions is critical. The Ombudsman Act does not explicitly grant jurisdiction over private actions unless they directly intersect with an official’s duties.
Judicial Precedents
- In cases like Sabio v. Gordon (G.R. No. 174340), the Supreme Court emphasized that the Ombudsman’s power is tied to “offenses related to public office.” This reinforces the need to establish a clear nexus between Duterte’s alleged threats and her official capacity.
Overlap with Law Enforcement
- The Ombudsman does not traditionally handle grave threats, which fall under the Revised Penal Code and are typically investigated by agencies like the NBI or DOJ.

The Legal Groundwork Supporting Andres

Expanded View of “In Relation to Office”
- Andres contends that Duterte’s position amplifies the gravity and impact of her statements, potentially constituting an abuse of power. Statements made by a Vice President carry inherent implications of authority, even if framed as personal.
Public Trust Doctrine
- As a public official, Duterte is held to a higher standard of ethical conduct under RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). Any act undermining public confidence could fall under the Ombudsman’s purview to uphold integrity and accountability.
Preventive Suspension and Oversight Powers
- The Ombudsman has broad preventive and oversight powers to investigate and suspend officials suspected of misconduct, even if the actions are not explicitly criminal. The threats, if viewed as undermining public trust, could trigger administrative sanctions.
Relevance of Supreme Court Precedents
- In Garcia v. Office of the Ombudsman (G.R. No. 151284), the Court held that the Ombudsman has broad powers to investigate misconduct, emphasizing its role as the “protector of the people.” This principle could extend to cases where the Vice President’s actions, even indirectly, affect governance and public trust.

Reconciling the Conflicting Views

Defining the Scope of “In Relation to Office”
- The ambiguity in the Ombudsman Act regarding what constitutes “in relation to office” must be clarified. Establishing clear guidelines—possibly through Supreme Court interpretation—can help delineate the boundaries of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Collaborative Investigation Framework
- Martires could leverage the Ombudsman Act’s “takeover provision” to jointly assess the case with the NBI and DOJ, ensuring accountability while respecting the primary jurisdiction of other agencies.
Legislative Reform
- Congress may consider amending existing laws to explicitly address the accountability of high-ranking officials for actions that blur the line between personal and official capacity, ensuring a comprehensive framework for such cases.

Recommendations

For Ombudsman Martires:

Reconsider the narrow interpretation of “in relation to office” to include actions that erode public trust in governance.
Collaborate with the NBI and DOJ to ensure a thorough investigation.

For Jesse Andres and the DOJ:

Build a strong case demonstrating the connection between Duterte’s statements and her official duties.
Consider filing administrative complaints under RA 6713 for unethical conduct, alongside criminal complaints under the Revised Penal Code and Anti-Terrorism Act.

For the Filipino People:

Demand transparency and accountability from public officials, irrespective of rank or political alignment.
Advocate for legislative clarity on the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction over actions of high-ranking officials.

As the debate over Ombudsman Martires’ jurisdiction unfolds, its resolution will ripple far beyond this case. It could redefine how power is held accountable in the Philippines, setting a precedent that shapes generations to come. The choice is clear: embrace accountability or risk eroding the public’s faith in justice.