Drilon’s Senatorial Shield: Congress’s All-You-Can-Eat Impunity Buffet

How the Senate Feasts on RA 6770’s Loophole Smorgasbord

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — October 27, 2025

IN THE grand theater of Philippine politics, where accountability is a punchline and power is the script, former Senate President Franklin Drilon has delivered a performance worthy of a standing ovation from the elite. On October 23, 2025, Drilon proclaimed with the swagger of a legal showman that the Office of the Ombudsman has no disciplinary jurisdiction over members of Congress, reserving that privilege for the Senate’s exclusive VIP club. This isn’t a fresh script—it’s a rerun from 2016, when the Senate, under Drilon’s baton as Senate President Pro Tempore, scoffed at an Ombudsman order to boot Senator Joel Villanueva for alleged Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) mischief. Welcome to the Philippines, where the political elite clutch their immunity idols tightly, and the Ombudsman is left chasing shadows.

The Great Legislative Houdini Act: Drilon’s Sleight of Hand

Let’s toss Drilon a crumb: he’s not conjuring this argument from thin air. He’s brandishing Section 21 of Republic Act No. 6770, the Ombudsman Act of 1989, which carves out a glittering exemption for Members of Congress from the Ombudsman’s disciplinary whip. The text is a love note to legislative privilege: the Ombudsman “shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials… except over officials who may be removed only by impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the Judiciary.” In 2016, when then-Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales ordered Villanueva’s dismissal for grave misconduct and serious dishonesty over a ₱10 million PDAF scandal, the Senate—conducted by Maestro Drilon—flashed this statutory gem like a magician’s wand and made the order disappear. Abracadabra, accountability be gone!

But here’s where the trick falls apart. Drilon’s myopic reading of Republic Act (RA) 6770 is less a defense of constitutional purity and more a masterclass in self-preservation. Contrast this with the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article XI, Section 13, which empowers the Ombudsman to “investigate any act or omission of any public official” when such acts appear illegal, unjust, or improper. No fine print, no asterisks, no “senators need not apply.” The Constitution speaks in bold, yet Drilon treats Section 21 like a sacred amulet, warding off the Ombudsman’s gaze. Is he a guardian of institutional balance, or just another member of the Senate’s Old Boys’ Club, circling the wagons to shield a colleague? Hint: it’s the one that smells like impunity.

The absurdity is almost comedic. RA 6770, Section 22, explicitly allows the Ombudsman to investigate impeachable officials for impeachment purposes, proving its reach extends to the loftiest perches of power. If the Ombudsman can probe a president or a Supreme Court justice, why should a senator—whose alleged PDAF sins predate his election—get a hall pass from administrative reckoning? Drilon’s argument is a house of mirrors: it distorts the Constitution’s clear mandate and reflects only the Senate’s self-interest. This isn’t legal scholarship; it’s a recipe for the impunity that’s been marinating in this republic for decades.

**Drilon’s Gourmet Getaway: How Congress Ducks the Ombudsman’s Fork**

Constitutional Cage Match: Why Section 21 Deserves a Knockout

Let’s get to the ring: Section 21 of RA 6770 is a legislative tumor, choking the life out of the Ombudsman’s constitutional mandate. Article XI, Section 13(1) of the 1987 Constitution grants the Ombudsman sweeping authority to investigate “any public official“—no exemptions for senators playing hide-and-seek behind statutory loopholes. Section 21‘s carve-out is an unconstitutional overreach, a brazen attempt by Congress to neuter a constitutional body designed to keep power in check. The Supreme Court has a track record of guarding the Ombudsman’s independence like a pitbull. In Gonzales III v. Office of the President (G.R. No. 196231, 2014), the Court struck down provisions that encroached on the Ombudsman’s autonomy, cementing its role as the nation’s anti-graft enforcer. If the Court can slap down presidential meddling, why should it let Congress skate with a self-awarded immunity badge?

The contradiction is laughable. RA 6770, Section 22, proves the Ombudsman can investigate high officials for impeachment, yet Section 21 pretends senators are untouchable for administrative sanctions. This isn’t a legal nuance; it’s a loophole wide enough to funnel a pork barrel through. Drilon’s claim that only the Senate can discipline its own—per Article VI, Section 16(3)—is a sleight of hand. That provision covers internal antics, like bickering on the Senate floor, not external accountability for graft or misconduct from a senator’s pre-election days. To argue otherwise is to rewrite the Constitution with a crayon.

Battle Cry: Haul Section 21 to the Supreme Court Guillotine

Enough with the Senate’s smoke and mirrors. Section 21 of RA 6770 must be dragged before the Supreme Court and beheaded as an unconstitutional affront to Article XI, Section 13. The Court must affirm that the Ombudsman can investigate and recommend disciplinary action against members of Congress, even if the Senate gets the final say on enforcement. This isn’t about stealing Congress’s thunder; it’s about ensuring no public official moonlights as a demigod. The Ombudsman’s job is to expose misconduct, forcing the Senate to act or face the wrath of voters who are fed up with the charade.

For the Supreme Court: Eviscerate Section 21 and uphold the Ombudsman’s power to investigate and recommend sanctions, leaving the Senate to decide whether to enforce them. If the Senate wants to play shield-bearer, let it do so under the public’s microscope, where electoral consequences sting harder than any legal brief.

For the Public: Wake up. This isn’t a legal debate; it’s a masterclass in elite privilege. Demand that the Ombudsman and the Senate’s Ethics Committee—currently napping through cases like Villanueva’s—do their jobs. Transparency isn’t optional; it’s a constitutional mandate under Article XI, Section 1.

For Congress: Grow some courage. Either amend RA 6770 to align with the Constitution or empower your Ethics Committee to act without winking at allies. Hiding behind a flimsy exemption isn’t just spineless; it’s a betrayal of the public trust you’re sworn to uphold.

The Elite’s Playbook: Power Protects Power

Drilon’s pronouncement isn’t just a legal fumble; it’s a page ripped from the Philippine elite’s dog-eared playbook: deflect, exempt, repeat. How fortunate for Senator Villanueva that his Senate comrades have such a creative take on accountability. The 2016 Senate vote to ignore the Ombudsman’s order and the 2025 “secret” reversal by Ombudsman Samuel Martires are twin pillars of privilege, propping up a system where power protects power. Section 21 isn’t a law; it’s a VIP pass for the untouchable, and it’s time to shred it in the Supreme Court’s shredder. Until then, the Philippine political circus will keep selling tickets, with Drilon as the ringmaster, juggling legalisms while the public waits for accountability to take the stage.