By Hail to the Chair — November 5, 2025
SECTIONS 12 and 13, Article XI of the Constitution vest in the Office of the Ombudsman the power to investigate and to pursue the criminal prosecution of public officials or employees for illegal acts or omissions.
In 1989, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 6770, or The Ombudsman Act of 1989. This law established the functional and structural organization of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Section 21 of this law has the following thought-provoking provisions –
“SEC. 21. Officials Subject to Disciplinary Authority; Exceptions. — The Office of the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including Members of the Cabinet, local government, government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries, except over officials who may be removed only by impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the Judiciary.” (Emphasis supplied)
Pursuant to Section 21 above, officials who may be removed from office only by impeachment, the members of Congress, and everyone working in the judiciary, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman. This sweeping exemption is patently unconstitutional.
Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution provides that the President, Vice President, Justices of the Supreme Court, commissioners of the constitutional commissions (Civil Service Commission, Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit) and the Ombudsman are the public officers who may be removed only by impeachment.
Under Section 3 (7) of the Constitution, when an impeachable public officer is removed in the impeachment process, the judgment “shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial and punishment, according to law.”
It can be gleaned from the provision above that the Office of the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over a public officer removable only by impeachment during that public officer’s incumbency, but once that public officer is removed, the Office of the Ombudsman may exercise its jurisdiction over that former public officer. This means that public officers who may be removed only by impeachment under the Constitution are subject to the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman after their removal from office, for any criminal or administrative liability they may have incurred during their incumbency, notwithstanding Section 21 of The Ombudsman Act of 1989.
The fact that the public officer has been removed from office is inconsequential to his criminal prosecution or administrative liability. Removal from office by impeachment, like resignation, dismissal and retirement, does not preclude subsequent prosecution for criminal liability or administrative raps.
Thus, Section 21 must be construed in the foregoing manner. If it were otherwise, the sweeping exemption given to public officers removable only by impeachment under Section 21 will suffer from constitutional infirmity.
As to members of Congress, there is nothing in Sections 12 and 13, Article XI of the Constitution which absolutely exempts them from the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman. This is manifested by the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman over “any public official” without qualification recited in Section 13 of the charter.
Evidently, the exemption from the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman given by Section 21 of The Ombudsman Act of 1989 to members of Congress is patently unconstitutional because Congress has no power to modify by legislation any provision of the Constitution, including Sections 12 and 13, Article XI of the charter.
That exemption becomes all the more objectionable because it amounts to Congress exempting themselves from public accountability.
Therefore, members of Congress may not validly invoke Section 21 of The Ombudsman Act of 1989 to exempt themselves from the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman for any criminal or administrative liability on their part, incurred during or after their incumbency.
As to members of the judiciary, Section 11, Article VIII of the Constitution states that the Supreme Court en banc has the power to discipline judges of lower courts or order their dismissal. Section 6 of the same article provides that the Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all court personnel.
Sections 6 and 11, Article VII of the Constitution can only refers to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over administrative cases against judges of lower courts and all court personnel. Nothing in the Sections 6 and 11 above exempts judges and court personnel from the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman to pursue a criminal prosecution against them.
Violations of penal laws must be prosecuted. In this light, the prosecution of public officers who violate penal laws, including public officers working in the judiciary, is undertaken not by the Supreme Court but, pursuant to the constitutional mandate, by the Office of the Ombudsman. Although courts have the exclusive jurisdiction to render judgment in criminal cases against all public officers, judges and court personnel included, the responsibility of prosecuting judges and court personnel for criminal offenses falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman.
In sum, the plenary exemption granted by Section 21 of The Ombudsman Act of 1989 to members of Congress is patently unconstitutional, because it amounts to an amendment by legislation of Sections 12 and 13, Article XI of the Constitution. Congress cannot, by mere legislation, amend the fundamental law of the land. Thus, members of Congress are not exempted from the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman for any criminal or administrative liability on their part, incurred during or after their incumbency.
Public officers removable only by impeachment are subject to the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman for any criminal or administrative liability incurred during and after their incumbency.
Justices and judges of inferior courts and all court personnel are subject to the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman but only for any criminal liability incurred during and after their incumbency.
If the Office of the Ombudsman encounters a serious obstacle to the exercise of its jurisdiction by any individual who invokes the unconstitutional provisions of Section 21 of The Ombudsman Act of 1989, the Office of the Ombudsman should challenge the constitutionality of the said provision before the Supreme Court. ■
- ₱75 Million Heist: Cops Gone Full Bandit
- ₱6.7-Trillion Temptation: The Great Pork Zombie Revival and the “Collegial” Vote-Buying Circus
- ₱1.9 Billion for 382 Units and a Rooftop Pool: Poverty Solved, Next Problem Please
- ₱1.35 Trillion for Education: Bigger Budget, Same Old Thieves’ Banquet
- ₱1 Billion Congressional Seat? Sorry, Sold Out Na Raw — Si Bello Raw Ang Hindi Bumili
- “We Will Take Care of It”: Bersamin’s P52-Billion Love Letter to Corruption
- “Skewed Narrative”? More Like Skewered Taxpayers!
- “My Brother the President Is a Junkie”: A Marcos Family Reunion Special
- “Mapipilitan Akong Gawing Zero”: The Day Senator Rodante Marcoleta Confessed to Perjury on National Television and Thought We’d Clap for the Creativity
- “Bend the Law”? Cute. Marcoleta Just Bent the Constitution into a Pretzel
- “Allocables”: The New Face of Pork, Thicker Than a Politician’s Hide
- “Ako ’To, Ading—Pass the Shabu and the DNA Kit”
KWEBA ni BAROK 
Leave a comment