In the April 29 issue of the Inquirer, defense counsel Ramon Esguerra stated that the “Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the Chief Justice” in his 4-point reply to the Ombudsman’s directive to Chief Justice Renato Corona to explain within 72 hours how he acquired several peso and dollar accounts, allegedly “grossly disproportionate” to his salary. The public is again being bombarded with legal issues that tend to confuse more than enlighten. For the benefit of the general public, it would be prudent to cite the provisions of law that apply to such cases.
The Ombudsman Act of 1989 (Republic Act 6770) states under Sec. 21 that the Office of the Ombudsman shall have no disciplinary authority over officials who may be removed only by impeachment or over members of Congress, and the judiciary.
However, Sec. 22 of the same Act states that the “Office of the Ombudsman shall have the power to investigate any serious misconduct in office allegedly committed by officials removable by impeachment, for the purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment, if warranted.”
The investigatory powers allows the Ombudsman to (a) enter and inspect the premises of any office, agency, commission or tribunal; (b) examine and have access to any book, record, file, document or paper; and (c) hold private hearings with both the complaining individual and the official concerned (Sec. 23.3).
Sec. 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provides that all public officers should “xxx submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of xxx the Supreme Court, xxx, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.”
The oath is contained in the statement of assets, liabilities and net worth, which reads as follows: “I hereby authorize the Ombudsman or his authorized representative to obtain and secure from all appropriate government agencies including the Bureau of Internal Revenue such documents that may show my assets, liabilities, net worth, business interests and financial connections, to include those of my spouse and unmarried children below 18 years of age living with me in my household covering previous years to include the year I first assumed office in the government.”
The restrictions, limits in power, exceptions and procedures of the Ombudsman are all contained in RA 6770. While the Constitution is clear that the Chief Justice can only be removed through impeachment, there is nothing in the Constitution that bars the Ombudsman from investigating an impeachable officer. The oft-heard legal adage that “What one cannot do directly, he cannot do indirectly” will most probably be used to prevent the Ombudsman from performing her duty to investigate (not remove) officials removable by impeachment.
It would be interesting to see how the Supreme Court, the final arbiter on questions of law, will rule when this question is brought before it.
—ROMEO M. ESCAREAL
Retired justice of the Sandiganbayan
Makati City