Same Ombudsman, different remedies
In criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that resolutions of the Ombudsman are not subject to ordinary appeal.
Text size
In criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that resolutions of the Ombudsman are not subject to ordinary appeal.
When clients receive an unfavorable ruling from the Office of the Ombudsman, the first question they usually ask their lawyer is simple: What now? More often than not, the answer they expect is equally simple: “We will appeal.”
The word appeal is familiar even to non-lawyers. In ordinary language, it simply means asking a higher authority for help or reconsideration. In law, however, an appeal is not merely a request for another look at the case. It is a statutory privilege that may be exercised only when the law expressly allows it and only in the manner prescribed by the Rules of Court.
This distinction becomes particularly important in proceedings before the Office of the Ombudsman, the constitutional body entrusted with investigating complaints against public officials and employees. Contrary to common belief, not every adverse ruling of the Ombudsman may be elevated through an ordinary appeal. The proper remedy depends on the nature of the case involved.
In criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that resolutions of the Ombudsman are not subject to ordinary appeal. The reason is straightforward. Under the Constitution and the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (Republic Act 6770), the determination of probable cause falls within the Ombudsman’s investigatory and prosecutorial powers. Whether criminal charges should be filed is a matter entrusted by law to the Ombudsman. Courts are therefore not authorized to substitute their own judgment for that of the Ombudsman on the existence of probable cause.
This does not mean, however, that the Ombudsman’s criminal resolutions are beyond judicial scrutiny. They remain subject to review, but only through a limited remedy. Where it is alleged that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the proper recourse is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court — not an appeal.
In such cases, the Supreme Court does not revisit the evidence to determine whether probable cause exists. It examines only whether the Ombudsman exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical manner.
The present framework traces its roots to the landmark case of Fabian v. Desierto. In that case, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional Section 27 of Republic Act 6770 insofar as it authorized direct appeals to the Supreme Court from Ombudsman decisions in administrative disciplinary cases. The provision impermissibly expanded the Court’s appellate jurisdiction without its advice and consent, in violation of Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution.
Consequently, appeals in administrative disciplinary cases were redirected to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
The distinction is therefore clear. In administrative disciplinary cases decided by the Ombudsman, the proper remedy is an appeal under Rule 43 before the Court of Appeals. In criminal cases, however, the remedy is not appeal but an original petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court, and only upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.
Everything begins with correctly identifying the character of the Ombudsman proceeding. In administrative cases, the Ombudsman acts as a disciplining authority that determines administrative liability and imposes the corresponding sanction. In criminal cases, it acts as a prosecutor, determining only whether sufficient basis exists to require the respondent to stand trial.
This distinction is far from a mere procedural technicality. It reflects the careful balance struck by our legal system between preserving the Ombudsman’s constitutional independence in prosecuting erring public officials and ensuring that such authority is not exercised arbitrarily.
Thus, when a client asks what now, the lawyer’s answer should not automatically be, “We will appeal.” The wiser response is to first ask: what remedy does the law actually allow? In litigation, as in life, choosing the correct path often determines whether one reaches the destination at all.
For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www.divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cad@divinalaw.com.
