Ombudsman junks motion to suspend Speaker
Credit to Author: Elizabeth Marcelo| Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0800
MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the Ombudsman has denied the motion of Davao del Norte 1st District Rep. Pantaleon Alvarez seeking the preventive suspension of Speaker Martin Romualdez and three other lawmakers, in connection with a graft complaint that he filed against them over alleged irregularities in the 2025 national budget.
In a 10-page resolution signed by Ombudsman Samuel Martires on March 7, but made public to reporters only yesterday, he said his office does not have the authority to discipline members of Congress as well as impeachable officials and members of the judiciary.
Martires cited Article VI, Section 16 (3) of the Constitution, which gives the Senate and the House of Representatives exclusive power to discipline their members.
He said even Republic Act 6770, or the Office of the Ombudsman Act of 1989, states that the ombudsman has disciplinary authority over elective and appointive officials, including members of the Cabinet, local government units, and government-owned and controlled corporations and their subsidiaries “except over officials who may be removed only by impeachment or over members of Congress and the Judiciary.”
“Since respondents are members of the House of Representatives, this Office does not have the authority to order their suspension,” the ombudsman’s resolution read.
In their motion filed last Feb. 19, Alvarez, Citizens Crime Watch president Diego Magpantay, Ferdinand Topacio and retired Brig. Gen. Virgilio Garcia asked the ombudsman to suspend Romualdez, House Majority Leader Manuel Jose Dalipe, former House appropriations committee chair Zaldy Co and acting appropriations chairperson Stella Quimbo, to supposedly prevent them from using their positions in frustrating the investigation on the criminal complaint against them.
Alvarez, Magpantay, Topacio, Garcia and senatorial candidate Jimmy Bondoc have earlier filed a joint criminal complaint before the ombudsman against Romualdez, Dalipe, Co and Quimbo.
The complainants said Romualdez, three other lawmakers and John and Jane Does representing the Technical Working Group of the Bicameral Conference committee must be held liable for 12 counts of falsification of legislative documents under Article 170 of the Revised Penal Code, and for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The complaint stemmed from Romualdez and the other respondents’ alleged insertions of P241 billion worth of projects into the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA), even if the amount was not in the bicameral conference committee report signed and approved by both chambers of Congress.
The complainants further alleged that the fund insertions in the form of projects were never presented, deliberated nor voted upon by members of both chambers of Congress.
The complainants said the 2025 GAA with the supposed P214 billion in illegal fund insertions was not the one which was approved on first, second and third reading in both the Senate and House versions and yet, the supposedly dubious version was the one transmitted to Malacañang and signed by President Marcos.
But the ombudsman, in its resolution, said that while members of Congress may be preventively suspended pending trial for a graft case, the order for preventive suspension must come from the court, specifically the Sandiganbayan.
The ombudsman noted that no case has been filed in court so far.
It also ruled to “suspend and held in abeyance” any further action on the criminal complaint against Romualdez, Dalipe, Co and Quimbo “until such time that the Supreme Court has resolved with finality” the pending petition for certiorari and prohibition, which was filed by another party, also in connection with the alleged fund insertion in the 2025 GAA.
The petition questioning the constitutionality of the GAA was filed by Davao City 3rd District Rep. Isidro Ungab and former executive secretary Vic Rodriguez.
Martires said judicial courtesy dictates that a quasi-judicial body, such as the ombudsman, must “yield and await the decision of the High Tribunal before acting on the case pending before it,” especially as the petition before the SC involves the same issues raised in the complaint against Romualdez and the three other lawmakers.
“Evidently, not only does the pending Petition involve facts intimately related to those upon which the instant criminal case would be based, but more importantly, in the resolution of the issues raised in the Petition, the guilt or innocence of the respondents would necessarily be determined,” Martires’ resolution read. — Jose Rodel Clapano