Ombudsman may probe public officials sans final COA finding – SC

MANILA — The Office of Ombudsman is not required to wait for the Commission on Audit’s final findings before it can investigate on its own possible anomalies involving public officials, the Supreme Court said Monday.

This was promulgated in the decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh where the SC En Banc found Ronelo O. Del Socorro and several other former officials of the Provincial Government of Palawan liable for irregularities in the use of the province’s share in the P2.572 billion Malampaya Fund.

In the case, four administrative complaints were filed before the Ombudsman against the provincial officials over alleged irregularities in the projects’ procurement and implementation following a COA special audit on the P966 million that was allocated to the province to finance projects involving electrification, healthcare, education and infrastructure.

The complaints alleged inadequate publication and posting of invitations to bid, improper evaluation of bidders’ eligibility, and awarding of contracts despite incomplete requirements among others.

“They also cited the assignment of the same personnel to multiple projects with overlapping schedules, incomplete disbursement documents, and inaccurate accomplishment reports that overstated project progress, resulting in payments to contractors,” the SC noted in a statement.

The Ombudsman found the officials administratively liable for grave misconduct, serious dishonesty and gross neglect of duty which the Court of Appeals later affirmed.

However, the officials challenged the ruling before the SC, arguing that the Ombudsman’s probe was premature because the COA’s audit findings were not yet final.

The local executives also cited a later COA decision that ordered a review of certain projects and an assessment of the extent of some officials’ liability, according to the SC.

The High Court upheld the Ombudsman’s findings that the officers are administratively liable.

The SC explained that the Ombudsman and the COA exercise separate and independent powers, saying that the graft-busting body may proceed with its own inquiry even if the COA report involving similar allegations has not yet become final.

It ruled that the Ombudsman acted properly and promptly in investigating the complaints against the officers and determining their administrative liability based on the evidence. 

In the decision, Singh pointed out that the Ombudsman’s “investigatory powers would be severely diluted if the finality of a COA Audit Report would be considered as a suspensive condition before it could finally conduct an investigation.”

“It is further well established that the investigations conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman and the COA are separate and distinct from each other and can proceed concurrently and independently, although the two investigations may definitely — and often, inevitably – intersect,” she wrote.

The SC cited Article XI, Section 13(1) of the Constitution that empowers the Ombudsman to investigate, on its own initiative or upon a complaint, acts or omissions of public officials that appear illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient, and such authority is further reflected in The Ombudsman Act of 1989.

Singh further noted that while the COA’s findings may be persuasive, they do not have binding effect.

The High Court also emphasized that the Ombudsman did not rely solely on the COA audit report, saying that it “independently evaluated the complaints and their supporting documents, including bidding records, contracts, inspection reports, resolutions of the Bids and Awards Committee, and other relevant records.”

“The SC also ruled that the subsequent COA decision did not make the administrative cases moot. The Ombudsman’s findings were based on its own investigation and evaluation of the evidence. As a result, the outcome of the COA proceedings, even if favorable,” the SC in its statement stated.

The petitioners were also ordered dismissed from service and face cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

They are also barred from taking civil service examinations.