You are on page 1of 2

OMBUDSMAN v.

COURT of APPEALS
This is the case concerning Jejomar Binay Jr. for his violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act in the construction and procurement of the Makati City Hall Parking
Building. Complaints were filed with the Ombudsman, which prompted the creation of a Special
Panel of Investigators. After investigations, the Ombudsman served Binay Jr. with a Preventive
Suspension Order, for not more than 6 months without pay, during the pendency of the
Ombudsman cases. This was served before Binay Jr. could file his counter-affidavit. The relevant
issue that arose from this case was on the interpretation of The Ombudsman Act (R.A. 6770),
which states:
Section 14. Restrictions. No writ of injunction shall be issued by any court to delay an
investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman under this Act, unless there is a prima facie
evidence that the subject matter of the investigation is outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the
Ombudsman.
No court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against the decision or findings
of the Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court, on pure question of law.FN
The issue asks: does the Court of Appeals have subject matter jurisdiction over the main
petition for certiorari filed by Binay Jr. with the Court of Appeals as he seeks nullification of the
Preventive Suspension Order?
The Supreme Court cited Fabian v. Desierto, which also concerns the second paragraph
of that provision. It was held void for being in violation of the constitution as it increased the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without its permission.
The Ombudsman, in construing the second paragraph of the provision, cited Senate
deliberations on the provision. Said senate deliberations involved the idea of making the appeal
procedure more stringent regarding cases investigated by the Ombudsman. They wished to not
unnecessarily clog the docket of the Supreme CourtFN CASE except through certiorari
involving questions on law. The Senate deliberations referenced by the Ombudsman did not
mention Section 14, and the Court found that an appropriate provision would have been Section
27, which states that all decisions of the Ombudsman are immediately effective and executory
and that either a motion for reconsideration may be filed with the Ombudsman or a petition for
certiorari with the Supreme Court on grounds enumerated in the same section.
The court points out how, in the time of the Ombudsman Acts passing it was Rule 45 of
The Rules of Civil Procedure that was in connection with section 14 of the Ombudsman Act,
however it has been repealed by Rule 65.
It is basic procedural law that a Rule 65 petition is based on errors of
jurisdiction, and not errors of judgment to which the classifications of (a)
questions of fact, (b) questions of law, or (c) questions of mixed fact and
law, relate to. In fact, there is no procedural rule, whether in the old or
new Rules, which grounds a Rule 65 petition on pure questions of law.
Indeed, it is also a statutory construction principle that the lawmaking
body cannot be said to have intended the establishment of conflicting and
hostile systems on the same subject. Such a result would render

legislation a useless and idle ceremony, and subject the laws to


uncertainty and unintelligibility.FN CASE

The Court ruled that the second paragraph of Section 14 of the Ombudsman Act is in fact
unconstitutional based on a slew of cases which showed that the Court of Appeals does practice
jurisdiction over cases filed in reconsideration from the Ombudsman.

You might also like