MANILA — The Supreme Court has ruled that the Office of the Ombudsman possesses the authority to independently investigate complaints against government personnel and officials even in the absence of a preliminary report from the Commission on Audit (COA).
In a decision made public on Tuesday, October 20, the high tribunal sitting as a full court stated that while auditing findings from the COA can serve as persuasive material, they lack a binding effect on independent anti-graft proceedings.
Penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, the ruling emphasized that “parties cannot compel the Ombudsman to accord weight to particular pieces of evidence of their choosing, nor may they dictate the manner by which an investigation is to be conducted.”
The Court further noted: “As a constitutional body, the Office of the Ombudsman is given a wide latitude to approach each and every investigation it is undertaking.” Additionally, the decision pointed out that the factual findings of the Ombudsman remain conclusive upon the courts when supported by substantial evidence, provided there is no clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.
Citing Article XI, Section 13(1) of the Constitution alongside the Ombudsman Act of 1989, the tribunal affirmed that the office is fully empowered to probe illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient acts by public servants on its own initiative or through filed complaints.
The high court’s ruling dismissed consolidated petitions filed by several Palawan provincial officials who sought to overturn administrative liabilities tied to alleged procurement and implementation irregularities involving a multi-billion-peso share of the Malampaya Fund.
The controversy originated from the release of ₱2.572 billion from the fund for provincial development, out of which ₱966 million was allocated to Palawan for electrification, infrastructure, education, and health programs. Following a special COA audit, multiple administrative complaints were lodged before the Ombudsman over issues including faulty bidding evaluations, inadequate publication requirements, and incomplete disbursement documents.
Subsequent investigations by the Ombudsman found the local officials administratively liable for serious dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, and grave misconduct—a ruling later affirmed by the Court of Appeals in 2018 and 2020.
The petitioners argued that the Ombudsman’s inquiry was premature because the initial audit findings had not achieved finality and pointed to a later COA order reviewing specific project liabilities.
Rejecting these arguments, the Supreme Court clarified that the COA and the Ombudsman exercise distinct and independent powers, meaning the anti-graft body is never required to wait for a final audit report before launching its own legal evaluation. The justices stressed that forcing the Ombudsman to wait would severely dilute its investigative mandate.
Furthermore, the tribunal noted that the Ombudsman did not rely solely on the initial audit report, but properly evaluated comprehensive bidding records, inspection documents, and contracts on its own accord.