Lawmakers want to clip Ombudsman’s powers

Authored by Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. (in photo), a measure seeking to limit the power of the Office of the Ombudsman to preventively suspend officials and to cut in half the six-month suspension period has been approved by the House committee on justice. INQUIRER.net FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines—The House committee on justice wants to amend the Ombudsman law, or Republic Act No. 6770, to favor officials facing complaints.

It has approved a measure seeking to limit the power of the Office of the Ombudsman to preventively suspend officials and to cut in half the six-month suspension period. It also seeks to amend the rule on the finality of Ombudsman decisions.

A preventive suspension is issued to remove an accused official from the scene during an investigation but is not an indication of guilt or intended to be a penalty.

Under the proposed changes, in cases where the penalty is other than public censure, reprimand or suspension of more than one month’s salary, the ruling shall be implemented only after the period of appeal shall have lapsed.

As for the power to suspend, the bill would have the Ombudsman issue preventive suspensions only against officials still in the position from which the charges arose, unless there was a great possibility their continuing in their present position would influence witnesses or alter the evidence.

The justice committee approved the measure despite opposition from Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Gerard Mosquera.

Authored by committee chair Niel Tupas Jr., it is intended to ensure that preventive suspensions would be imposed not as a penalty or tool for harassment but as a necessary move to prevent a public official from interfering with or delaying an investigation, Tupas said.

He said there were instances in the past when a preventive suspension was ordered where the official concerned was no longer in the post from which the complaint arose. In this case, the official was no longer in a position to influence the investigation.

“What happens is it becomes a penalty. The primary purpose of a preventive suspension is not a penalty,” he said during the committee hearing on Wednesday.

On questioning by Misamis Occidental Rep. Henry Oaminal, however, Tupas acknowledged there were instances when this was not the case, such as when the official moved from being vice mayor to mayor.

The Ombudsman would still be able to suspend an official whose new post puts him in position to influence an investigation involving his former post.

Tupas also said that reducing the period of preventive suspension from six months to three was necessary because six months was too long, especially for an elected official.

In seeking to amend the law on the finality of the Ombudsman’s decisions, Tupas said the current rule states that an appeal would not stop the implementation of the decision.

This means that if an official is ordered dismissed, he would not be able to serve in his present post while appealing the ruling.

Tupas said this was contrary to jurisprudence and was unfair, especially to elected officials.

Mosquera, at the hearing, insisted on the Ombudsman’s power to issue preventive suspensions, saying that even if an official were in a position other than the one where the complaint originated, he could still use his office to influence the investigation.

He said the Ombudsman should be able to issue preventive suspensions ex parte, or without notifying the other party, since the respondents may be able to file pleadings to delay their suspension and give them time to tamper with the evidence or get to the witnesses.

He also said the six-month preventive suspension period should be retained.

If the suspension period were reduced, there was a possibility of the official returning to his post and continuing the acts for which he was suspended, he said.