Ascertain the constitutionality of the following acts: (2.5% each)
(a) An investigation conducted by the Ombudsman against a Commissioner of the Commission on Audit for serious misconduct.
(b) A law prohibiting any court, other than the Supreme Court, from issuing a writ of injunction against an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman.
(c) A law prohibiting any appeal from the decision or final order of the Ombudsman in an administrative proceeding, except through a petition for review on certiorari filed before the Supreme Court.
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
(a) Act (a) is constitutional. (b) Act (b) is unconstitutional. (c) Act (c) is unconstitutional. Under the Constitution, the Ombudsman may investigate impeachable officers for serious misconduct to initiate impeachment. Prohibiting lower
Unlock the full Political Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
May the Ombudsman conduct an investigation against a Commissioner of the Commission on Audit for serious misconduct?
The Ombudsman may investigate impeachable officers to determine whether an impeachment complaint should be filed.
Why is a statutory prohibition against lower courts issuing injunctions against Ombudsman investigations unconstitutional?
Prohibiting lower courts from issuing injunctive writs invades the Supreme Court's exclusive power to promulgate procedural rules.
Under Article VI, Section 30 of the Constitution, why is a law directing Ombudsman administrative appeals straight to the Supreme Court void?
Article VI, Section 30 prohibits laws increasing the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction without its advice and concurrence.
What is the proper procedural remedy to appeal an administrative decision of the Ombudsman?
Choices available with full access.
Which landmark Supreme Court ruling struck down the anti-injunction provision regarding Ombudsman investigations?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Ombudsman Impeachable Powers
Under Article XI, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution, the Office of the Ombudsman possesses broad investigatory authority over all public officials and employees, including impeachable officers like Commissioners of the Commission on Audit. While the Ombudsman cannot directly impose administrative sanctions or remove impeachable officials during their tenure, it has full constitutional authority to conduct administrative investigations against them to determine whether grounds for impeachment exist. If serious misconduct is established, the Ombudsman may file the appropriate complaint before the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings.
2. Judicial Rulemaking Limitations
Under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court possesses the exclusive power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts. In the Carpio-Morales ruling, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional statutory provisions prohibiting lower courts from issuing injunctive writs against Ombudsman investigations. Congress cannot enact laws restricting the power of lower courts to issue provisional injunctive remedies, as such statutory prohibitions impermissibly encroach upon the constitutional rulemaking authority of the Judiciary.
3. Appellate Jurisdiction Restrictions
Under Article VI, Section 30 of the 1987 Constitution, no law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without its advice and concurrence. In the Fabian ruling, the Supreme Court invalidated Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 insofar as it provided for direct appeals from administrative decisions of the Ombudsman to the Supreme Court. Consequently, administrative decisions of the Ombudsman must be appealed via petition for review to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.