EXPLAINER: What are the powers of the Ombudsman?

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has appointed Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla as the seventh Ombudsman of the Philippines. 

He will replace former Ombudsman Samuel Martires, whose term expired on July 27, 2025. Remulla will serve a fixed term of seven years without reappointment.

The Office of the Ombudsman is a fiscally autonomous body independent from any branch of the government. According to its website, the Ombudsman and his deputies do not require a congressional confirmation or approval from the Commission on Appointments.

But what can the Ombudsman even do? 

“Ang Ombudsman… ang nagsisiguro na ang ating burukrasya ay ginagawa ‘yung kanyang trabaho. They guard against erring public officials,” National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers president Atty. Ephraim Cortez told GMA News Online.

(The Ombudsman is the one who ensures that our bureaucracy is doing its job. They guard against erring public officials.)

Under the Constitution, the Office of the Ombudsman — also called the Tanodbayan — can investigate on its own or through a complaint filed by another individual against any public official or employee for acts that seem to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. 

The Ombudsman may also direct any officer or employee, agency or instrumentality, and any government-owned or controlled corporations with an original chapter to perform any act required by law or to stop, or correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties.

Other powers include the power to recommend the officer’s removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.

Should the officer or employee refuse to comply, the Ombudsman said this shall be ground for disciplinary action.

The Ombudsman also has the power to preventively suspend any officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation if he believes that the evidence of guilty is strong and if:

• the charge against such officer or employees involves dishonesty, oppression, or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty
• the charges would warrant removal from the service
• the respondent’s continued stay in the office may prejudice the case filed against him

According to the Ombudsman Act of 1989, the suspension shall continue until the case is terminated by the office but no more than six months, without pay.

Aside from this, the Ombudsman may also administer oaths, issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum, and take testimony in any investigation or inquiry, including the power to examine and have access to bank accounts and records.

The Ombudsman also has the power to punish individuals for contempt.

Meanwhile, the office may initiate the proper action for the recovery of ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth amassed after February 25, 1986 and the prosecution of the involved parties.

The office is mandated to prioritize complaints filed against high-ranking government officials and/or those occupying supervisory positions

According to the act, no court can issue a writ of injunction to delay an investigation by the Ombudsman, unless there is prima facie evidence that the investigation is outside of the office’s jurisdiction.

The act further states that no other court except for the Supreme Court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against any ruling of the Ombudsman.

Pending probes

Currently, the Ombudsman is one of the agencies looking into the alleged anomalous flood control projects nationwide through a special panel of prosecutors.

It is investigating the anomalies along with the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI), the Department of Justice, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.

For Cortez, the Ombudsman should be the primary government agency involved in the investigation from the start.

“‘Yung purposes of these investigative bodies is not as comprehensive na katulad ng sa Ombudsman,” he said.

(The purposes of these investigative bodies are not as comprehensive as those of the Ombudsman.)

“Ang ICI, for example, has subpoena powers but it does not have contempt powers. So pwedeng suwayin ‘yung kanilang mga subpoena powers to get documents. Which is different kapag sa Ombudsman,” he added.

(The ICI, for example, has subpoena powers but it does not have contempt powers. So their subpoenas to get documents can be disobeyed. Which is different when it comes to the Ombudsman.)

He expressed concern that the investigation will be “circutious” due the numerous investigations.

“Dadalhin mo sa ICI, they conduct fact-finding investigation. ICI is only fact-finding. In consonance with the decision of the SC sa Truth Commission, they cannot go beyond fact-finding,” he said.

(You will bring it to the ICI; they conduct fact-finding investigations. The ICI is only fact-finding. In consonance with the Supreme Court’s decision on the Truth Commission, they cannot go beyond fact-finding.)

“Kung anuman ‘yung findings nila, they would have to send it to the Ombudsman. ‘Yun ang proper agency and the Ombudsman will again conduct an investigation. Part ng due process… so nado-doble ‘yung process,” he added. 

(Whatever their findings are, they would have to send them to the Ombudsman. That’s the proper agency, and the Ombudsman will again conduct an investigation. It’s part of due process… so the process becomes duplicated.)

According to Cortez, the investigation of the Ombudsman may be geared toward the filing of criminal charges with the Sandiganbayan or the filing of administrative complaints.

The ICI has recommended the possible filing of graft, malversation, and falsification charges against former Ako Bicol Rep. Zaldy Co and other Department of Public Works and Highways officials over their alleged links to the P289.5 million road dike project along the Mag-Asawang Tubig River in Naujan, Oriental Mindoro.

The Ombudsman said it is also investigating Commission on Audit Commissioner Mario Lipana over his alleged link to anomalous flood control projects.

Aside from this, also pending with the Ombudsman is the complaint filed against Vice President Sara Duterte for the alleged misuse of P500 million in confidential funds of the OVP and P112.5 million in confidential funds of DepEd from 2022-2024.

This stemmed from the recommendation of the House committee on good governance and public accountability to file charges against her.

In June, the Ombudsman directed Sara and nine officials from the Department of Education and the Office of the Vice President to respond to the charges.

She has filed her counter-affidavit answering the allegations.—AOL/RSJ, GMA Integrated News