ALBAY Representative Edcel Lagman said there is neither ryhme nor reason for the members of the Congress and the judiciary to be excluded from the jurisdictional authority of the Office of the Ombudsman.
The lawmaker stated this on Monday, February 19, after being chided by House Deputy Speaker and Cebu 3rd District Rep. Gwendolyn Garcia last week for his comment on House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez's refusal to implement the dismissal order of the Office of the Ombudsman against Garcia.
The Ombudsman meted the penalty of dismissal and perpetual disqualification from holding any government post on Garcia after it found her guilty of grave misconduct for the P24.4-million contract she entered into in April 2012 for the supply of backfill materials for the Balili property in Cebu when she was governor.
In a privilege speech last Wednesday, February 14, Garcia, citing the Constitution, said the House of Representatives has the sole authority to discipline its members upon a vote of two-thirds.
She also said that the Ombudsman law expressly states that the Ombudsman does have disciplinary authority over all elected and appointed officials, except for members of the Congress and the Judiciary.
Lagman, in his speech, pointed out that Section 5 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution created the independent Office of the Ombudsman as guardian of public accountability and public trust.
He stressed that one of its functions as stated under Section 13 of the said article is to “investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.”
"It must be underscored that the investigatory jurisdiction of the Ombudsman under Section 13(1) of Article XI does not exclude Members of the Congress and the Judiciary," Lagman said.
"This all-encompassing jurisdiction cannot be delimited or impaired by an ordinary statute like the Ombudsman Act of 1989," he continued.
During a press conference of the so-called Magnificent 7 last Tuesday, February 13, Lagman was asked to comment on the refusal of Alvarez to carry out the order against Garcia. Alvarez said it would be unconstitutional to do so.
Lagman had said then that "the Ombudsman law is clear with respect to the implementation of the decisions of the Ombudsman even pending motion for reconsideration or appeal."
To press him for further comments, a reporter said: "What Speaker is saying na (is that) if he implements the law, he would be violating the Constitution," to which Lagman answered: "I don't know what Constitution he is referring to."
Lagman during his privilege speech explained his comment.
He said that under the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, its decision is immediately executory even when the respondent has a pending motion for reconsideration or appeal and that the Constitution does not exempt members of Congress and Judiciary from the investigatory jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, even as the power of the House to discipline or expel its members is not exclusive.
"It is in this context that I asked, “What Constitution is Speaker Alvarez referring to?" he said.
Amid his comments, Lagman said he has nothing personal against Garcia. (SunStar Philippines)