1. The case involved a judge who was accused by the Ombudsman of falsifying certificates of service that reported on the status of cases under his review.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that while the Ombudsman has the power to investigate criminal complaints against judges, administrative action by the Supreme Court must come first due to its constitutional duty of oversight over the judiciary.
3. The Court also ruled that any investigation by the Ombudsman of a judge's performance of official duties would interfere with the separation of powers and the Supreme Court's administrative control over lower courts. The Ombudsman must refer such matters to the Supreme Court.
1. The case involved a judge who was accused by the Ombudsman of falsifying certificates of service that reported on the status of cases under his review.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that while the Ombudsman has the power to investigate criminal complaints against judges, administrative action by the Supreme Court must come first due to its constitutional duty of oversight over the judiciary.
3. The Court also ruled that any investigation by the Ombudsman of a judge's performance of official duties would interfere with the separation of powers and the Supreme Court's administrative control over lower courts. The Ombudsman must refer such matters to the Supreme Court.
1. The case involved a judge who was accused by the Ombudsman of falsifying certificates of service that reported on the status of cases under his review.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that while the Ombudsman has the power to investigate criminal complaints against judges, administrative action by the Supreme Court must come first due to its constitutional duty of oversight over the judiciary.
3. The Court also ruled that any investigation by the Ombudsman of a judge's performance of official duties would interfere with the separation of powers and the Supreme Court's administrative control over lower courts. The Ombudsman must refer such matters to the Supreme Court.
1. The case involved a judge who was accused by the Ombudsman of falsifying certificates of service that reported on the status of cases under his review.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that while the Ombudsman has the power to investigate criminal complaints against judges, administrative action by the Supreme Court must come first due to its constitutional duty of oversight over the judiciary.
3. The Court also ruled that any investigation by the Ombudsman of a judge's performance of official duties would interfere with the separation of powers and the Supreme Court's administrative control over lower courts. The Ombudsman must refer such matters to the Supreme Court.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
Macalinao, Romielyn P.
Subject: Constitutional Law 1
Topic: Ombudsmans power over Judges Title: MACEDA vs VASQUEZ Reference: 221 SCRA 464 FACTS Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or restraining order seeking the review of the following orders of the Office of the Ombudsman: (1) the Order dated September 18, 1991 denying the ex-parte motion to refer to the Supreme Court filed by petitioner; (2) the Order dated November 22, 1951 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration and directing petitioner to file his counteraffidavit and other controverting evidences. Respondent alleged that petitioner had falsified his Certificate of Service 1, by certifying "that all civil and criminal cases which have been submitted for decision or determination for a period of 90 days have been determined and decided on or before January 31, 1998," even if the petitioner knew that there were still no decisions rendered in five (5) civil and ten (10) criminal cases submitted before him. Respondent further alleged that petitioner also falsified his certificates of service for the months of February, April, May, June, July and August of the year 1989; and the months from January to September 1990, for a total of seventeen (17) months. Petitioner responded that he was granted by this Court an extension of ninety (90) days to decide the five (5) civil and ten (10) criminal cases. Petitioner asserts that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over said case despite this Court's ruling in Orap vs. Sandiganbayan, since
the offense charged arose from the judge's performance of his official duties, which is under the control and supervision of the Supreme Court. Lastly, petitioner pointed out that the action of the Ombudsman constitutes an encroachment into the Supreme Court's constitutional duty of supervision over all inferior courts provided in Article VIII, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution. ISSUES 1.
Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman can entertain a
criminal complaint for the alleged falsification of a judge's certification
submitted to the Supreme Court? 2. Whether or not a referral should be made first to the Supreme Court if it can entertain such criminal complaint against a judge? RULINGS 1.
Yes. The Ombudsman can investigate a judge regarding a
criminal complaint filed against such. The Supreme Courts ruling in
Orap vs Sandiganbayan mentions nothing about a restriction to offenses committed by a judge unrelated to his official duties. In the case at bar, in falsifying his certificates of service, petitioner judge is administratively liable to the Supreme Court for serious misconduct and inefficiency under Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, he is also criminally liable to the State for the same act under the Revised Penal Code. 2. Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that administrative action must first be taken against petitioner with regards to the falsification of
his
certificates
of
service.
Any
investigation
by
the
Ombudsman prior to such administrative action would constitute
an
encroachment
of
the
Courts
power
of
administrative
supervision over all lower courts and its personnel, thus violating the principle of separation of powers. Article VIII, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution expressly provides the power of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel to the Supreme Court. The powers of the Ombudsman provided in Article XI, Section 13 (1) and (2) of the 1987 Constitution is not a valid justification of its investigation for it would undermine the independence of the judiciary being granted by the Constitution supervisory powers to the Supreme Court over all courts and their personnel. Thus, the Ombudsman must instead refer the matter of petitioner's certificates of service to this Court for determination of whether said certificates reflected the true status of his pending case load, as the Court has the necessary records to make such a determination. The Ombudsman cannot compel this Court, as one of the three branches of government, to submit its records, or to allow its personnel to testify on this matter.
