d. Judicial Review

Judicial Review of Ombudsman Action

Concept

The Ombudsman’s decisions are not beyond judicial review. Judicial power includes determining whether an instrumentality of government committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. At the same time, courts generally respect the Ombudsman’s discretion in determining probable cause. Review is not an invitation to conduct a preliminary investigation anew. (Non v. Office of the Ombudsman and Alyansa Para Sa Bagong Pilipinas, Inc., G.R. No. 239168, 15 September 2020)¹ (De Asis, for his part, allegedly participated in the conspiracy by facilitating the transfer of the checks from the IAs, G.R. No. 208243, 31 July 2018)²

Governing provisions

The Ombudsman may investigate, on its own or upon complaint, acts or omissions of public officials, employees, offices, or agencies that appear illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. This investigative mandate supplies the setting for judicial review; it does not remove Ombudsman action from the courts’ power to correct grave abuse of discretion. (Art. XI, Sec. 13, 1987 Const.)³ (Non v. Office of the Ombudsman and Alyansa Para Sa Bagong Pilipinas, Inc.)¹

Under the Ombudsman Act, a deputy or investigator may issue immediately executory orders and provisional remedies pending investigation, subject to review by the Ombudsman. That internal review is distinct from judicial review for grave abuse of discretion. (Sec. 28, Rep. Act No. 6770)⁴ (Non v. Office of the Ombudsman and Alyansa Para Sa Bagong Pilipinas, Inc.)¹

Requisites / Rules

• In challenging a probable-cause determination through certiorari, the petitioner bears the burden of showing facts that establish entitlement to relief. It is not enough to disagree with the Ombudsman’s assessment; the challenged action must be shown to be arbitrary, despotic, or a virtual refusal to perform a positive duty. (De Asis, for his part, allegedly participated in the conspiracy by facilitating the transfer of the checks from the IAs)²
• Probable cause at preliminary investigation is an initiatory standard: the inquiry is whether the facts provide a reasonable basis to believe that a crime was committed and the respondent should be held responsible. The proceeding is not the occasion for a full presentation of the prosecution’s evidence. (De Asis, for his part, allegedly participated in the conspiracy by facilitating the transfer of the checks from the IAs)² (Vi v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 212427-28, 6 December 2016)⁵
• Technical rules of evidence are not strictly applied at this stage. Hearsay may support probable cause when there is a substantial basis for crediting it. (Vi v. Ombudsman)⁵

Distinctions

Review of a probable-cause finding differs from determination of the criminal case itself. In Nacino, the Court found no grave abuse in the Ombudsman’s dismissal for lack of probable cause and recognized the Sandiganbayan’s exclusive jurisdiction to determine the criminal cases. (Nacino v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 164749, 3 September 2019)⁶

Review also reaches constitutional limits on disciplinary power. In its later ruling in Gonzales, the Court held unconstitutional the statutory grant of presidential disciplinary jurisdiction over a Deputy Ombudsman because it impaired the Ombudsman’s independence. It upheld the grant as to the Special Prosecutor, whom it treated separately for that purpose. (Gonzales v. Office of the President of the Philippines, G.R. No. 196231, 28 January 2014)⁷

Key doctrines

Judicial intervention is warranted when the Ombudsman evidently misapprehends the facts or the evidence cannot sustain a prima facie case. In Non, the Court set aside the Ombudsman’s action and dismissed the Information for lack of probable cause, avoiding needless prosecution. Grave abuse may likewise arise when a tribunal fails to observe its own rules in administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings. (Non v. Office of the Ombudsman and Alyansa Para Sa Bagong Pilipinas, Inc.)¹ (Villa-Ignacio v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 193092, 21 February 2017)⁸

Exceptions

Non-interference remains the general approach, not an absolute bar. Where petitioners fail to establish actual grave abuse, courts defer to the Ombudsman’s prosecutorial discretion even if its probable-cause finding is disputed. (De Asis, for his part, allegedly participated in the conspiracy by facilitating the transfer of the checks from the IAs)²

Bar tip

Identify the act under review and the precise grave abuse alleged. For probable cause, distinguish an unsupported or factually mistaken finding from a mere disagreement over evidence. (Non v. Office of the Ombudsman and Alyansa Para Sa Bagong Pilipinas, Inc.)¹ (De Asis, for his part, allegedly participated in the conspiracy by facilitating the transfer of the checks from the IAs)²