MANILA, Philippines – Ombudsman Samuel Martires denied the request of petitioners to suspend Speaker Martin Romualdez and other House officials over their involvement in the passage of the controversy-ridden 2025 national budget.
The petitioners, led by former House speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, had wanted the Ombudsman to order the preventive suspension of Romualdez, House Majority Leader Mannix Dalipe, acting appropriations committee chairperson Stella Quimbo, and her predecessor Zaldy Co, to supposedly prevent them from tampering with records and influencing witnesses.
The Ombudsman, however, said that in accordance with the Constitution, only the legislative branch has the exclusive power to punish one of its own.
“The Office of the Ombudsman possesses full administrative disciplinary authority over public officials and employees, except impeachable officials, members of Congress, and the Judiciary. Since respondents are members of the House of Representatives, this Office does not have the authority to order their suspension,” read the ruling dated Friday, March 7, but released only on Tuesday, March 11.
On the matter of alleged falsification of documents
Romualdez and other House leaders have been accused of falsifying legislative documents, stemming from the blank spaces discovered in the approved bicameral conference committee report on the disagreeing provisions in the budget bills passed by both House and the Senate.
The enrolled copy of the budget sent to the President’s office after the ratification of the bicameral report no longer contained these blanks, raising questions on when in the budget process were the amounts inserted.
Alvarez’s group said the blanks that were later filled in involved P241 billion.
The Ombudsman, however, ordered the complaint held in abeyance, until the Supreme Court rules on a similar complaint.
Former president Rodrigo Duterte’s allies, including former executive secretary Vic Rodriguez and Davao City 3rd District Isidro Ungab, knocked on the Supreme Court’s doors in January, asking it to declare the 2025 budget unconstitutional due to various issues, including the budget blanks.
“Common sense will remind any student of the law that judicial courtesy dictates that the quasi-judicial body should, and must yield and await the decision of the High Tribunal before acting on the case pending before it. The Supreme Court must first resolve the issue of constitutionality before the criminal action pending before the Ombudsman will proceed,” Martires wrote.
“Whatever will be the Supreme Court’s decision on the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition would be determinative of the guilt or innocence of herein respondents. Indeed, there is a prejudicial question that necessitates suspension of the criminal proceedings until such time that the Special Civil Action has been resolved with finality by the Supreme Court,” he added.
House leaders have denied allegations of irregularities in the passage of the 2025 budget, with Dalipe saying that those behind the complaint are Duterte allies with political motivations. – Rappler.com
