Ombudsman: Council can’t inhibit cases of brgy officials
The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas has denied the request of Cebu City Vice Mayor Edgardo Labella that the anti-graft body should assume sole jurisdiction over cases involving barangay officials.
“This Office regrets to inform you that your request cannot be granted,” said the anti-graft body in a letter signed by then acting Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Rodolfo Elman.
Last year, Labella requested the Office of the Ombudsman that the City Council should inhibit itself from conducting administrative disciplinary proceedings against elective barangay officials, considering the “biases” that persist.
Labella said “biases” may arise because of the political nature of the positions of the members of the council and the respondent barangay officials.
But Elman said that the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas cannot grant the request of Labella for three reasons.
“First, administrative disciplinary jurisdiction over barangay officials has been conferred by law on the Sangguniang Panlungsod. A blanket institutional inhibition would amount to a shirking of the duty imposed by law on the Sanggunian,” Elnan said.
The council and Ombudsman have concurrent jurisdiction in investigating administrative cases pursuant to the Local Government Code of 1991 and Ombudsman Act of 1989.
“Second, the grounds for disqualification, inhibition or refusals based on kinship, ties, familiarity, self-interest or prejudice have already been established under relevant laws, rules, and jurisprudence. Bare allegations of partiality and prejudgment will not suffice and cannot be presumed, especially if weighed against the sacred obligation of the Sanggunian members to administer justice without respect to person and to do equal right regardless of political affiliation,” Elnan said.
He said that the Supreme Court has ruled that the rules on “voluntary inhibition do not give judges the unfettered discretion to desist from hearing a case.”
“And third, public policy encourages State disciplining authorities, like your Sanggunian, to fully utilize their disciplinary authority over officials under their area of responsibility, including Cebu City barangay officials. This would be germane to the State policies of ensuring local government autonomy, maintaining honesty and integrity in the public service and taking positive and effective measures against graft and corruption,” he said.
Elnan said that the grant of the disciplinary authority to the Sangguniang Panlungsod against erring barangay officials is meant to “enforce the constitutional tenet that ‘public office is a public trust’.”
The Office of the Ombudsman’s primary jurisdiction, he said, covers only cases “cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.”
“Rest assured that in instances where the individual members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod have legitimately inhibited themselves from adjudicating a specific administrative disciplinary case and the Sanggunian cannot finally dispose of the same by reason of such individual inhibitions, this Office will not hesitate in assuming jurisdiction thereon upon proper referral made by your office,” Elnan said.
Labella, who used to be director at the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas, said that the City Council will abide with the decision of the Office of Ombudsman.
“We will abide, pero kita unta if we have the very valid reason to avoid any perception of bias and partiality that we wish it should be the Ombudsman,” Labella said.
“Especially in the election season, we cannot help that cases will be filed against barangay officials, some if not all of those are politically motivated,” he added.