CASE THROWN OUT
THE Office of the Ombudsman has dismissed the motion calling for the suspension of Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez and several officials of the House of Representatives over the alleged irregularities in passing the 2025 General Appropriations Act last year.
In a 10-page resolution, Ombudsman Samuel Martires ruled that the motion to suspend Speaker Romualdez and other House officials had no merit, emphasizing that the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive authority to discipline its members.
“Unquestionably, the Office of the Ombudsman possesses full 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,” the Ombudsman stated.
Martires signed the resolution on March 7, 2025, but copies were made public only on March 11.
The decision effectively rejects the motion filed on February 19 by Davao del Norte Rep. Pantaleon Alvarez, lawyer Ferdinand Topacio, Citizen’s Crime Watch president Diego Magpantay and retired B/Gen. Virgilio Garcia, which sought the preventive suspension of Speaker Romualdez and his co-respondents.
The complainants, including senatorial candidate Jimmy Bondoc, also accused the Speaker and three other House officials of falsifying legislative documents and violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), alleging that P241 billion worth of insertions were made in the 2025 budget bill.
Named as respondents alongside Romualdez were Reps. Manuel Dalipe (Zamboanga City), Elizaldy Co (PL-Ako Bicol), Stella Quimbo (Marikina City), and John and Jane Does representing the Technical Working Group of the Bicameral Conference Committee.
Quimbo, who played a key role in budget deliberations, had already clarified that the blanks cited in the complaint were meant for technical staff to make necessary corrections and that lawmakers had no discretion to alter figures at that stage.
Martires ruled that the complaint should be held in abeyance, citing a pending petition before the Supreme Court filed by Davao City Rep. Isidro Ungab, lawyer Victor Rodriguez and others challenging the constitutionality of the 2025 General Appropriations Act (RA 12116).
“After a careful reading of the complaint, I am convinced that the issues raised herein are closely intertwined, if not, intimately related to a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition that was earlier filed before the Supreme Court,” the Ombudsman stated.
He noted that when a special civil action and a criminal case are both pending, the quasi-judicial body must defer to the Supreme Court’s ruling before proceeding with any investigation.
“The Supreme Court must first resolve the issue of constitutionality before the criminal action pending before the Ombudsman will proceed. Whatsoever will be the resolution of the Supreme Court in the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of herein respondents in the criminal case before the Ombudsman,” Martires explained.
He added that if the Supreme Court upholds the validity of the 2025 budget law, there would be no probable cause for any criminal offense. However, if the budget law is struck down, only then can the Ombudsman act on the complaint.
