THE Office of the Ombudsman has thrown out the petition seeking to suspend Speaker Martin Romualdez and other leaders of the House of Representatives in connection to alleged questionable insertions in the 2025 national budget bill.
In a 10-page resolution, the anti-corruption body said the motion must be dismissed for “utter paucity of merit,” noting that the 1987 Constitution gave the two houses of Congress the exclusive power to discipline their members wherein the courts are not allowed to interfere.
“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 pointed out.
Ombudsman Samuel Martires signed the ruling on March 7, 2025 but copies were released to the media only yesterday.
The motion to suspend was filed last 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 who said placing Romualdez and the other respondents under preventive suspension would allow for an unhampered investigation.
The movants, together with senatorial candidate Jimmy Bondoc, are also the complainants in the allegation of falsification of legislative documents filed on February 10, 2025 seeking indictment against the Speaker and three other House officials on 12 counts of falsification and 12 counts of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019).
They alleged the insertions made in the expenditure items in the 2025 budget bill was worth P241 billion.
Named co-respondents of the Speaker were Reps. Manuel Dalipe (Zamboanga City), Elizaldy Co (PL-Ako Bicol), Stella Quimbo (Marikina City), and John and Jane Does representing personnel of the Technical Working Group of the budget bicameral conference committee.
Agencies allegedly affected by the insertions were the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA), the Department of Agriculture, DA Small-scale Irrigation Projects, DA-Agricultural Machineries and Equipment, DA Buffer Seed Stocking, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), BFAR Postharvest Equipment and Facilities, DA Subsidy to PCA, and DA-NIA Subsidy for National Irrigation Systems and Communal Irrigation Systems.
Quimbo had already explained that the blanks were for the necessary corrections to be filled in by the technical staff and that there was no more discretion on the part of lawmakers or bicameral committee members to change any figure in the budget bill since it was “at the point of signing.”
She stressed that the technical staff of both the House and the Senate were authorized to make these corrections on typographical errors or adjustments.
Martires, however, said the complaint must be held in abeyance because it involves the same matters covered by a petition filed before the Supreme Court by Davao City Rep. Isidro Ungab, lawyer Victor Rodriguez, and several others alleging that the General Appropriations Act of 2025 (RA No. 12116) was unconstitutional.
“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 said.
He pointed out that in a situation where a special civil action and a criminal action are separately pending before the SC and a quasi-judicial body, the latter “must yield and await the decision of the High Tribunal.”
“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 said.
He explained that if the SC eventually upholds the constitutionality of the 2025 GAA, there would be no probable cause for a criminal offense. Conversely, if the High Court declares RA NO. 12116 unconstitutional, that will be the only time the Ombudsman can act on the pending complaint.
“Indeed, there is 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,” the Ombudsman said.
