Jennifer A. Agustin-Se and Rohermia Jamsani-Rodriguez v.

Office of the President, represented by Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., Orlando
C. Casimiro, and John I.C. Turalba.
G.R. No. 207355, February 3, 2016
Second Division, Carpio, J.

Investigative Authority of ODESLA; Protected Disclosure

This is a case of insubordination where the Overall Deputy Ombudsman (ODO) is

accused of tolerating procedural lapses in the prosecution of the case, and so instead of following the
formers order to file oppositions or comments to the Motion to Quash of certain respondents, they
instead filed a Memorandum containing their findings of irregularities against the Deputy
Ombudsman before the Special Prosecutor, which shared it to the Deputy Special Prosecutor (DSP),
and which likewise shared it to the Overall Deputy Ombudsman. Q1: Is their right to due process
violated when the Office of the President decided the case without the recommendation of the Office of
the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Afffairs (ODESLA)? Q2: Should the and Turalba be charged
for violation of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees)
when the DSP furnished the ODO with the Memorandum which they alleged as confidential in
nature?

A1: No. there is nothing in EO 13 which states that the findings on the complaints against a
presidential appointee, such as a Deputy Ombudsman, must be issued by a collegial body. The
ODESLA is merely a fact-finding and recommendatory body to the President, and thus, it does not
have the power to settle controversies and adjudicate cases. The investigative authority of the ODELA
is limited to that of a fact-finding investigator whose determinations and recommendations remain so
until acted upon by the president. Its absence does not negate the validity of the decision of the OP.

A2: No. The conditions for protected disclosure have not been met in this case (see Section
7, Rules on Internal Whistleblowing and Reporting). The Memorandum was not executed under oath.
There is also no indication that the document was to be treated as confidential. They should have
indicated it clearly, such as by putting the word confidential on the face of the document. They
failed to do so. Thus the Memorandum was treated as a regular office memorandum. Moreover, the
allegations made by petitioners could all be easily verified through the records and thus do not fall
under the ambit of protected information. There was also nothing confidential about the
memorandum, nor any classified information.