0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
250 Ansichten1 Seite
1) The Supreme Court ruled that it does not have appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman based on Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution which grants appellate jurisdiction only over final judgments and orders of lower courts, not quasi-judicial bodies.
2) Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989, which allows appeals of Ombudsman decisions to the Supreme Court, violates the Constitution by improperly expanding the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.
3) The Constitution intends for the Supreme Court to have a measure of control strictly limited to cases under its appellate jurisdiction. Granting it jurisdiction over Ombudsman cases would disregard this constitutional limitation.
1) The Supreme Court ruled that it does not have appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman based on Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution which grants appellate jurisdiction only over final judgments and orders of lower courts, not quasi-judicial bodies.
2) Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989, which allows appeals of Ombudsman decisions to the Supreme Court, violates the Constitution by improperly expanding the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.
3) The Constitution intends for the Supreme Court to have a measure of control strictly limited to cases under its appellate jurisdiction. Granting it jurisdiction over Ombudsman cases would disregard this constitutional limitation.
1) The Supreme Court ruled that it does not have appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman based on Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution which grants appellate jurisdiction only over final judgments and orders of lower courts, not quasi-judicial bodies.
2) Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989, which allows appeals of Ombudsman decisions to the Supreme Court, violates the Constitution by improperly expanding the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.
3) The Constitution intends for the Supreme Court to have a measure of control strictly limited to cases under its appellate jurisdiction. Granting it jurisdiction over Ombudsman cases would disregard this constitutional limitation.
September 16, 1998 It is clear with Sec. 30, Art. VI of the Constitution that the appellate jurisdiction of the REGALADO, J. SC contemplated therein is to be exercised over final judgments and orders of lower FACTS: courts, that is, the courts composing the integrated judicial system. It does not include - Petitioner Fabian was the major stockholder and president of PROMAT the quasi-judicial bodies or agencies. Construction Development Corporation whereas Respondent Agustin was the incumbent District Engineer for FMED. PROMAT participated in the Sec. 27 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 consequently violates Sec. 30, Art. VI of the bidding for government construction projects including those under FMED. Constitution, increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the court. No countervailing - Respondent Agustin reportedly took advantage of his official position, argument was cogently given to justify as to why the statute (Ombudsman Act) should charming the petitioner into an amorous relationship. Their affair lasted for be preferred over the Constitution. some time, in the course of which the respondent gifted PROMAT with projects and interceded for it concerning the same using his office. The Constitution intended to vest in the Supreme Court a measure of control but strictly only over cases under its appellate jurisdiction. To act otherwise would be a total - However, Fabian and Agustin stopped seeing eye to eye, leading to disregard of the Constitutional provision and the spirit of legislation, enlarging the unpleasant incidents between the two. When Fabian tried to put an end to appellate jurisdiction of the SC, unnecessarily burdening the same. their relationship, Agustin refused and resisted Fabian by employing acts of harassment intimidation, and threats. - Fabian then filed complaint seeking the dismissal of the respondent for violation of Sec. 19, RA No 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) and Sec. 36 of PD No. 807 (Civil Service Decree), charges referred to may be subsumed under the category of oppression, misconduct, and disgraceful or immoral conduct. - Graft Investigator Benitez issued a resolution finding Agustin guilty of grave misconduct, ordering his dismissal from the service. Herein Respondent Ombudsman Desierto approved the aforesaid resolution. However, Agustin moved for reconsideration, leading Ombudsman Desierto to discover that the formers new counsel had been his classmate and close associate, leaving him no choice but to inhibit himself from the case. The case was the transferred to Respondent Deputy Ombudsman Guerrero who eventually ruled in favour or Agustin. - Fabian avers that the resolution initially issued while the respondents argue that the Office of the Ombudsman is empowered by the Constitution to promulgate its own rules or procedure. Fabian eventually elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that as per Sec. 27 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989, all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives, or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the SC through a petition of certiorari.
ISSUE:
W/N the Supreme Court may take cognizance of administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives, or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman.