OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS MASING

Puno
January 22, 2008

The principal and office clerk of Davao City Integrated Special School were administratively charged
before the OMB for Mindanao for allegedly collecting unauthorized fees, failing to remit authorized fees
and to account for public funds.

Issue: WON the OMB may directly discipline public school teachers and employees.

Held: Yes.

The authority of the OMB to act on complaints filed against public officers and employees is explicit in
Article XI, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, Article XI, section 13, which delineates the powers,
functions and duties of the OMB and such enumeration is non-exclusive. Then RA 6770 gave OMB such
other powers that it may need to efficiently perform the task given by the Consti.

In fine, the manifest intent of the lawmakers was to bestow on the Office of the OMB full administrative
disciplinary authority in accord with the constitutional deliberations. In 1973, it was limited only in cases
of failure of justice. In 1987, it was intended to play a more active role in the enforcement of laws on anti-
graft and corrupt practices and other offenses committed by public officers and employees. Not just a
passive one but an activist watchman. In Office of the OMB vs Laja, it was emphasized that the OMB’s order
to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure, or prosecute an officer or employee is not merely advisory or
recommendatory but is actually mandatory. Implementation of the order imposing the penalty is, however
to coursed through the proper officer.

The authority of the OMB to conduct administrative investigations is beyond cavil. As the principal and
primary complaints and action center against erring public officers and employees, it is mandated by no
less than Section 13(1), Article XI of the Constitution. In conjunction therewith, Section 19 of RA 6770
grants to the OMB the authority to act on all administrative complaints.

Fabella case, the procedure set there was for administrative investigations conducted by DECS. This is not
also applicable because they were filed with violations of civil service laws by the DECS secretary unlike in
the present case where they were charged with violations of RA 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees.