Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CHIEF SUPT. ROMEO ACOP v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 196231 2014-01-28	EMILIO A. GONZALES III v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
In Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman,[106] the Court was confronted with an argument that, at bottom, the Office of the Special Prosecutor is not a subordinate agency of the Office of the Ombudsman and is, in fact, separate and distinct from the latter. In debunking that argument, the Court said: Firstly, the petitioners misconstrue Commissioner Romulo's statement as authority to advocate that the intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution was to place the Office of the Special Prosecutor under the Office of the President. xxx
	GR No. 192935 2010-12-07	LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010 MENDOZA, J.
With regard to Biraogo, the OSG argues that, as a taxpayer, he has no standing to question the creation of the PTC and the budget for its operations.[23] It emphasizes that the funds to be used for the creation and operation of the commission are to be taken from those funds already appropriated by Congress. Thus, the allocation and disbursement of funds for the commission will not entail congressional action but will simply be an exercise of the President's power over contingent funds.
	GR No. 147097 2009-06-05	CARMELO F. LAZATIN v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO AS OMBUDSMAN PERALTA, J.
Petitioners' attack against the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6770 is stale. It has long been settled that the provisions of R.A. No. 6770 granting the Office of the Ombudsman prosecutorial powers and placing the OSP under said office have no constitutional infirmity. The issue of whether said provisions of R.A. No. 6770 violated the Constitution had been fully dissected as far back as 1995 in Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman.[6]
	GR No. 168039 2009-06-05	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. FERNANDO J. BELTRAN PERALTA, J.
In Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[24] the Court, citing Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman,[25] recognized the foregoing enumeration was not exclusive, and that the framers of the Constitution had given Congress the leeway to prescribe, by subsequent legislation, additional powers to the Ombudsman.
	GR NO. 166062 2006-09-26	SALVADOR M. PEREZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In upholding Zaldivar, we held that while there was indeed an intention to withhold prosecutorial functions from the Ombudsman, the legislature nevertheless recommended that the Legislature could, through statute, prescribe such other powers, functions and duties to the Ombudsman.[21] Thus, paragraph 8, Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution, provides that the Ombudsman may exercise other functions and duties as may be provided by law.[22] Pursuant to this authority, the Legislature enacted Republic Act No. 6770, which granted prosecutorial powers to the Ombudsman.
	GR NO. 134887 2006-07-27	PHILIPPINE AGILA SATELLITE v. SEC. JOSEFINA TRINIDAD LICHAUCO CARPIO MORALES, J.
While the evaluation of a complaint involves the discretion of the investigating officer, its exercise should not be abused[14] or wanting in legal basis.
	GR NO. 159314 2006-06-26	EDGARDO V. ESTARIJA v. EDWARD F. RANADA QUISUMBING, J.
So, this is a reversible disability, unlike that of a eunuch; it is not an irreversible disability (emphasis supplied).[33] Thus, the Constitution does not restrict the powers of the Ombudsman in Section 13, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, but allows the Legislature to enact a law that would spell out the powers of the Ombudsman. Through the enactment of Rep. Act No. 6770, specifically Section 15, par. 3, the lawmakers gave the Ombudsman such powers to sanction erring officials and employees, except members of Congress, and the Judiciary.[34] To conclude, we hold that Sections 15, 21, 22 and 25 of Republic Act No. 6770 are constitutionally sound. The powers of the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory. His office was given teeth to render this constitutional body not merely functional but also effective. Thus, we hold that under Republic Act No. 6770 and the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman has the constitutional power to directly remove from government service an erring public official other than a member of Congress and the Judiciary.
	GR NO. 160675 2006-06-16	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
(8) Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such functions or duties as may be provided by law. In Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman,[27] the Court recognized that the foregoing enumeration is not exclusive and that the framers of the Constitution had given Congress the leeway to prescribe, by subsequent legislation, additional powers to the Ombudsman. The observation of Commissioner Christian Monsod, quoted in Acop, is apropos: MR. MONSOD (reacting to statements of Commissioner Blas Ople): May we just state that perhaps the honorable Commissioner has looked at it in too much of an absolutist position. The Ombudsman is seen as a civil advocate or a champion of the citizens against the bureaucracy, not against the President. On one hand, we are told he has no teeth and he lacks other things. On the other hand, there is the interpretation that he is a competitor to the President, as if he is being brought up to the same level as the President.
	GR No. 164250 2005-09-30	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ATTY. GIL A. VALERA CALLEJO, SR., J.
R.A. No. 6770 was enacted to provide for the functional and structural organization of the Office of the Ombudsman. It substantially reiterates the constitutional provisions relating to the Office of the Ombudsman. In addition, R.A. No. 6770 granted to the Office of the Ombudsman prosecutorial functions[26] and made the Office of the Special Prosecutor an organic component of the Office of the Ombudsman.[27] As such, R.A. No. 6770 vests on the Office of the Special Prosecutor, under the supervision and control and upon the authority of the Ombudsman, the following powers:(a) To conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan;