The Philippine Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the Office of the Ombudsman may investigate public officials for corruption and administrative violations without waiting for Commission on Audit (CoA) reports to become final.

"In the exercise of its constitutional mandate, the Office of the Ombudsman is empowered to undertake an investigation separate and distinct from any investigation undertaken by the Commission on Audit, even if the two investigations involve similar facts and arise from the same acts and transactions," the tribunal said in a decision made public on Tuesday.

The ruling affirmed that the Ombudsman may conduct its own investigations regardless of pending CoA proceedings, and that audit findings are not binding on anti-graft investigations. "The Office of the Ombudsman is not required to wait for the finality of any audit or investigation by the CoA before it can investigate unlawful and improper acts of public officials on its own," the high court said. It added that requiring finalized CoA reports before the Ombudsman could act would undermine the anti-graft body's constitutional powers. The two offices carry distinct constitutional mandates — the Ombudsman to act on unlawful and improper conduct by public officials, the CoA to audit how government funds are spent — and the court framed them as operating in parallel rather than in sequence.

The decision, penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, stemmed from administrative cases involving former officials of the provincial government of Palawan over irregularities in infrastructure projects funded by the province's share of revenues from the Malampaya natural gas project.

The SC found 16 former provincial and auditing officials administratively liable. Former bids and awards committee members Ferdinand S. Dilig, Luis M. Marcaida II and Rolando E. Bonoan, Jr. were found guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty for violating procurement rules, failing to publish invitations to bid, and recommending contract awards despite incomplete eligibility documents.

The tribunal likewise found 13 engineering, inspection and auditing personnel guilty of grave misconduct and serious dishonesty for preparing, validating or approving false statements of work accomplished and inspection reports that overstated project progress and justified unauthorized payments. These were former project and resident engineers Romeo C. Llacuna, Rosario Pascual Abacial, Tommy S. Panes, Pedro V. Gatinga, Jr., Pepe M. Patacsil, Bayani T. Buenaventura, Bernard I. Zambales and Renato A. Abrina; materials engineer Alfredo B. Padua; inspectorate team leaders Manuel T. Cabiguen and Federico R. Rubio, Jr.; and CoA technical inspectors Edwin G. Iglesia and Ronelo O. Del Socorro.

Former provincial planning coordinator Samuel V. Madamba II and provincial accountant Orlando R. Colobong were found liable for gross neglect of duty for processing disbursements without verifying supporting documents, although they were cleared of grave misconduct.

The cases originated from the 2008 release of P2.57 billion in energy revenues, of which P966 million was allotted to Palawan for electrification, health facilities, education programs and road projects. Investigators documented procurement and project implementation irregularities, including failures to properly advertise bids, the award of overlapping contracts to the same contractors using identical key personnel, and the omission of required liquidated damage provisions in contracts. The court also cited false accomplishment and inspection reports prepared by project and resident engineers that overstated project completion to justify payments.

The former officials had argued that the Ombudsman's investigation was premature because CoA audit findings had yet to become final. Rejecting that argument, the SC upheld findings holding them liable for grave misconduct, serious dishonesty and gross neglect of duty, and ordered their dismissal from government service, cancellation of civil service eligibility, perpetual disqualification from public office, and forfeiture of retirement benefits. In practice, the ruling removes pending audits as a ground to hold anti-graft investigations in abeyance — a point of practical in a case whose questioned transactions date to 2008.

"Public interest and public welfare wholly depend on the faithful and accountable performance of public officers of their sworn duties," Ms. Singh wrote.

— Erika Mae P. Sinaking