The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the Office of the Ombudsman may independently investigate public officials even if the Commission on Audit (COA) is conducting a separate investigation involving the same facts and transactions.
The SC said the Ombudsman does not need to wait for COA to complete its audit before investigating possible wrongdoing by public officials.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh dated April 22, 2026, the SC en banc found Ronelo O. Del Socorro and several other former officials of the Palawan provincial government administratively liable for irregularities in the use of the province's share of the Malampaya Fund.
The cases stemmed from the release of P2.572 billion from the Malampaya Fund for development projects in Palawan.
Of the amount, some P966 million was allocated to the province to fund projects involving electrification, health care, education and infrastructure.
Following a COA special audit, four administrative complaints were filed before the Ombudsman against provincial officials over alleged irregularities in the procurement and implementation of the projects.
The complaints alleged, among other irregularities, inadequate publication and posting of invitations to bid, improper evaluation of bidders' eligibility and the awarding of contracts despite incomplete requirements.
They also cited the assignment of the same personnel to multiple projects with overlapping schedules, incomplete disbursement documents and inaccurate accomplishment reports that overstated project progress, resulting in payments to contractors.
The Ombudsman found the officials administratively liable for grave misconduct, serious dishonesty and gross neglect of duty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman's ruling.
The officials challenged the ruling before the SC, arguing that the Ombudsman's investigation was premature because COA's audit findings were not yet final.
They also cited a subsequent COA decision ordering a review of certain projects and an assessment of the extent of some officials' liability.
The SC upheld the Ombudsman's findings that the officials were administratively liable.
Article XI, Section 13(1) of the Constitution empowers the Ombudsman to investigate, on its own initiative or upon a complaint, acts or omissions of public officials that appear illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.
This authority is further reflected in the Ombudsman Act of 1989.
The SC explained that the Ombudsman and COA exercise separate and independent powers.
While COA audits government funds and transactions, the Ombudsman investigates possible wrongdoing by public officials.
COA's findings may assist the Ombudsman in its investigation, but they are not binding on the office.
“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 SC stressed.
Otherwise, the Ombudsman's “investigatory powers would be severely diluted if the finality of a COA Audit Report would be considered as a suspensive condition before it could finally conduct an investigation.”
The SC held that the Ombudsman may proceed with its own inquiry even if a COA report involving similar allegations has not yet become final.
It ruled that the Ombudsman acted properly and promptly in investigating the complaints against the officials and determining their administrative liability based on the evidence.
The SC also stressed that the Ombudsman did not rely solely on the COA audit report.
Instead, it independently evaluated the complaints and supporting documents, including bidding records, contracts, inspection reports, resolutions of the Bids and Awards Committee and other relevant records.
The SC also ruled that the subsequent COA decision did not render the administrative cases moot.
The Ombudsman's findings were based on its independent investigation and evaluation of the evidence.
As a result, the outcome of the COA proceedings, even if favorable to the officials, did not affect the resolution of the administrative cases.
The officials were dismissed from service and perpetually disqualified from holding public office. Their retirement benefits were also forfeited.