MANILA, Philippines – Outgoing Ombudsman Samuel Martires, set to retire on July 27, clarified that while his office acted on the complaint involving Vice President Sara Duterte, any further action depends on the Senate, which serves as the impeachment court.
“We are not encroaching on Congress’ authority to impeach public officials. Nor are we replacing the House of Representatives’ findings regarding the Vice President’s case,” Martires stated in a press briefing on Friday, June 27.
Martires admitted that he likely won’t be able to conclude anything before stepping down, leaving any progress on the case to his successor. He emphasized that under the Constitution, it is the Senate’s impeachment court that must take the lead in such matters. His remarks were aimed at dispelling claims that he was trying to derail the process, especially given his appointment by former president Rodrigo Duterte.
“Do I look like I don’t know what I’m doing?” Martires said, hitting back at critics. “Why are they jumping ahead of us? They should study the process first.”
Martires explained that sending summons to Vice President Duterte was merely procedural. The Office of the Ombudsman received a copy of the House committee report identifying issues in her use of confidential funds.
“If they were concerned about the effect on the impeachment, then why send us the report at all? Did they want us to just use it as a paperweight?” Martires asked sarcastically.
Ombudsman’s Role and Limitations
Because the Vice President is an impeachable official, Martires underscored that the authority to rule on her case lies with the Senate, not the Ombudsman. However, the Office can still investigate since the report reached them—but not prosecute while she’s still in office.
Martires cited discussions from the 1987 Constitutional Commission, particularly from member Jose Nolledo, who said that while the Ombudsman can investigate impeachable officials, prosecution must come after impeachment.
If the Senate votes to convict and remove Duterte, the Ombudsman could then begin criminal proceedings, since she would lose her immunity as a civilian. This is consistent with Commissioner Ricardo Romulo’s remarks that impeachment does not block a separate criminal trial, though it wouldn’t guarantee a conviction either.
However, if Duterte is acquitted in the impeachment court, the Ombudsman would have no legal ground to file charges. “We cannot move forward if she remains an impeachable officer,” said Martires.
If ever the Ombudsman’s findings later contradict the Senate’s verdict, Martires advised caution. “Let’s not cause a constitutional conflict. If our resolution opposes the Senate’s, the next Ombudsman should just set it aside—don’t dismiss it, just keep it,” he advised.
Constitutional Challenges
Section 13(6), Article XI of the Constitution allows the Ombudsman to disclose investigations when needed, but Martires noted their powers become constrained when dealing with impeachable officials.
“Our hands are tied. Investigating someone protected by impeachment rules limits what we can do. It’s a tough position to be in,” he admitted.
Asked whether Ombudsman staff would testify if requested by the Senate, Martires said yes. “We cannot refuse the Senate—we are obligated to assist.”
However, Paolo Tamase, a constitutional law professor from the University of the Philippines, expressed a differing view. He argued that even if Sara Duterte is acquitted by the impeachment court, the Ombudsman could still pursue charges if there is enough evidence.
