FACT CHECK: Does The Ombudsman Have ‘No Jurisdiction’ Over The Vice President?

Claim: “Wala pong jurisdiction ang Ombudsman sa Vice President dahil siya ay impeachable official.”

Rating: MISLEADING

Why we fact-checked this

A viral graphic circulating on social media claims that the Office of the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the Vice President because the latter is an impeachable official under the 1987 Constitution.

The quote is attributed to former Commission on Elections (COMELEC) commissioner, lawyer Atty. Rowena Guanzon and has resurfaced amid renewed political tensions involving the Vice President.

But does Philippine law really bar the Ombudsman from acting on complaints against the Vice President?

What the Constitution says

Under Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, the Vice President is among the officials who may be removed from office only through impeachment.

This provision defines how an impeachable official may be removed, but it does not automatically grant immunity from investigation.

The Constitution is explicit only on removal, not on investigation or fact-finding.

What the Ombudsman is empowered to do

The Ombudsman’s powers are outlined in Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989).

Under Section 13 of the Constitution and Section 15 of RA 6770, the Ombudsman has the authority to:

• Investigate any act or omission of public officials that appears illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient

• Conduct investigations motu proprio (on its own initiative) or upon complaint

The law does not explicitly exclude the Vice President from investigation.

Where the limitation lies

Legal experts consistently draw a distinction between investigation and prosecution or disciplinary action.

• The Ombudsman may investigate impeachable officials, including the Vice President.

• However, criminal prosecution or administrative penalties are generally held in abeyance while the official remains in office and has not been removed through impeachment.

Former Ombudsman Samuel Martires himself has stated that while his office may receive and evaluate complaints against the Vice President, actual prosecution must respect the constitutional impeachment process.

This interpretation has also been echoed by constitutional law scholars, who note that impeachment is a political remedy, while Ombudsman investigations are fact-finding and preparatory in nature.

Has this issue been settled by the courts?

There is no Supreme Court ruling categorically stating that the Ombudsman has zero jurisdiction over the Vice President.

What exists instead is a long-standing legal consensus:

• Impeachable officials cannot be removed by the Ombudsman

• Investigations may proceed

• Removal or prosecution while in office bypassing impeachment is unconstitutional

Why the claim is misleading

The viral statement presents the issue as absolute — that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction at all over the Vice President.

That is inaccurate.

Jurisdiction is not all-or-nothing. The Ombudsman’s authority is limited but not nonexistent. Saying there is “no jurisdiction” erases the crucial distinction between investigation and removal or prosecution.

Bottom line

MISLEADING.

The Ombudsman does not lose all jurisdiction over the Vice President simply because she is an impeachable official.

What isw clear: The Ombudsman may investigate allegations of wrongdoing.

But the Ombudsman cannot remove or prosecute the Vice President while she remains in office without impeachment.

The viral claim oversimplifies a complex constitutional issue and leaves out critical legal context.

Daily Sun Chronicle Fact Check
Helping readers separate fact from political spin.