G.R. No. 95367
May 23, 1995
Facts
Petitioners were employees of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB). An anonymous letter was received by the Office of the Ombudsman which prompt the latter to conduct an investigation against the petitioners. The contents of the anonymous letter alleged that funds representing savings from unfilled positions in the EIIB had been illegally disbursed. Thereafter, the Graft Investigation Officer of the Ombudsman’s office issued a subpoena to petitioners Almonte and Perez, requiring them to submit their counter-affidavits and the affidavits of their witnesses, as well as a subpoena duces tecum. Petitioners moved to quash the subpoena requiring them to submit counter-affidavits and the subpoena duces tecum. The Ombudsman granted the former and denied the latter. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. Hence, this petition.
Petitioners assailed the validity of the anonymous letter complaint which was used to start an investigation among them. They contend that commencing an investigation against them by virtue of an anonymous letter is a violation of the equal protection clause. This is because“in all forum and tribunals . . . the aggrieved parties . . . can only hale respondents via their verified complaints or sworn statements with their identities fully disclosed,” while in proceedings before the Office of the Ombudsman anonymous letters suffice to start an investigation.
Moreover, Section 12, Art XI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 26 of RA No. 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989 provide that the “Ombudsman and his Deputies … shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner” or “shall receive complaints from any source in whatever form”, respectively.
Issue
Whether or not there is a violation of the equal protection clause when the law permits the Office of the Ombudsman to commence investigation on the basis of an anonymous letter while it is not so in other proceedings?
Held
None.
Firstly, there can be no objection to this procedure because it is provided in the Constitution itself. Secondly, it is apparent that in permitting the filing of complaints “in any form and in a manner,” the framers of the Constitution took into account the well-known reticence of the people which keep them from complaining against official wrongdoings. As this Court had occasion to point out, the Office of the Ombudsman is different from the other investigatory and prosecutory agencies of the government because those subject to its jurisdiction are public officials who, through official pressure and influence, can quash, delay or dismiss investigations held against them. On the other hand complainants are more often than not poor and simple folk who cannot afford to hire lawyers.
Hence, there is no violation of the equal protection clause.