Dear PAO,

My mom believes that the barangay chairperson abused his power when he forcibly evicted her from a disputed property situated in our barangay. She filed a complaint before the barangay, but nothing happened. They also refused to issue a certification that would allow her to proceed with filing her complaint in the appropriate forum. When I accompanied my mother to the barangay to obtain the necessary certification, an official asked about the purpose of the request. My mom explained that she will be filing a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman. The official smirked and claimed that my mom was just wasting her time because barangay officials are under the jurisdiction of the sanggunian and not the Ombudsman. May I know if this is correct?

Korina

Dear Korina,

There are two laws that govern the situation of your mother. One is Republic Act (RA) 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991. Under Section 61 of said law:

“A verified complaint against any erring local elective official shall be prepared as follows:

“(a) A complaint against any elective official of a province, a highly urbanized city, an independent component city or component city shall be filed before the Office of the President;

“(b) A complaint against any elective official of a municipality shall be filed before the sangguniang panlalawigan whose decision may be appealed to the Office of the President; and

“(c) A complaint against any elective barangay official shall be filed before the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan concerned whose decision shall be final and executory.”

The second law is Republic Act (RA) 6770, or The Ombudsman Act of 1989. Pursuant to Section 21 thereof:

“The Office of the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including Members of the Cabinet, local government, government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries, except over officials who may be removed only by impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the Judiciary.” (Emphasis supplied)

Evidently, from the said provisions of law, the Ombudsman and sanggunian bayan/panlungsod have concurrent jurisdiction over acts or omissions of barangay officials. The former is vested with a general jurisdiction over all officials in the government, whether elected or appointed, while the latter is accorded specific jurisdiction over local elective officials.

The question now is which body should exercise jurisdiction over a case. This was answered in the case of Alejandro v. Office of the Ombudsman Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau, GR 173121, April 3, 2013, where the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Arturo Brion, stated that:

“Consequently, as we held in Office of the Ombudsman v. Rodriguez, any act or omission of a public officer or employee occupying a salary grade lower than 27 is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and of the regular courts or other investigative agencies.

“In administrative cases involving the concurrent jurisdiction of two or more disciplining authorities, the body where the complaint is filed first, and which opts to take cognizance of the case, acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of other tribunals exercising concurrent jurisdiction. xxx”

Applying the above-quoted decision to your situation, the official’s claim that the sanggunian panlungsod or bayan has jurisdiction over complaints against barangay official is correct. However, the same is not exclusive. The Office of the Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction over a complaint against a barangay official. Hence, it is incorrect to state that your mother cannot file a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman. Should your mother decide to file a case against your barangay chairperson before the Office of the Ombudsman, the latter may take her case and investigate the matter.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

We appreciate your trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]