Ascertain the constitutionality of the following acts: (2.5% each)
(a) An investigation conducted by the Ombudsman against a Commissioner of the Commission on Audit for serious misconduct.
(b) A law prohibiting any court, other than the Supreme Court, from issuing a writ of injunction against an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman.
(c) A law prohibiting any appeal from the decision or final order of the Ombudsman in an administrative proceeding, except through a petition for review on certiorari filed before the Supreme Court.
Suggested Answer:
(a) It is constitutional. While the Commissioner of the Commission on Audit may only be removed by impeachment, the Ombudsman retains the power to investigate any serious misconduct in office allegedly committed by officials removable by impeachment, for the purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment, if warranted.
(b) It is unconstitutional. Under jurisprudence, the Supreme Court, under its sole prerogative and authority over all matters of procedure, deemed it proper to declare as ineffective the prohibition against courts other than the Supreme Court from issuing provisional injunctive writs to enjoin investigations conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman.
(c) It is unconstitutional if the law was passed without the advice and concurrence of the Supreme Court. Under the 1987 Constitution, no law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence.
