Office of the Ombudsman

Anti-corruption mandate and FY 2027 recommended budget: The FY 2027 DBM-recommended NEP for the Office of the Ombudsman was PHP 7.232934 billion including automatic appropriations, or 0.1% of the stated PHP 7.2-trillion National Expenditure Program. Its constitutional anti-corruption mandate spans fact-finding and case build-up, prosecution, administrative adjudication, graft prevention and public assistance. The fiscal-autonomy framework in R.A. No. 6770 prevents a reduction below the preceding year's appropriation. The recommended allocation comprised PHP 3.760765 billion for personnel services, PHP 2.444135 billion for MOOE, PHP 857.1 million for capital outlay, PHP 168.332 million in automatic appropriations, and a PHP 2.602 million Military Camp Sales Fund share.

Program mix, staffing, systems, records, and office-capacity investments: Director IV Christopher B. Lim allocated ₱4.905983 billion (67.83%) to general administration and support; ₱147.354 million (2.04%) to support to operations; ₱945.737 million (13.08%) to anti-corruption investigation; ₱721.168 million (9.97%) to anti-corruption enforcement; ₱290.934 million (4.02%) to Ombudsman public assistance; ₱211.758 million (2.93%) to anti-corruption prevention; and ₱10 million (0.14%) to locally funded projects, including whistleblower-account rewards. He highlighted ₱1.662 billion for filling positions; ₱169.381 million for pension benefits; terminal-leave and retirement-gratuity lines of ₱78.869 million mandatory and ₱310.758 million optional, or ₱389.627 million total; and ₱51.468 million in confidential expenses for investigation, prosecution, and graft prevention. The cited capacity investments were ₱2.602 million for training from the Military Camp Sales Proceeds Fund share, ₱497.549 million for ICT requirements—₱247 million MOOE and ₱250 million capital outlay—for systems and infrastructure modernization, ₱11.5 million for an Ombudsman Visayas document-storage building, ₱95 million for depreciated equipment, furniture, and fixtures, and ₱500 million toward buying an Office building through a lease-purchase agreement.

Additional confidential funds, marshals, vehicles, and a proposed new building: Director IV Christopher B. Lim sought, beyond the FY 2027 recommendation, PHP 148.532 million in additional confidential funds, Ombudsman Marshal and administrative positions, vehicles, and a new office building estimated at PHP 6.5 billion. These were requests for committee deliberation; the hearing recorded no appropriation for them.

Requested restatement of savings, income, and retirement-benefit provisions: Lim asked that special provisions already included in the 2026 General Appropriations Act be restated. The request covered use of savings to augment actual deficiencies in the Office's appropriations, subject to budgeting, accounting, and auditing rules; use of income from fees and other authorized collections as specifically permitted by law; and rules for releasing retirement benefits and pensions. He described the retirement provisions as applying to the Ombudsman, deputies, Special Prosecutor, and qualified Office officials and employees, with the detailed conditions he read from R.A. No. 11059. Lim called the savings, income, and retirement provisions indispensable safeguards for the Office's constitutionally guaranteed independence and fiscal autonomy and asked that they be included in the appropriations bill. The presentation records a request, not a committee decision to restate the provisions.

Anti-corruption case for support and service commitment: In closing, Lim linked corruption and poverty, saying that reducing corruption could increase government savings for poverty-alleviation projects. He asked the House to consider the Office's FY 2027 and succeeding-year budgets in light of its investigation, case-build-up, administrative, and criminal-enforcement work. He said the Office committed that the support it needed would not be spent aimlessly but used with zeal and dedication to strengthen public confidence in the Ombudsman as watchdog, mobilizer, official critic, and dispenser of justice. The presentation sought favorable consideration; it did not record a committee commitment to fund the additional requests or restore an amount.

Original request and committee disposition: The hearing did not state one consolidated original FY 2027 Office of the Ombudsman request to DBM. Director IV Christopher B. Lim identified the separate additions in the agency presentation. Presiding Rep. Mikaela Angela B. Suansing asked for a written, prioritized list for public consideration by the Budget Amendments Review Subcommittee, and Ombudsman Jesus Crispin C. Remulla promised to submit it promptly. No additional appropriation was approved in this briefing.

Staffing and digital-forensics proposals: Rep. Salvador A. Pleyto urged more Personnel Services funding and posts; Remulla said the Office had not yet filled its existing approved positions because recruitment was slow. Rep. Jose Manuel Tadeo "Chel" I. Diokno supported stronger digital-forensics training and equipment, which Remulla confirmed was included in the proposal. Neither exchange produced a funding vote.

Referral to amendment review: Suansing requested priorities in case fiscal space became available and said the requests could be considered openly by the Budget Amendments Review Subcommittee. Remulla promised a written submission. Diokno separately suggested a larger confidential-fund allotment without stating an amount; the only formal closing motion terminated the briefing.

Conviction rates, senior-official cases, and unavailable case breakdowns: Rep. Iris Marie Demesa Montes asked for the Office's current resolution and conviction rates and their comparison with earlier years. Assistant Ombudsman Luis Gonzaga S. Bonoan, Jr. reported a 65.52% Sandiganbayan conviction rate as of June 30, 2026, compared with 42% in 2025, and said amended procedural rules had been used to speed fact-finding and preliminary investigation. Asked for the number of cases involving salary-grade-29-and-above officials that had been filed, resolved, and prosecuted, he instead distinguished Sandiganbayan jurisdiction for SG 27 and above from lower-court cases for SG 26 and below, then gave lower-court conviction rates of 77.6% in 2025 and 64.91% as of June 30, 2026. The exchange supplied neither the requested case counts nor a separate resolution rate. Bonoan also said the Office did not then have a breakdown separating motu proprio investigations from complaints filed with it, but could provide the data to the committee; no date was set.

Independence safeguards and digital-investigation capacity: Montes asked how the Office insulated cases involving high-ranking officials from political influence. Bonoan replied that it followed its constitutional mandate to investigate and prosecute without fear or favor, but did not identify additional operational safeguards. She then asked whether the requested capital-outlay increase covered forensic digital tools. Bonoan answered, qualified as his understanding, that it did; he described digitalization as a new-administration initiative to improve the Office's investigative capacity.

BARMM and regional-office access, with performance figures still sought: Montes asked how the 2027 budget would extend regional access to the Office. Bonoan said the Office was looking to expand investigations and reach to the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao and had requested funding for regional offices in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao and for satellite offices; he said the budget would support public accessibility and continuous presence. Montes then requested measurable regional figures, including filings and efficiency. No such figures or defined follow-up commitment was given before the next topic.

Government-building concerns, planning, and the proposed budget-watchdog committee: Montes asked Ombudsman Jesus Crispin C. Remulla about a reported statement that people could no longer expect much from DPWH. Remulla said the context was an NBI-building acquisition and his experience as a former Justice Secretary with government construction. He cited the Bureau of Immigration building on Macapagal Boulevard as an example that, in his understanding, had cost nearly PHP 8 billion and taken 12 years; he criticized cost overruns, poor construction, and graft or kickback incentives, and said its current market value might not reach PHP 2 billion. Asked what the Office could do without prejudging any ongoing investigation, he said projects should be deliberately planned through regional development councils rather than assigned ad hoc. He said regional development plans had been displaced by flood-control spending and that flagship and foreign-assisted projects had become unprogrammed. Remulla said the Office would establish a committee to monitor the budget and public spending and receive public complaints of abuse. This was a stated plan, not a recorded appropriation, start date, membership, or completed DPWH investigative outcome.

Ombudsman special provisions, CFAG coverage, and referral to plenary: Rep. Tobias "Toby" M. Tiangco said he had no question but supported the Office of the Ombudsman's budget and the amendments it had requested for the general provisions. Calling the Ombudsman part of the Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group (CFAG), he asked that special-provision amendments also cover the Commission on Elections, Civil Service Commission, Commission on Audit, and Commission on Human Rights. He said fiscal autonomy had been his advocacy since 2013 and asked Chair Rep. Rufus B. Rodriguez to introduce the amendments on the floor. Rodriguez thanked him for supporting the Ombudsman's budget and special provisions, said other commissions already had such provisions, and identified COMELEC, Civil Service, and COA; but he said the present focus was the Ombudsman, described the support as the Chair's stand, and said approval from everyone present was still required. Tiangco then asked to include use of savings, use of income, retirement benefits, and validity of appropriations. Rodriguez said that language would be recommended to plenary. The round records support and a procedural referral, not approval of CFAG-wide language or final adoption of the additional provisions.

Internal Affairs inquiry after Madriaga was named at an impeachment hearing: After opening with support for the Ombudsman's budget and proposed amendments, Domogan asked what had happened after witness Ramil Madriaga named two people during a Committee on Justice impeachment hearing, one associated with the Office of the Ombudsman. Ombudsman Jesus Crispin C. Remulla said the Internal Affairs Bureau was handling the matter; it had issued a show-cause order to the person Madriaga referred to, received that person's answer, and was pursuing the case to its proper conclusion. The exchange did not state a final finding, sanction, or completion date.

Conflict-of-interest complaints and own-initiative inquiries: Domogan asked how many complaints involving conflicts of interest by incumbent officials, particularly legislators, the Office had received. Remulla gave no number, saying there were not many complaints and that conflict-of-interest inquiries were often begun motu proprio. He said information from people who did not formally complain could also be used to start an investigation, and described checking conflicts of interest, graft, and corruption as part of his constitutional duty. When presiding Rep. Rufus B. Rodriguez briefly began to move on, Domogan said he was not yet finished; Rodriguez restored his remaining time before the next subject.

Mandatory pre-audit and geomapping against ghost projects: Connecting corruption to government projects, Domogan said pre-audit had been removed in 2011 and proposed making it mandatory before payment, paired with geomapping so projects could be verified. He referred to Baguio's rehabilitation after the 1990 earthquake as an experience in which pre-audit had avoided red flags, and asked whether the Ombudsman would support the bill. Remulla said the combination would be a major help but placed pre-audit within the Commission on Audit's province, adding that COA would need more personnel. Domogan said COA had supported the proposal subject to that staffing condition and expressed hope that the filed bill would pass as a tool against ghost projects. The exchange records support and a legislative aspiration, not a COA commitment or an enacted measure.

Complaint-processing targets and additional lawyers: Domogan asked how long complaints take to process, noting that he knew of some cases that had been pending for some time. Remulla described fact-finding targets of 30 days for non-complex cases and 60 days for more complex cases. He then described preliminary investigation as 30 to 60 days, with 60 days as the maximum, and said the Office had imposed tighter deadlines. He said it had hired 60 lawyers that year and would hire 40 more, for a total of 100 lawyers, to help meet those deadlines. Domogan closed by supporting the budget and its proposed amendment and commending the Ombudsman's pursuit of anomalies within its jurisdiction. The stated targets and staffing plan did not provide a disposition date for the pending matters Domogan referenced.

Conviction enforcement, appellate delay, and a proposed cross-agency tracker: Diokno cited a study he said he received about 20 years earlier: of 110 people convicted of graft and corruption offenses by final judgment, only 10 were actually imprisoned. He offered to provide it and asked for a centralized system to ensure that people convicted after Ombudsman prosecution serve their sentences. Remulla criticized the lack of a timetable in the appellate process and argued for immediate service after conviction unless an appeal stopped it. Chair Rodriguez responded that presumption of innocence and the constitutional right to appeal prevented automatic jail after RTC conviction; Remulla maintained his different view that the presumption disappeared after conviction by a court with jurisdiction. Diokno clarified that his practical question was not bail pending appeal but tracking after an affirmed conviction, when a person could still evade apprehension. He proposed a government-wide system involving DOJ, BuCor, and other agencies. Remulla agreed that convictions should be tracked and said the Office had sought funding for an Ombudsman Marshal office, which he described as intended to track persons in jail, sentenced to jail, or accused and create a complete inventory. Diokno's reference to about 200 flood-control cases under probe and at least four in court was his on-record characterization, not an independently reported Ombudsman result. No operational tracker, interagency arrangement, funding approval, or timetable was recorded.

Witness protection and the proposed Ombudsman Marshal: Diokno said the Department of Justice was the body with witness protection provided by law and asked why he had not seen a comparable proposal in the Ombudsman's materials. Remulla said a special body was needed to undertake those functions and described service of subpoenas and related work as functions the proposed Ombudsman Marshal office could handle with its own personnel rather than through police delegation. When Diokno said he wanted to know more and might be able to help, Remulla said the proposal followed the Supreme Court's already adopted marshals. The exchange did not establish a separate statutory witness-protection program, a funded or operational marshal unit, or an implementation date.

A common government-wide prosecution measure: Diokno referred to the Ombudsman's earlier-mentioned 65% conviction rate and contrasted it with DOJ's use of Prosecutorial Success Rate in its appearance the previous day. He questioned whether PSR captured the needed performance information and asked whether conviction rate should become a common government-wide gauge for prosecutorial agencies. Assistant Ombudsman Luis Gonzaga S. Bonoan, Jr. agreed that a single government-wide prosecution statistic would be beneficial. No metric, definition, adoption process, or deadline was established.

Lifestyle checks in income-generating agencies: Diokno asked about progress in reviving lifestyle checks, referring to a 2025 presidential statement. Remulla said the Office was conducting 107 checks and adding more while pursuing information on people in Customs, LTO, BIR, and other income-generating agencies. Diokno welcomed the work and added that, in his view, earlier checks might have surfaced issues involving Usec. Bernardo and a claimed ₱500 million return; that comment was Diokno's, not an independently established finding. No results or completion timetable for the 107 checks was supplied.

Fact-finding output, cooperation powers, and investigative capacity: Diokno said a report showed that the Office completed 1,129 of 2,051 fact-finding investigations in 2025, roughly 55%, and that 317 produced criminal or administrative filings. He asked how the committee could help improve completion. Ombudsman Jesus Crispin C. Remulla identified agency cooperation as a problem, said the Office was issuing subpoenas, and called for legislation granting contempt powers. Asked about personnel, he said the Office was still hiring and needed stronger training and digital-forensics equipment, although it already had a program; he confirmed those needs were included in its budget proposal. This records the Office's request and Diokno's stated support, not a grant of contempt power, a staffing decision, or a funded digital-forensics outcome.

Forfeiture filings and deferred flood-control data: Diokno asked for annual forfeiture-case filings. Remulla reported 64 in 2022, 32 in 2023, 18 in 2024, 12 in 2025, and 10 so far in 2026, adding that more forfeiture filings would follow. Diokno then asked how many of the 2025 and 2026 filings concerned flood-control projects. Remulla said the data was not yet complete but promised to provide it. The figures are filings, not convictions, recoveries, or case outcomes; the flood-control breakdown and its delivery date were not supplied in the round.

Lifestyle-check social-media review and BIR cooperation: Diokno asked whether lifestyle checks included reviewing government officials' and families' social-media accounts; Remulla answered that social media was included. Diokno also asked how the Office used SALN waivers permitting access to BIR and other government records. Remulla said the waiver should require BIR cooperation, but characterized BIR cooperation as slow and a continuing problem. The exchange did not quantify how often waivers were used, identify a policy change, or set a remedy or deadline for BIR cooperation.

Corruption-case deadlines, case build-up, and continuous trial: Diokno said he had publicly urged the Supreme Court to impose strict deadlines for corruption cases and argued that a full trial should not take more than five years. He cited, as a statement he had heard during an earlier Sandiganbayan budget appearance, pending cases dating to 1987. Remulla said the Office was raising its case-build-up standard from probable cause to reasonable certainty of conviction so it could present evidence and rest cases promptly. He advocated continuous trial, preferably mandatory for graft cases, and said he had raised Sandiganbayan delays with members of the Supreme Court. He described pending cases where evidence had already been presented after 15 years or where decisions were still awaited. These were policy views and ongoing case-management accounts, not an adopted judicial deadline, mandatory rule, or assurance that existing cases would conclude within five years.

Monitoring impeachment evidence and confidential-funds concerns: In a brief addendum, Rep. Jose Manuel Tadeo "Chel" I. Diokno said he understood that the Office of the Ombudsman monitored impeachment proceedings for evidence that could lead to later investigation or prosecution. He referred to the Office's confidential-funds proposal as about ₱55 million, or thereabouts, and expressed the view that it needed larger confidential funds than other agencies under impeachment scrutiny. He then asked whether the Office was monitoring testimony and evidence, especially on confidential funds, for possible violations. Ombudsman Jesus Crispin C. Remulla replied that the Office was monitoring and had an active unit monitoring the impeachment proceedings. That answer confirms monitoring activity only; it does not report a violation, investigation or prosecution decision, confidential-funds approval, or a final funding amount.

Support for Ombudsman marshals and a call for member backing: Chair Rep. Rufus B. Rodriguez said his representation supported creating marshals for the Ombudsman: to protect the Ombudsman, speed the service of processes, and help ensure that persons convicted by final judgment in Ombudsman cases are jailed. He said he had conferred with Assistant Ombudsman Luis Gonzaga S. Bonoan, Jr. and had authored the creation of marshals in the Supreme Court. Rodriguez said the House was ready to heed the Ombudsman's call and urged other members to support it. This was the Chair's advocacy for the proposal, not enactment, an appropriation, a vote, or recorded final committee approval.

Support for Ombudsman funding, independence, and public trust: Rep. Ma. Isabel L. Sagarbarria said her intervention was not an interpellation but a message of support for the Ombudsman family. She expressed support for the Office of the Ombudsman's proposed budget, citing its role in accountability, transparency, and good governance, as well as the integrity and independence with which it carries out its constitutional mandate. Speaking as Vice Chairperson of the Committee on Appropriations, she said adequate resources were an investment in stronger institutions and restored public trust, and expressed support for a budget that would let the Office continue promoting integrity and accountability in public service. This was a member manifestation; the exchange contains no recorded vote, funding decision, amendment, or operational commitment by the committee or Office.

Allegations concerning current flood-control cases and the Ombudsman's evidence-based review: Rep. Antonio L. Tinio asked about the status of flood-control-corruption inquiries involving officials connected with Malacañang, framing his question around public allegations he attributed to Zaldy Co and to an account involving a DPWH undersecretary relayed by Sen. Ping Lacson in Senate records. Tinio recited allegations including a PHP 100-billion insertion in the 2025 budget, an alleged PHP 51 billion handled by one official, and alleged PHP 8 billion in kickbacks, including an alleged PHP 2 billion armored-car exchange. He asked why no investigation had been publicly heard, and noted that private individuals had filed a March 30 letter or complaint seeking investigation. Ombudsman Jesus Crispin C. Remulla did not confirm the allegations or identify investigation targets. He said the Office did not publicize work while it was building cases, because cases had to be grounded in evidence and disclosure could alert people being followed. He said the Office was building the cases, reviewing budgets and numbers, and following amounts where evidence supported doing so; when Tinio asked whether even Cabinet officials or the President would be included, Remulla said all would be treated on the evidence and that no one would be spared. The exchange records an assurance about an evidence-based process, not a finding, charge, or confirmed investigation of a named person.

Earlier flood-control cases, Davao remarks, and the need for ground evidence: Tinio then asked about flood-control corruption predating the current administration, pointing to issues raised in Congress as early as 2018. Remulla said the Office was examining earlier-period issues as well, but described information gathering as difficult because people did not speak. He said that, before the Marcos administration, Davao City had been the epicenter of the flood-control corruption ecosystem the Office was examining, and said it was collecting information there and looking at other provinces. When Tinio restated this as a conclusion about Davao City, Remulla expressly said he would not draw that conclusion immediately: the Office was studying the matter and needed evidence on the ground. The exchange therefore records an ongoing evidence-gathering account and an express caveat against a final conclusion.

Submitted flood-control information and a no-conclusion qualification: As time expired, Tinio reminded the Ombudsman of information his side had submitted concerning flood-control anomalies. He said their review had reached no conclusion and was based on comparing budgets and appropriations with contracts and actual projects delivered; he hoped it would assist the Office's investigation. Presiding Rep. Rufus B. Rodriguez ended the round before an agency response or a commitment about that submission was recorded.

Personnel complement request and hiring constraints: Rep. Salvador A. Pleyto said he supported approval of the Office of the Ombudsman's proposed FY 2027 budget and suggested additional personnel-services funding to increase the number of staff. He said the authorized-position count was 2,439 in 2025, 2026, and 2027 despite the Office's programs, activities, and projects. Chair Rep. Rufus B. Rodriguez asked what else the Office needed beyond the personnel-services proposal. Ombudsman Jesus Crispin C. Remulla responded that the Office had not yet filled the plantilla already approved by DBM. He attributed slow hiring to civil-service, personnel-board, and other required processes, saying recruits first identified in December were only being hired that week and that hiring 60 lawyers had taken more than 10 and a half months. He said filling positions would be faster if standards and processes were eased, while describing the Office as continuing to hire gradually. The exchange records a member request and the Ombudsman's staffing explanation, not a decision to add positions, alter hiring standards, or approve additional personnel funding.

Termination motion and 3 p.m. COA resumption: After reassuming as vice chair and noting there were no more interpellators, Rep. Rufus B. Rodriguez called for a motion to terminate the Office of the Ombudsman budget briefing. Rep. Salvador A. Pleyto moved termination and said, 'I so move'; an unidentified voice seconded. Rodriguez declared the motion moved and seconded, terminated the briefing, and thanked Ombudsman Jesus Crispin C. Remulla and the participating members. In a separate announcement, he suspended committee proceedings and said they would resume at 3 p.m. for the Commission on Audit budget briefing. The record establishes termination of this briefing and announces a later resumption; it does not establish final approval of the Ombudsman budget or identify a calendar date for the 3 p.m. resumption.

Support for Ombudsman resources, independence, accountability, and public trust: After saying she had no further questions, Rep. Girlie E. Veloso manifested the Malasakit at Bayanihan Party-list's support for the Office of the Ombudsman's proposed FY 2027 budget. She said public confidence called for an Ombudsman that was independent, adequately supported, and able to provide timely, credible accountability; she said people should see government accountability and justice demonstrated through orderly, timely action. Veloso therefore supported the resources she said were necessary for the Office to perform its constitutional mandate effectively and strengthen public trust. This was a member manifestation of support, not a recorded committee vote, appropriation, amendment, funding decision, or operational commitment.

Written, prioritized requests for BAR C deliberation: Chair Rep. Mikaela Angela B. Suansing asked the Office of the Ombudsman to submit its additional funding requests in writing for open consideration by the Budget Amendments Review Subcommittee (BAR C). She named confidential funds, Ombudsman Marshal positions, motor vehicles, and purchase of a new office building, and requested a prioritization in case additional fiscal space could be found. Ombudsman Jesus Crispin C. Remulla said the Office would comply as soon as possible. Suansing described last year's assistance on the office-building rental situation and satellite-office equipment and manpower as context for the request. Neither the chair's request nor Remulla's compliance response approved an amendment, allocated funds, or guaranteed fiscal space.

Special-provision wording and coordination on requested amendments: Suansing said the requested special provision had also appeared in the 2026 GAAA and said they would coordinate while the 2027 GAB was being fine-tuned so that the proper, necessary wording was reflected. She reiterated support for the Ombudsman's budget and work, and said they would coordinate on the requested-amendments list so it could, if possible, enter BAR C deliberations, which she said was expected in about a week. Her statements record intended coordination and support; they do not establish that wording was adopted, the amendments entered deliberations, or that funding would be provided.