MANILA — The Court of Appeals has reversed 2 notices issued by the Office of the Ombudsman junking former Senator Leila de Lima’s 2018 complaint against former Justice secretaries Vitaliano Aguirre II and Menardo Guevarra over the use of convicts as witnesses in the drug cases against her.

The CA said the 2 notices were “void for lack of due process.”

CA orders Ombudsman to act on De Lima’s 2018 administrative complaints vs ex-SOJs Vitaliano Aguirre II and Menardo Guevarra over the use of convicts as witnesses in the drug cases against her.

CA says 2 notices junking her complaint were “void for lack of due process.”

CA orders Ombudsman to act on De Lima’s 2018 administrative complaints vs ex-SOJs Vitaliano Aguirre II and Menardo Guevarra over the use of convicts as witnesses in the drug cases against her.

CA says 2 notices junking her complaint were “void for lack of due process.”

“This case is remanded to the Office of the Ombudsman for appropriate action,” the CA Special 17th Division said in a decision dated November 21, 2023.

De Lima, in a complaint-affidavit filed before the Ombudsman on October 29, 2018, accused Aguirre of dereliction of duty and graft for admitting into the witness protection program criminals who were already convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude, which she argued violated section 10(f) of RA 6981 or the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act.

Guevarra, who was Justice secretary at that time, was impleaded for “continuing the illegal admission” into the WPP of the convicted persons deprived of liberty (PDLs).

Both faced an administrative complaint for gross neglect of duty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

De Lima identified 10 PDLs as having been granted immunity and were given certifications by Aguirre.

Four of the 10 — Hans Anton Tan, Engelberto Durano, Nonilo Arile and Rodolfo Magleo — would later express willingness to recant their allegations in the last drug case pending against the former senator.

• 7 more PDL-witnesses vs De Lima willing to recant

Another PDL, Vicente Sy, died under custody in July 2021.

• DOJ confirms death of convicted drug lord Vicente Sy

But the Ombudsman, in 2019 and 2020, dismissed both the administrative and criminal complaints, saying there was no proof that the witnesses were enjoying the benefits under the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program (WPSBP) as state witnesses with the refusal of the Justice secretary to issue a certification.

On appeal, the CA ruled that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion when it “dismissed the administrative complaint outright based on inapplicable exceptions.”

“[T]here was no valid reason for the Ombudsman to have refused to conduct an investigation on the administrative charges filed by petitioner against respondent. Its unjustified refusal is contrary to its mandate under the law, and cannot be tolerated,” said the ponencia written by Associate Justice Raymond Reynold Lauigan.

CA Associate Justices Apolinario Bruselas, Jr. and Eleuterio Bathan concurred in the decision.

The Ombudsman cited an exception under the Ombudsman Act which allows the agency to refuse conducting an investigation if the complainant has “an adequate remedy in another judicial or quasi-judicial body.”

That remedy was supposedly for De Lima to go to court to compel the Justice secretary to issue a certification if the witnesses continue to enjoy the rights and benefits under the WPSBP.

But the appellate court pointed out, that remedy does not provide the same relief as the Ombudsman’s probe.

“In dismissing the administrative complaint outright based on inapplicable exceptions under Section 20 of R.A. No. 6770, the Ombudsman clearly deviated from its own rules of procedure, which is a violation of procedural due process,” the court said, adding that the Ombudsman should have furnished the respondents with a copy of the complaint-affidavit and the evidence.

“The Ombudsman could have been more prudent by giving respondent the opportunity to file his counter-affidavit and supporting evidence. As the Secretary of Justice, only respondent could have enlightened the Ombudsman, including the appellate courts, as to why the DOJ refused to furnish petitioner with a certification on the status of the convicted felons as witnesses under the WPSBP especially so since a written order coming from the Secretary of Justice is one of the recognized exceptions to the confidential nature of the program,” it added.

The CA decision also noted that the Ombudsman, in saying that it would be embarking on a “fishing expedition” without the Justice secretary’s certification, seemed to have undermined its own mandated investigatory and prosecutorial powers.

It clarified however that it could only act on the administrative complaints filed by De Lima since the Ombudsman’s dismissal of criminal complaints should be challenged before the Supreme Court.