Office of the President, represented by Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., Orlando
C. Casimiro, and John I.C. Turalba.
G.R. No. 207355, February 3, 2016
Second Division, Carpio, J.
A1: No. there is nothing in EO 13 which states that the findings on the complaints against a
presidential appointee, such as a Deputy Ombudsman, must be issued by a collegial body. The
ODESLA is merely a fact-finding and recommendatory body to the President, and thus, it does not
have the power to settle controversies and adjudicate cases. The investigative authority of the ODELA
is limited to that of a fact-finding investigator whose determinations and recommendations remain so
until acted upon by the president. Its absence does not negate the validity of the decision of the OP.
A2: No. The conditions for protected disclosure have not been met in this case (see Section
7, Rules on Internal Whistleblowing and Reporting). The Memorandum was not executed under oath.
There is also no indication that the document was to be treated as confidential. They should have
indicated it clearly, such as by putting the word confidential on the face of the document. They
failed to do so. Thus the Memorandum was treated as a regular office memorandum. Moreover, the
allegations made by petitioners could all be easily verified through the records and thus do not fall
under the ambit of protected information. There was also nothing confidential about the
memorandum, nor any classified information.