[1] The Ombudsman has under its general investigatory powers the authority to investigate forfeiture cases where the alleged ill-gotten wealth had been amassed before February 25, 1986. In Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 90529, 08/16/1991, the Supreme Court emphatically explained that, ―While they do not discount the authority of the Ombudsman, they believe and so hold that the exercise of his correlative powers to both investigate and initiate the proper action for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth and/or unexplained wealth is restricted only to cases for the recovery of ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth which were amassed after February 25, 1986. Prior to said date, the Ombudsman is without authority to initiate such forfeiture proceedings. We, however, uphold his authority to investigate cases for the forfeiture or recovery of such ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth amassed even before the abovementioned date, pursuant to his general investigatory power under Section 15(1) of RA 6770‖. Here, although it was the Ombudsman who conducted the preliminary investigation, it was the OSG that instituted the action in line with the Court‘s ruling in the above-cited case and other cases that followed (Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 16160, 07/13/2010).
[2] The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only. It cannot, therefore, review the orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or nonadministrative cases. Bunag-Cabacungan's contention that the phrase "in all other cases" has removed the distinction between administrative and criminal cases of the Ombudsman is ludicrous. It must be stressed that the above-quoted Section 7 is provided under Rule III, which deals with the procedure in administrative cases. When Administrative Order No. 07 was amended by Administrative Order No. 17, Section 7 was retained in Rule III. It is another rule, Rule II, which provides for the procedure in criminal cases. Thus, the phrase "in all other cases" still refers to administrative cases, not criminal cases, where the sanctions imposed are different from those enumerated in Section 7. It is important to note that the petition filed by Bunag-Cabacungan in CA-G.R. SP No. 86630 assailed only the "administrative decision" rendered against her by the OMB for Luzon. (Duyon v. Special Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals and Bunag-Cabacungan, GR No. 172218, 11/26/2014).
