The first paragraph of Sec. 14 of the Ombudsman Act (R.A. No.

6770) provides that No writ of

injunction shall be issued by any court to delay an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman
under this Act, unless there is a prima facie evidence that the subject matter of the investigation is
outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman. What is the status of this provision?

In Carpio-Morales v. CA, the Supreme Court declared that the first paragraph of Sec. 14 of R.A. No. 6770
is ineffective until the Court adopts the same as part of the Rules of Procedure through an
administrative circular duly issued therefor. Without the Court's consent to the proscription, the
provision stands to be a violation of the separation of powers principle. When Congress creates a court
and delimits its jurisdiction, the procedure for which its jurisdiction is exercised is fixed by the Court
through the rules it promulgates. through this provision, Congress interfered with a provisional remedy
(certiorari) that was created by this Court under its duly promulgated rules of procedure, which utility is
both integral and inherent to every court's exercise of judicial power. Further, it dilutes the courts
ability to carry out its functions since a particular case can be easily be mooted by supervening events if
no provisional injunctive relief is extended while the court is hearing the same.

The second paragraph of Sec. 14 of the Ombudsman Act (R.A. No. 6770) provides that No court shall
hear any appeal or application for remedy against the decision or findings of the Ombudsman, except
the Supreme Court on pure question of law. What is the status of this provision?

In Carpio-Morales v. CA, the Supreme Court declared that the second paragraph of Sec. 14 of R.A. No.
6770 is unconstitutional. The Congress cannot interfere with matters of procedure; hence, it cannot
alter the scope of a Rule 45 appeal to apply to interlocutory findings issued by the Ombudsman. It can
only be taken against final decisions or orders of lower courts and not against findings of quasi-judicial
agencies. Further, said provision also increased the Supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction without a
showing that it gave its consent to the same.