The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) has suspended further action on the criminal complaints filed against House Speaker Martin Romualdez and three other congressmen for their alleged involvement in the reportedly illegal entries made in the 2025 national budget.

In a resolution dated March 7, Ombudsman Samuel R. Martires said that no information (criminal charge sheet) has yet been filed against Romualdez and the others, so the mandatory suspension pendente lite (pending litigation) under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 does not apply.

On Feb. 10, Romualdez, Majority Leader Rep. Manuel Jose Dalipe, former Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations Rep. Elizaldy Co, and current Chairperson of the Committee on Appropriations Rep. Stella Luz A. Quimbo were charged with graft and falsification.

The complaints were filed by Davao del Norte 1st District Rep. Pantaleon D. Alvarez, lawyers James Patrick Romero Bondoc and Ferdinand S. Topacio, Citizens Crime Watch President Diego L. Magpantay, and retired general Virgilio R. Garcia.

The complainants want them held liable for 12 counts of violations of Article 170 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) on falsification of legislativen documents, and 12 counts of violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, due to the alleged blank entries they reportedly made in the bicameral conference committee report on the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA) amounting to P241 billion.

With the filing of the complaints, Alvarez and his co-complainants filed a motion for the preventive suspension of the respondents on Feb. 19 until the merits of the case are finally resolved.

However, Martires has his reservations as the issues raised in their complaints are "closely intertwined" to the petition for certiorari and prohibition that was earlier filed before the Supreme Court (SC) by Victor D. Rodriguez, Rep. Isidro T. Ungab and several others. The case before the SC is docketed as G.R. No. 277975.

In their SC petition, Rodriguez and his group challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 12116, the General Appropriations Act of 2025.

They alleged that RA No. 12116 is unconstitutional because the Bicameral Conference Committee submitted a report with blank items of the General Appropriations Bill which is in violation of Article VI, Section 27 of the 1987 Constitution.

"Doubtless, the alleged criminal liability of respondents Romualdez, et al., that is raised in the herein Complaint, refers also to the same blank items in the Bicam Report that is the subject of the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition," the OMB's resolution said.

Now faced with the situation where a Special Civil Action (the petition before the SC) and a criminal action (complaint) are separately pending, the Ombudsman said that "judicial courtesy dictates that the quasi-judicial body should, and must yield and await the decision of the High Tribunal before acting on the case pending before it."

"The SC must first resolve the issue of constitutionality before the criminal action pending before the Ombudsman will proceed," Martires explained in his resolution.

While the complainants argued that the evidence against the respondents are overwhelmingly strong, the Ombudsman cited Section 16(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which provides the manner in which members of the Senate and House of Representatives may be disciplined, suspended, or expelled.

The said provision states that the two Houses of Congress have the exclusive power to discipline its members and the courts have no jurisdiction to interfere.

"Unquestionably, the Office of the Ombudsman possesses full administrative disciplinary authority over public officials and employees, except impeachable officials, members of Congress, and the Judiciary. Since respondents are members of the House of Representatives, this Office does not have the authority to order their suspension," the resolution explained.