(A practitioner-style legal article in Philippine context)

I. The Ombudsman “Answer” Depends on What Was Filed Against You

Before drafting, identify what you received. The Office of the Ombudsman handles multiple tracks, and your “answer” takes different forms depending on the case type:

Criminal complaint (Preliminary Investigation) Typical directive: Submit Counter-Affidavit (sometimes with a specific format and annex rules). Standard of evaluation: probable cause.
Administrative complaint (Disciplinary authority over public officers/employees) Typical directive: Submit Counter-Affidavit/Counter-Statement or Answer (sometimes verified). Standard of evaluation: substantial evidence (for liability), with due process requirements.
Request for Assistance (RAS) / Public Assistance This is often non-adversarial at the start—more problem-solving, mediation, facilitation, or referral—though it can mature into a formal complaint if misconduct is alleged. Typical directive: Submit Comment/Explanation and supporting documents; attend conferences if set.
Fact-Finding / Evaluation stage (sometimes before formal docketing for PI/administrative) You might receive a request for comment before the Ombudsman decides the proper action.

Key drafting point: Don’t force a “Counter-Affidavit” style answer into a mere RAS. Conversely, don’t treat a PI subpoena like a casual letter—your sworn counter-affidavit and attachments may decide the case.

II. Core Legal Framework You Must Respect (Philippine Setting)

While you’ll tailor your approach case-by-case, Ombudsman practice generally draws from:

The 1987 Constitution (Ombudsman’s independence and powers)
Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989)
Ombudsman Rules of Procedure (issued through Ombudsman administrative orders and circulars, amended over time)
Substantive laws often involved:
- Revised Penal Code
- RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
- RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards)
- Procurement law (commonly RA 9184 and its IRR, in bidding-related complaints)
- Agency-specific charters and civil service rules

Practical reality: Ombudsman proceedings are administrative in nature and are not strictly bound by the technical rules of court, but they require fairness, due process, and evidentiary sufficiency. Your draft should be clear, complete, and document-backed, not technical for its own sake.

III. Your First 48 Hours: What to Do Before Writing

Read the directive carefully. Note: docket number, case title, type (PI/admin/RAS), deadlines, required number of copies, filing method, and whether notarization is required.
Calendar the deadline and plan backward. You need time for:
- gathering records,
- securing certified copies (if needed),
- preparing affidavits of witnesses,
- notarization,
- printing/assembling and filing.
Freeze the record. Preserve emails, memos, logs, CCTV references, procurement records, disbursement documents, signatory pages, and routing slips. Missing documents are a common reason respondents lose even when “they were right.”
Map the allegation to elements. For each charge, list the elements and what evidence you have that defeats each element.
Identify your defenses early. These typically fall into:
- jurisdiction/authority (is the Ombudsman the proper forum?),
- identity/participation (you weren’t the actor or had no signing authority),
- regularity/good faith (you acted within standard procedure),
- absence of elements (no undue injury, no unwarranted benefit, etc.),
- documentary contradiction (complainant’s narrative conflicts with records),
- procedural fairness (lack of notice/opportunity—rarely winning alone, but supportive).

IV. Deadlines, Extensions, and the Cost of Not Filing

A. Typical periods

In many Ombudsman matters, respondents are commonly given around 10 days to submit the required counter-affidavit/comment (exact period depends on the directive you received). Extensions may be granted in some circumstances, but you should not assume they will be.

B. If you fail to file

Non-filing may be treated as waiver, and the case can be resolved based on complainant’s submissions and available records. Even if the Ombudsman still evaluates objectively, you lose your chance to frame facts and supply documents.

Drafting implication: Put your best, most complete version in your first submission. Don’t hold back key defenses expecting a second bite.

V. Choosing the Correct Form: Counter-Affidavit vs. Answer vs. Comment

1) Counter-Affidavit (common in PI and sometimes in admin)

A sworn narrative that:

answers allegations fact-by-fact,
asserts defenses,
attaches documents as annexes,
includes sworn statements of witnesses you rely on.

Must be notarized (as an affidavit) and typically uses numbered paragraphs and exhibits.

2) Answer (often in administrative cases)

An “Answer” may be:

verified or unverified depending on directive,
more pleading-like, with admissions/denials and affirmative defenses,
still best supported by annexes.

3) Comment/Explanation (common in RAS and evaluation)

A more straightforward statement:

explains what happened,
shows what you did to address the concern,
attaches proof of action, status updates, and policy basis,
proposes a practical resolution.

Drafting tip: Even a “Comment” should be organized like a mini-case: Facts → Issues → Response → Documents → Requested action.

VI. Structure That Works in Ombudsman Practice (Use This)

A. Caption and Title

Use the exact case title and docket number from the directive. Don’t rename the case.

B. Your “Introductory” Paragraphs

State:

that you are filing the required counter-affidavit/answer/comment,
the date you received the directive,
that your submission is within the period (or explain extension/grace if any).

C. Statement of Facts (Chronological, Document-Driven)

Write it like a timeline:

what happened,
who did what,
what documents show each step.

Rule: If a fact matters, attach proof (or explain why none exists).

D. Issues

Keep to 3–6 issues max. Examples:

Whether respondent participated or had authority.
Whether elements of the offense/charge exist.
Whether there was undue injury/unwarranted benefit.
Whether acts were done in bad faith or with manifest partiality.
Whether administrative liability is supported by substantial evidence.

E. Discussion / Arguments

Use headings tied to elements and defenses:

No direct participation / no approving authority
Regular performance of duties; good faith
No undue injury; no unwarranted benefit
Procurement/disbursement complied with rules
Allegation is hearsay or conclusory
Documents contradict complainant’s story

F. Annexes and Authentication

List annexes clearly:

Annex “A” – Appointment/Designation/Job Description
Annex “B” – BAC Resolution / Abstract of Bids / Notice of Award
Annex “C” – Disbursement Voucher / ORS / Certification
Annex “D” – Emails/Memos
Annex “E” – Witness Affidavit of ___

When possible, use certified true copies of official records. If you only have photocopies, explain origin and offer to present originals if required.

G. Prayer (Requested Relief)

Be specific:

“dismiss the complaint for lack of probable cause” (PI),
“dismiss the administrative complaint for lack of substantial evidence,”
or for RAS: “consider the matter resolved/for referral/for mediation.”

H. Signatures and Notarization

Counter-affidavit: sign under oath before a notary.
Witness affidavits: separate sworn affidavits.
If an answer must be verified, follow verification requirements as directed.

VII. Drafting Principles That Win (and Mistakes That Lose)

A. Be element-focused, not emotion-focused

Ombudsman pleadings are won by:

documents,
authority lines,
process compliance,
lack of essential elements,
clean timelines.

B. Don’t over-deny; deny precisely

Avoid “I deny all allegations.” Instead:

admit neutral facts (position, dates),
deny false specifics,
explain with records.

C. Control the narrative with a timeline table (optional but powerful)

A one-page chronology can clarify complicated transactions.

D. Never rely on “presumption of regularity” alone

Use it as a supporting point, but anchor the defense in actual steps taken and documents.

E. Avoid common pitfalls

Submitting a counter-affidavit with no annexes.
Ignoring the signing/approval matrix (who had authority).
Failing to address each element of the alleged offense.
Attaching unreadable or unauthenticated documents.
Using inconsistent dates and numbers.

VIII. Common Substantive Defenses in Ombudsman Cases (Philippine-Common Patterns)

1) RA 3019, Section 3(e) (most common graft allegation)

Typical allegations: “undue injury” or “unwarranted benefits,” “manifest partiality,” “evident bad faith,” “gross inexcusable negligence.”

Common defense angles:

No proof of undue injury (quantified, actual, supported).
No proof of unwarranted benefit (what benefit, to whom, why unwarranted).
Acts were consistent with rules; no bad faith or manifest partiality.
Respondent’s role was ministerial or non-approving.
Reliance on technical staff or committee processes when appropriate.

2) Procurement complaints (RA 9184-type fact patterns)

Defense angles:

BAC/HOPE roles are distinct; identify your legal role.
Show compliance: posting, eligibility checks, abstract of bids, resolutions, notices, contract steps.
Explain deviations (if any) with authority and documentation.

3) Administrative charges (misconduct, conduct prejudicial, neglect, etc.)

Defense angles:

Lack of substantial evidence; complainant relies on hearsay.
Good faith, absence of malicious intent.
Compliance with office procedure; no willful disregard.
If error occurred: show it was isolated, corrected, no damage, and within reasonable discretion.

4) RA 6713 ethics-based complaints

Defense angles:

No prohibited act shown (e.g., no proof of conflict, solicitation, or acceptance).
Disclosures made; inhibitions observed; decisions were collective, not personal.

IX. Handling a Request for Assistance (RAS): The “Service-Oriented” Response

When the filing is a request for assistance, the best response often looks like a government action memo:

Acknowledge the request and summarize the complainant’s concern neutrally.
State the current status (what the office has done, what is pending, why).
Cite the basis (policy, memo, ordinance, circular, legal provision) in plain language.
Attach proof (routing slips, action taken, schedules, receipts, approvals).
Offer concrete next steps (timeline for action, contact point, conference availability).
Avoid admissions of misconduct unless officially established; focus on resolution.

Goal: Show the Ombudsman that the matter is being addressed responsibly, making escalation unnecessary.

X. A Practical Drafting Checklist (Use This Before Filing)

Procedural

Correct docket number and case title
Correct document type (Counter-Affidavit / Answer / Comment)
Filed within period or with a request for extension (if allowed/necessary)
Proper signatures, verification, and notarization (if required)
Proof of service/filing method complied with directive

Substance

Clear timeline with dates and actors
Each allegation answered (admit/deny/explain)
Elements of each charge addressed
Role and authority clearly explained with documents
Annexes labeled, readable, and referenced in text
Witness affidavits included where needed
Prayer asks for specific relief

XI. Sample Skeleton: Counter-Affidavit (Template-Style)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN [Office/Area]

[Complainant] vs. [Respondent/s] OMB Case No. __________

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

I, [Name], of legal age, Filipino, and with office address at [address], after having been duly sworn, depose and state:

Personal and official circumstances. I am the [position] of [agency]. My functions include [brief, relevant duties].
Receipt of directive. On [date], I received the directive requiring me to submit this Counter-Affidavit.
General response. I specifically deny the material allegations insofar as they impute wrongdoing, and I state the facts below.

A. FACTS (Chronology)

On [date], [event] occurred (Annex “A”).
Thereafter, [step] (Annex “B”).
At no point did I [approve/sign/authorize] [contested act]; my participation was limited to [ministerial/committee/endorsement] (Annex “C”).

B. ISSUES

Whether I participated in or authorized the alleged act.
Whether the elements of [offense/charge] are present.
Whether probable cause/substantial evidence exists.

C. DISCUSSION

1. No direct participation/authority 10. The approval authority for [transaction] belongs to [office/position], as shown by [document] (Annex “D”). I did not sign [document] nor exercise discretion over [decision point].

2. No bad faith / manifest partiality / gross negligence 11. My actions were consistent with [procedure/rule]. The records show [steps] (Annexes “E” to “G”).

3. No undue injury / no unwarranted benefit (if applicable) 12. The complaint alleges injury but provides no competent proof of actual damage or unwarranted benefit. In contrast, the records show [explain] (Annex “H”).

D. CONCLUSION

The complaint is based on conjecture and is contradicted by official records.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the complaint be DISMISSED for lack of probable cause / lack of substantial evidence, and for such other reliefs as may be just and equitable.

[Date, Place] [Signature] [Name]

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me this ___ day of ______ 20__.

(Add witness affidavits as separate sworn documents, each with its own annex references.)

XII. After You File: What Usually Happens Next

Depending on the track, expect one or more of the following:

evaluation and possible dismissal,
clarificatory hearing/conference (not always),
order for reply (sometimes),
resolution finding probable cause (criminal) or administrative liability,
referral to other agencies or internal units,
in some cases, interim measures (e.g., preventive suspension in admin, if justified under applicable rules).

Best practice: Keep your records organized for quick follow-through; Ombudsman proceedings can move in bursts.

XIII. Final Notes on Tone, Ethics, and Risk

Be truthful. A false counter-affidavit can create separate criminal exposure (e.g., perjury) and destroys credibility.
Be restrained. Avoid personal attacks; focus on records and elements.
Be consistent. What you say here may be compared later with audit findings, COA records, procurement files, and personnel/office issuances.
Consult counsel when stakes are high. Ombudsman outcomes can affect liberty (criminal), career (administrative), and reputation.

If you paste (1) the directive you received (with personal data redacted) and (2) the complaint’s key allegations, I can draft a full, case-ready Counter-Affidavit/Comment tailored to that specific Ombudsman track and deadline.