Notarization Requirement for Ombudsman Pleadings in the Philippines
1 | Why “notarization” matters before the Office of the Ombudsman
The Ombudsman is a constitutional watchdog with combined investigatory-prosecutorial and quasi-judicial powers. Requiring pleadings to be sworn (and usually notarized) serves three purposes:
- Authenticity – it anchors the complainant’s (or affiant’s) personal accountability for every factual allegation.
- Deterrence – a knowingly false sworn statement is perjury (Art. 183, Revised Penal Code) and can be treated as false testimony/administrative misconduct.
- Administrative efficiency – it lets investigators bypass needless clarificatory hearings because every pleading already arrives as evidence.
2 | Primary legal sources
| Layer | Key provisions | Take-away |
|---|---|---|
| Constitution, Art. XI | §§12-13 | Empowers the Ombudsman to “act on complaints …” and to “investigate … any act or omission of any public official.” |
| Republic Act 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) | §§15, 18, 23 & 27 | Vests the Ombudsman with rule-making power and the authority to administer oaths. |
| Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman – A.O. No. 07 (1990), as amended | Rule I §3; Rule II §4 (a); Rule III §1 & §3 | All initiating criminal or administrative complaints must be “in writing and under oath.” Affidavits and clarificatory answers are likewise sworn. |
| 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC) | Rule II §6-§9; Rule IV | Defines “jurat,” prescribes personal appearance, ID, seal, and register requirements. (sc.judiciary.gov.ph) |
| Rules of Court (suppletory) | Rule 7 §4-§5 | Verification & Certification against Forum Shopping must be sworn (and normally notarized) unless the Ombudsman’s rules provide otherwise. |
3 | Which Ombudsman pleadings must be sworn/notarized?
| Pleading / Paper | Mandatory jurat? | Legal basis / practice note |
|---|---|---|
| Complaint-Affidavit (criminal) | ✔️ | Rule II §4 (a) A.O. 07 — an “under-oath” complaint triggers preliminary investigation. |
| Verified Administrative Complaint | ✔️ | Rule III §1 & §3, A.O. 07. Must attach a sworn Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping. |
| Counter-Affidavit / Reply-Affidavit | ✔️ | Same rule; otherwise the investigator may disregard them. |
| Position Papers & Formal Offer of Evidence (administrative) | Usually ✔️ | The Ombudsman routinely requires position papers to be sworn so that they carry evidentiary weight. |
| Motion for Reconsideration (criminal or administrative) | 🔶 Recommended | Although the Rules are silent, a sworn MR avoids later challenge as a “mere scrap of paper.” |
| Anonymous or motu proprio complaints | ❌ | May proceed without oath if the Ombudsman elects to investigate motu proprio; the gathered evidence will later be sworn. |
4 | Notarization vs. oath before an Ombudsman official
- Notarization (jurat before any commissioned notary public) remains the norm because parties file multiple original copies for service and court review.
- Alternative: The affiant may instead swear directly before an Ombudsman investigator, special prosecutor, or any officer “authorized to administer oaths.” That satisfies the “under oath” requirement even if the paper carries no notarial seal.
- Practical tip: indicate the administering officer’s name, rank, and office in the jurat to forestall challenges.
5 | Formal requirements of a valid jurat (2004 Notarial Rules)
- Personal appearance of the affiant before the notary.
- Competent Evidence of Identity (IDs or credible witnesses).
- Signature in the notary’s presence—pre-signed documents invalidate the jurat.
- Notarial Register entry with doc. no., page, book, and series.
- Correct verbiage (“SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN…”), not an acknowledgment form.
Failure in any element may render the pleading defective or the notary administratively liable.
6 | Consequences of a defective or missing notarization
| Scenario | Effect on the pleading | Key cases / doctrines |
|---|---|---|
| No verification at all | Formal defect; Ombudsman or courts may dismiss or require correction in the interest of justice. | Altres v. Empleo, 593 Phil 263 (2008) (analogous principle adopted in Ombudsman practice). |
| Unsigned or improperly notarized Certificate Against Forum Shopping | Ground for dismissal; liberally cured only upon compelling circumstances. | Office of the Ombudsman v. Mendoza, G.R. 219772 (17 July 2019) |
| Wrong notarial form (acknowledgment instead of jurat) | Jurat is void; affidavit becomes unsworn. Ombudsman often strikes the pleading. | Practice guidance |
| Forgery / fake notary | Pleading treated as unsworn; possible criminal/administrative action vs. affiant & notary. | See forged-jurat anecdote in Reyes v. Rebollido position-paper challenge |
7 | E-filing, pandemic-era flexibilities & electronic notarization
- The Ombudsman still requires at least two wet-ink originals even when pleadings are couriered, per its Citizen’s Charter (2020 edition) and on-site “Submission of Pleadings” guidelines.
- During COVID-19 lockdowns the Office accepted pleadings sworn via remote online notarization (Zoom-based jurats) so long as the notarial act complied with Interim Guidelines issued by executive judges under the 2004 Notarial Rules. These accommodations have remained (informally) acceptable for e-mailed filings, but parties must later file the “hard” notarial copy once movement restrictions ease.
- The Supreme Court’s 2024 E-Filing Guidelines for trial courts do not govern the Ombudsman; expect separate implementing rules before e-notarization becomes the default.
8 | Best-practice checklist for counsel & pro se parties
- Use a jurat, not an acknowledgment.
- Appear personally before the notary – no pre-signed pages.
- Attach IDs and ensure the notary records them.
- Prepare at least four originals (Ombudsman, respondent, notary, personal file).
- Paginate and initial every page to defeat tampering allegations.
- Serve copies on the opposing party and keep proof of service (registry receipt or affidavit of personal service).
- Double-check validity of the notary’s commission (Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC).
- For electronic filing, embed a high-resolution scan of the notarized original and be ready to produce the hard copy upon notice.
9 | Key take-aways
- The Ombudsman does not insist on notarization per se —what it insists on is that pleadings be under oath, and notarization is the prevailing, safest way to meet that requirement.
- A defective jurat is curable in many instances, but it wastes precious time; cure it before the opposing party exploits the defect.
- Remote notarization has arrived, but the conservative rule remains: file at least two wet-ink originals bearing a proper jurat.
- Counsel who ignore these formalities risk not only dismissal of the pleading but also administrative sanctions under the Notarial Rules.
This article is informational and not a substitute for tailored legal advice. When in doubt, consult counsel or the Ombudsman’s Process Service Bureau before filing.