Below is a comprehensive discussion on the prohibition against the Ombudsman and their Deputies engaging in the private practice of law under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. It includes the legal basis, rationale, and key considerations in the context of legal ethics and the practice of law in the Philippines.

I. Constitutional and Statutory Basis

1. The 1987 Constitution

Article XI, Section 8 of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that the Ombudsman and his/her Deputies “shall be subject to the same disqualifications and prohibitions as the Members of the Constitutional Commissions and the Judiciary.”
Specifically, this section states they “shall not hold any other office or employment. During their tenure, they shall not engage in the practice of any other profession or in the active management or control of any business which in any way may be affected by the functions of their office.”
Thus, the prohibition against engaging in private practice of law (or any profession) is clearly grounded in the fundamental law of the land.

2. Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989)

Section 11 of R.A. 6770 reiterates and supplements the constitutional prohibition. It emphasizes that the Office of the Ombudsman is an independent constitutional office, and all incumbents are expected to devote their entire time to their office.
In line with the Constitution, the Ombudsman and his/her Deputies are not permitted to hold any other public office and must refrain from participating in any private occupation or professional enterprise, including the private practice of law.

II. Rationale Behind the Prohibition

Preservation of Independence and Integrity
The Ombudsman and Deputy Ombudsmen exercise wide-ranging authority to investigate and prosecute government officials for graft and corruption. Their independence is paramount to ensure that their decisions are free from any taint of partiality or undue influence. If they were allowed to engage in private practice of law, conflicts of interest could easily arise, undermining the office’s credibility and compromising its mandate to safeguard public accountability.
Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest
By prohibiting the private practice of law, the Constitution prevents the Ombudsman and his/her Deputies from representing private clients whose interests might conflict with or be affected by the Ombudsman’s public duties. This clear line avoids scenarios where the Ombudsman (or Deputy) might use—or be suspected of using—official position and resources to benefit private clients or to shape investigations or prosecutions.
Full-Time Focus on Public Service
Similar to judges and members of constitutional commissions, the Ombudsman and the Deputies are expected to devote full professional effort to the discharge of their official duties. The office’s wide responsibilities—receiving complaints, initiating investigations, filing cases before the Sandiganbayan or other courts—require undivided attention. Private law practice demands time, energy, and loyalty to clients, all of which could detract from the Ombudsman’s core public tasks.

III. Scope of the Prohibition

Absolute Prohibition on the Practice of Law
The constitutional text and jurisprudence make clear that the Ombudsman and Deputies must not engage in the practice of law in any manner—whether it is litigation, counseling, or any form of representation for a fee.
- “Practice of law” is broadly interpreted to include not only court appearances but also preparing pleadings, giving legal advice, drafting contracts, and all other professional legal services performed habitually or customarily for compensation.
Prohibition Extends to Other Professions
The constitutional limitation is not confined to the practice of law alone. It explicitly bars the Ombudsman and his Deputies from “the practice of any other profession,” ensuring that they do not engage in any professional undertaking (for example, accountancy, engineering, medicine, etc.) that may compromise the integrity or distract from the duties of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Business and Financial Interests
The same constitutional provision precludes them from taking on managerial roles or controlling interests in any business “which in any way may be affected by the functions of their office.” This prevents them from exploiting or being influenced by business interests that could intersect with public functions.
Teaching or Academic Engagement
Although not expressly stated in Section 8 of Article XI, jurisprudence on similarly situated public officers suggests that teaching part-time in law schools is often considered an exception to the blanket prohibition, as long as it does not conflict with official hours or the discharge of official functions. The Supreme Court, however, has not spoken in detail on whether the Ombudsman or a Deputy Ombudsman may teach law or related subjects. In any case, such an engagement must never cross into the realm of private practice or create conflicts of interest.

IV. Legal Ethics Considerations

Code of Professional Responsibility
- Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawyers in government service are mandated to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Canon 6 of the Code imposes special obligations on lawyers in public office to avoid conflicts of interest and to faithfully serve public interest.
- As the Ombudsman and Deputies are undeniably lawyers in public office, these canons reinforce the Constitutional prohibition, underscoring that their official conduct must remain above reproach.
Conflict of Interest Rules
- Engagement in private practice can create real or perceived conflicts. The Ombudsman’s primary role is to investigate and prosecute erring public officials. If they represented private clients who have dealings with government agencies, the possibility of compromised integrity arises.
- In legal ethics, even the slightest appearance of impropriety can erode public trust. Hence, the prohibition is strictly enforced to safeguard public confidence in the Office of the Ombudsman.
Professional Loyalty and Accountability
- Lawyers owe undivided loyalty to their clients, and when they appear before the courts, they are expected to zealously protect clients’ interests. At the same time, the Ombudsman or Deputy Ombudsman must safeguard public interest. These dual roles are inherently incompatible.
- Philippine jurisprudence consistently stresses that occupying sensitive positions within the government imposes higher ethical standards than are required of an ordinary lawyer.

V. Consequences of Violation

Administrative and Disciplinary Liability
- Should the Ombudsman or a Deputy Ombudsman engage in private law practice, they may be subjected to administrative or disciplinary proceedings.
- Violations of the constitutional prohibition and the Code of Professional Responsibility can merit sanctions, which may include removal from office and disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.
Criminal Liability
- While the primary framework for disciplinary action is administrative and ethical in nature, a willful violation could potentially open the door to criminal charges if the circumstances constitute graft or corrupt practices under pertinent laws (e.g., R.A. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), particularly when there is undue advantage or conflict with the functions of the Ombudsman’s office.

VI. Relevant Jurisprudential Pronouncements

Principle of Exclusive Devotion to Official Duties
The Supreme Court has long held that public officials occupying positions of significant trust and authority (e.g., members of the judiciary, constitutional commissions) must devote their entire time to the responsibilities of their office. By analogy, the Ombudsman and Deputies are bound by the same principle.
Comparisons with Similar Offices
Cases involving judges or commissioners of Constitutional Commissions clarify that any sideline or outside employment that resembles private practice is strictly prohibited. Although these rulings focus on judges or commissioners, they carry persuasive authority for the Ombudsman and his/her Deputies, given the 1987 Constitution’s explicit alignment of prohibitions.

VII. Practical Guidelines

Avoid Any Form of Legal Consultation for a Fee
The Ombudsman and Deputies must not engage in giving legal advice or providing legal opinions to private entities, even casually, if it involves compensation or an ongoing legal relationship.
Refrain from Signing Legal Documents for Private Parties
They should not draft, prepare, or sign pleadings, contracts, or any legal papers for private individuals or organizations unless it is part of their official function.
Decline Referrals for Representation
Any requests for representation, even pro bono, should generally be avoided if it conflicts or creates the appearance of conflict with official duties.
Seek Clarification for Limited Allowable Activities
If the Ombudsman or Deputies intend to engage in narrowly defined non-conflicting pursuits (for example, law-related teaching), they must ensure that it does not violate official working hours, does not cast doubt on their impartiality, and has been appropriately cleared by relevant ethical or administrative guidelines.

VIII. Conclusion

Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the Ombudsman and his/her Deputies are categorically prohibited from engaging in the private practice of law. This prohibition is founded on:

Constitutional mandate (Art. XI, Sec. 8)
Statutory reinforcement (R.A. 6770)
Legal ethics principles (Code of Professional Responsibility)

The rationale centers on preserving the integrity and independence of the Office of the Ombudsman, preventing conflicts of interest, and ensuring the full-time devotion of the Ombudsman and Deputies to their vital role in promoting accountability, investigating anomalies, and prosecuting graft and corruption. Any deviation from this prohibition can lead to serious administrative, ethical, or even criminal repercussions, given the high public trust reposed in the Ombudsman and his/her Deputies.