G.R. No. 173915 - Sante vs. Claravall

On February 4, 1992, Congressman Bonifacio H. Gillego filed a Complaint-Affidavit alleging that Jose U. Ong, then BIR Commissioner, acquired multiple real properties worth millions, disproportionate to his declared annual income of ~₱200,000.
The Office of the Ombudsman conducted a pre-charge inquiry, issued subpoenas to Allied Bank, SGV & Co., and the BIR, and received a Fact-Finding Report recommending forfeiture of five specified properties.

Commissioner Ong filed a Counter-Affidavit (Dec. 21, 1992) submitting statements of assets, alleged retirement benefits, bank loan documentation, and other evidence of legitimate funding sources.
The Ombudsman issued an order (Feb. 11, 1993) directing Ong to produce additional documents (loan agreements, benefit vouchers, TCTs, tax returns) within 15 days, warning that non‐compliance would waive his right to controverting evidence.
Ong moved for recall and inhibition (Feb. 17, 1993), claiming due process violations for lack of notice of subpoenas and the presumption of innocence requirement. The Ombudsman denied these motions and, by resolution (May 31, 1993), found the assets manifestly disproportionate and directed the Solicitor General to file a forfeiture petition.

On November 15, 1993, the Republic (through the Special Prosecutor and Deputy Ombudsman) filed a petition for forfeiture under RA 1379, RA 3019, and RA 6770 against Jose and Nelly Ong, alleging ₱21,474,585 of questioned assets vs. ₱1,060,412.50 lawful income. A writ of preliminary attachment was issued and served.
The Ongs filed an Answer (Jan. 27, 1994) denying wrongdoing, asserting affirmative defenses (due process, lack of preliminary investigation for Nelly Ong, unconstitutionality of RA 1379, violation of presumption of innocence), and challenging the Ombudsman’s dual role.
The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to dismiss (Aug. 18, 1994) and the motion for reconsideration (Oct. 22, 1996), holding that forfeiture proceedings are in rem civil actions, that Nelly Ong was a formal party only, and that RA 1379 and the procedures followed were constitutional.

The Ongs filed this petition to nullify the two Sandiganbayan resolutions, reiterating due process and constitutional attacks.
The Supreme Court gave due course to the petition, received memoranda from both parties and the Special Prosecutor, and set the case for resolution.

Whether Nelly Ong, a non‐public officer but holder of conjugal interest, was entitled to a preliminary investigation under RA 1379 and RA 6770.

Whether the Ombudsman’s failure to notify the Ongs of subpoenas duces tecum and of the resolution directing the forfeiture petition violated their due process rights.

Whether the Ombudsman’s exercise of investigation and prosecution functions against the Ongs constituted grave abuse of discretion or bias.

Whether the law is unconstitutionally vague, violates the presumption of innocence or right against self-incrimination, or usurps the Supreme Court’s rule-making authority.