Sufficient vs efficient

On pages 285 and 286 of the textbook by Florenz D. Regalado  Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. II, Eleventh Edition we find this passage:

Something seems to be not quite right with the underlined words (underlining mine). Since this is about the Ombudsman a  check with the Ombudsman Act may pinpoint what seems to be the problem.

Section 15(1) of the Act (RA 6770) says:

(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of his primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government, the investigation of such cases; 

Instead of efficient, Regalado uses sufficient. To retrace the trail of the "offending" word we need to refer to the decision quoted by Regalado.

It turned out that in quoting Santiago vs. Vasquez Regalado was quoting himself. Here's the particular sentence from Santiago which he penned:

The Ombudsman may himself dismiss the complaint in the first instance if in his judgment the acts or omissions complained of are not illegal, unjust, improper or sufficient. 

Regalado did use the word sufficient in his decision. But note that in the textbook he used are sufficient.  Without the are the meaning of the phrase will be confusing.

As used in the decision, the phrase "not illegal, unjust, improper or sufficient" would be equivalent to "legal, just, proper or insufficient." It appears that Regalado corrected himself in his textbook by inserting the are.

Just the same, I think Regalado misequated "efficient" with "sufficient."