From its inception up to the present 20 years later, the performance record of the Office of the Ombudsman leaves much to be desired. Definitely, it has not successfully served its purpose. Graft and corruption in the government remain rampant and unabated. Instead of being minimized they have grown much bigger. The drain in the government coffers due to graft and corruption has almost approximated the annual government budget. To be sure, the office has started quite well but over the years its performance has deteriorated. And it is simply a reflection on the quality of the appointees to the position. Like most appointments in government positions, appointments to the office of the Ombudsman have become mainly based on loyalty: to the appointing power and/or to those close to, or influential with, the appointing power. Instead of being the protector of the people, the Ombudsman has become the protector of public officials against whom the people should be protected.
The incumbent Ombudsman sad to say does not create any spark of hope nor inspire confidence in any improvement on the performance record of the Office. Carrying the baggage of Malacanang connection both officially and unofficially is already a heavy load when she assumed office. From the start, doubts were already raised about her independence and invulnerability to pressure. So far her track record seems to confirm this doubt.
Her recent action to file charges of graft, extortion and money laundering against her former boss Justice Secretary Nani Perez may have earned her some pogi points and boosted her public image as a fearless and "merciless" graft buster. Apparently, said move pictured her as a courageous individual who owes allegiance to no one except to her job.
But recalling her previous decision clearing the top Comelec officials on the voided Mega Pacific automated counting machines (ACM’s) contract, this seemingly bold move is nothing but another decision laden with pressure coming from somebody bigger than her former boss. In the Comelec case, no less than the Supreme Court has found that the bid was awarded to a non-participant and later on the contract was signed with a participant which did not win the bid because it had no eligibility requirement. Yet the Office of our Ombudsman found "nothing wrong with the deal"! In the Nani Perez case that stemmed from a charge by a former Congressman wanted in America who apparently had an axe to grind against Perez for relentlessly pursuing his extradition, the Ombudsman seemed to have meticulously and painstakingly tried to find something wrong with the deal.
Comparing the two cases, easily noticeable is the use of double standards of justice and the selective "mercilessness" of our Ombudsman. If the same standards were applied, they should have found either nothing wrong in the Perez case as they did in the Comelec case or something wrong in the Comelec case as they did in the Perez case. Such uneven treatment is more than enough reason to be skeptical about the Ombudsman’s faithfulness to her job and her sincerity and independence to be the country’s prime and effective graft buster.
The Ombudsman’s silence and apparent attempt to isolate the Perez case from the Impsa deal where it initially stemmed does not really favor Perez. This is pure speculation from the opposition. Indeed because of the Ombudsman’s ominous silence on this deal speculations are also rife that such attempt really involves a cover up of what really happened in the Impsa case and who may be involved therein. Rightly or wrongly the inference going around is that the Perez case was used to cover up the wrongdoings more damaging to the Administration, of that somebody who has some kind of common connection with the incumbent Ombudsman and the top Comelec Official whom she cleared in the ACM deal. These speculations are indeed the inevitable and dire consequences of the "selective" manner in conducting an investigation; of employing a double standard of justice in arriving at conclusions. Unfortunately, this is the present sorry state of the Office of the Ombudsman.
At the end of the day, it has all the more become clearer and truer that any public office is only as good and honorable as the person occupying it. A government office may have been created for the noblest and loftiest purpose but if the person appointed to it does not have the moral fiber, integrity, independence, uprightness and the backbone to efficiently and effectively carry out such purpose, then the creation of said office shall have been in vain. In the present state of our Ombudsman’s office, our Charter’s purpose for creating it now looks more and more like an unreachable star.