Investigating the investigator

Now that the office of the Ombudsman is very much in the limelight it may be timely and informative to write something about it.

The Ombudsman is a constitutional office conceived to function as protectors of the people. It is composed of a chief known as Tanodbayan, one overall Deputy and at least one Deputy each for Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. A separate Deputy for the military establishment may likewise be appointed (Sec. 5 Art. XI 1987 Constitution). The Tanodbayan (Ombudsman) and his Deputies shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least six (6) nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council. These appointments require no confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Only natural born citizens, at least 40 years old, members of the Philippine Bar of recognized probity and independence may be appointed to the office. Those who have been candidates for any elective office in the immediately preceding election are disqualified (Secs. 8 and 9 Art. XI).

As protectors of the people, the Ombudsman and his deputy shall act promptly on its own initiative or on complaints filed, in any form or manner, against any public official or employee of the government including government owned or controlled corporations (Sec. 12 Art. XI). In doing so, the Ombudsman shall have the power to investigate any public official or any public office or agency for any illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient acts or conducts; order them to perform or expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop or correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties; recommend the suspension, removal, demotion, fine, censure or prosecution of any government official or employee at fault; look into documents relative to contracts or transactions involving the disbursements and use of public funds or properties or any other pertinent records and documents necessary in its investigations.

The office is not only an antidote to graft and corruption but also an instrument to promote good government. It can determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and corruption in the government and make recommendations for their elimination and for the observance of high standards of ethics and efficiency. This is what mainly differentiates it from the former Tanodbayan which according to the Constitution shall still continue to function but shall hereafter be known as the office of the special prosecutor (Sec. 7 Art. XI).

In the exercise by the Ombudsman of its constitutionality mandated powers, the courts have, as a rule, adopted a policy of non-interference (Sesbreno vs. Deputy Ombudsman G.R. 97289, March 21, 1991). This policy is based on the presumption that the Ombudsman will act with fairness, integrity and competence. This policy of respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers of the Ombudsman is however fraught with dire consequences leading to undue ruin of honor and reputation of innocent persons. For the presumption on which it is based is highly questionable and easily rebuttable. Since the choice of Ex-Justices Conrado Vasquez and Jose Colayco, very few appointees to the said position could be said to have the same qualifications.

Hence, the policy of non-interference has been gradually abandoned. The Supreme Court must have realized that if the acts or omissions of the Office of the Ombudsman are the very ones that appear to be unjust, illegal and improper or inefficient the Ombudsman cannot be expected to investigate itself. So there must be somebody to investigate the investigator.

E-mail at: [email protected] or [email protected]