Independence and autonomy

MANILA, Philippines - This has reference to the article, “Tanod ng Malacañang, not Tanodbayan”, which appeared in Atty. Jose Sison’s column A LAW EACH DAY at The Philippine STAR (Feb. 9, 2009, p. 15).

At the onset, we would like to underscore that the title of his article is unfair and bordering on the malicious.

The following are our answers, point-by-point to the different issues raised therein:

On the Comelec-Mega Pacific case

We would like to clarify that the High Court in its decision (G.R. 159139 dated Jan. 13, 2004) in the Comelec-Mega Pacific case did not state that it “already found probable cause to charge the Comelec Commissioners particularly the Comelec Chairman Abalos with violation of the Anti-Graft Law.”

Instead, the High Court ordered the Office of the Ombudsman “to determine the criminal liability, if any, of the public officials (and conspiring private individuals, if any) involved in the subject Resolution and Contract.”

It is for this reason that the Office of the Ombudsman conducted public hearings to determine culpability, if any, of the public officials and private individuals.

In the conduct of these hearings, transparency was the norm: both complainants and respondents were given the opportunity to defend their respective positions and present their respective evidence; and the public, the media, various cause oriented groups, and all other individuals who were interested in the Ombudsman’s handling of the said case attended the hearings. After such public hearings, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a resolution dismissing the complaints against all respondents for lack of probable cause.

The case is now pending appeal before the Supreme Court since 2006. Atty. Sison is therefore jumping into conclusion when he made that statement without waiting for the SC decision on the said appeal.

As a lawyer, accustomed to clipping digests of court decisions, we know he knows that the remedy afforded by law to those aggrieved by the findings and conclusions of the Ombudsman is to appeal the same to the Court of Appeals in administrative cases or the Supreme Court in criminal cases, and not by denigrating the Ombudsman and her office via destructive criticisms disguised as journalism.

On the Fertilizer Fund case

Two months after the Ombudsman assumed office in Feb. 2006, she created Task Force Abono to act on the so-called Fertilizer complaints which remained unacted since they were filed sometime in 2004. At that time, more than half of the total complement of the field investigation office were assigned to handle the said cases. Bear in mind that the investigation practically covered almost the entire country. Not only did it cover provinces but likewise congressional districts, cities and municipalities. Our field investigators are finishing their probe of this complex mess that practically covers entire regions of the country and will soon submit their final report.

Some of those cases have undergone preliminary investigation. The results are coming out soon, so it is also presumptuous on Atty Sison’s part to say that the “Ombudsman continues to sit on his (Bolante’s) case.”

We are about to come out with a resolution on the initial cases that were filed pertaining to the said anomaly.

On the NBN-ZTE cases

The same is true with the NBN-ZTE cases. We conducted public hearings on the cases where the Ombudsman inhibited herself from the same. The cases are already deemed submitted for resolution and the special panel investigating it will soon release its findings and recommendation by February at the earliest, or March, at the latest. Incidentally, the said controversy involves several cases. And the cause of delay cannot be attributable to our Office but to the various motions filed by the parties, including a motion filed before the Supreme Court which took sometime to resolve. As a lawyer, he is aware of the due process clause which we lawyers all adhere to.

On the World Bank report on the alleged collusion of contractors and DPWH officials in the rigging of bids

for public road projects

We would like to correct his statement that the Ombudsman “has not acted on the said report.” The truth is that our field investigation office has been conducting investigation on the case.

While we admit that the World Bank submitted to us a copy of the said report, the same was marked ‘Strictly Confidential’. Because of this, the Ombudsman had to seek clearance from the WB before we furnish anybody a copy of the said document.

Finally, we take exception to your statement that “It only goes to show that the present Ombudsman is not the guardian and protector of the Palace residents. It also goes to show that the Ombudsman is not independent but beholden to the President.”

We would like to emphasize that since Ombudsman Gutierrez’ appointment to her post in December 2005, she has exercised independence and autonomy as mandated in the Constitution. At the Office of the Ombudsman, our only consideration in deciding a case is its merits. Only on the basis of the merits of the case do we decide whether certain persons should be charged or not.

Secondly, the Ombudsman is not a rubber stamp Ombudsman who will just blindly file cases against government officials once a complaint, nay report from whatever source, has been filed against them before our Office. We have the legal procedure to follow involving the fact-finding investigation and preliminary investigation of cases filed before us. Only after we have weighed the facts, the law and the evidence presented can we issue our resolutions or decisions.

 Thank you for allocating space for this letter. — JOSE T. DE JESUS JR., Assistant Ombudsman/Spokesperson