‘Speed up Ombud cases stuck in Manila’ | Inquirer News

‘Speed up Ombud cases stuck in Manila’

/ 07:10 AM June 26, 2011

CASES involving mayors, governors and other top local officials should be decentralized by the Ombudsman for faster resolution, Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Pelagio Apostol said yesterday.

Apostol is one of several nominees interviewed by the Judicial Bar Council (JBC) for the Ombudsman post vacated by Merceditas Gutierrez.

He said the standing policy was to refer all findings of high-profile cases to the Ombudsman for review.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Delays in the resolution of cases reached the point that they were already considered unreasonable and unbearable,” Apostol said.

FEATURED STORIES

He said investigation of cases involving governors and vice governors could be done by sectoral offices.

Apostol said he believes “centralization” is practiced to control the outcome or result of the Ombudsman cases without regard to their merit.

Article continues after this advertisement

Gutierrez earlier instructed all local offices of the Ombudsman to refer  to the central office all cases involving “high-ranking” government officials, which include governors, vice governors, and provincial board members.

Article continues after this advertisement

Among the cases referred to the Preliminary Investigation, Administrative, Adjudication, and Review Bureau (PARB) of the Ombudsman Manila were  the inquiry on the 2009 purchase of the Balili property in Cebu and 2007 construction of the Cebu International Convention Center.

Article continues after this advertisement

The Ombudsman has been criticized for its slow-paced resolution of cases.

But Apostol, who took the brunt of such  criticism for  Cebu cases, said the anti-graft office should be open to public criticism and dialogue.

Article continues after this advertisement

In a book launching last Tuesday, Apostol voiced out his grievances under the supervision of Gutierrez.

Apostol lashed out at Gutierrez who allegedly favored Assistant Ombudsman Virginia Palanca-Santiago over him.

Since he assumed his post last Aug. 21, 2007, Apostol said he never experienced an “exclusive meeting or conference” between anti-graft officials although efforts had been made for the dialogue.

Apostol said the no- meeting policy was intended to “confuse the deputy Ombudsman; and weaken the system in the office to avoid opposition to any possible undesirable and unilateral policies like the centralization of approval of Ombudsman cases.”

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

When sought for comment, Santiago could only laugh.  She declined to issue further statements. Reporter Ador Vincent Mayol

TAGS: Ombudsman

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.