The Office of the Ombudsman awaits a new head after the resignation of beleaguered Merceditas Gutierrez took effect last May 6.
At least 25 persons have accepted their nomination for the post of Tanodbayan, the nation’s chief graft-buster, with the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).
The Ombudsman is tasked to “act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against officers or employees of the government, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or -controlled corporations, and enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants to promote efficient service by the government to the people.”
Not a few analysts noted that Gutierrez—an appointee of the perceived “most corrupt” former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo—was a stumbling block to the efforts of President Benigno Aquino III’s administration to fulfill its mandate to stamp out corruption, as summarized in Aquino’s campaign slogan “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap (If no one is corrupt, no one would be poor).
The JBC should be circumspect, discriminating and meticulous in coming up with a short list of at least three names for appointment to be submitted to the President.
Some of the nominees are Supreme Court Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, who is set to retire in June, Justice Undersecretary Leah Armamento, former Justice Undersecretary Jose Calida, former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez, Alternative Law Group head Marlon Manuel and Free Legal Assistance Group Chairman Jose Manuel Diokno.
Beyond the glamour of these and other names, the JBC must screen each candidate for absence of tendencies that could dilute their graft-busting abilities especially closeness or subservience to the appointing authority and reluctance to go after and prosecute the big fish, both of which afflicted many who served as Ombudsman.
As reported by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism in “Four Ombudsmen, four failed crusades vs. corruption,” “All four chiefs of the Office… had launched their stints as the nation’s top graft-busters with firm, elaborate, hopeful reforms to fight corruption.
“When the criticisms trickled in—invariably over low conviction rates, perceived partiality toward the presidents who appointed them, and sheer failure to cope with tremendous case loads and hail crooks to jail—all four trudged on. What they ended serving up, though, were not more and better results, but more excuses.”
The next Ombudsman cannot afford to tolerate a feeble office. With so much being lost to corruption in public money, property, and yes, people’s lives, an Ombudsman is needed who would show the corrupt that they will not get away with thievery.