In my last column, I talked about the concept of the Ombudsman; how it began and how it is now.  Today let me talk, as promised, about the powers of my office.

The Constitution gives the Ombudsman the power—and responsibility—to promptly investigate all complaints against government officials and employees, and enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liabilities.  The fundamental law gives this great power in order to promote efficient service by the government to the people.

The complaint may be given to the Ombudsman in any form—typed, handwritten, printed, recorded on a cassette tape, etc.  But even if no complaint is filed, if the Ombudsman believes the office should act, then it will.  On its own initiative, they call it.  However, the Ombudsman will enforce the administrative, civil and criminal liabilities of the concerned government personnel only where the evidence warrants it.

It was a law, the Ombudsman Act (RA 6770), which gave the Ombudsman specific powers.  These powers may be broadly categorized as investigatory, prosecutory, administrative and recommendatory.  Under the first category, the Ombudsman can investigate any act of any public officer or employee where such act was complained of by any member of the public as illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.

Businessmen who have shipments, for instance, which insensitive customs officials, one after another, detain looking for alleged violations in the shipment, may complain of such detention as oppressive and unjust.  And the Ombudsman will act where there are really no clear violations in the shipment or none that cannot be cured by amendment. 

When shipments are unnecessarily detained, the uncertainty created wreaks havoc on commercial plans and prejudices of those whose livelihood depends on the fast turnover of those shipments. This discourages commercial enterprise and creates general alienation from the government.  But it is sadly lost to those officials who mechanically claim that, in interpreting customs laws strictly against shippers, they merely protect government interest.

If the Ombudsman, after making its investigation, finds the complaint meritorious, it will file the necessary case in court.  This court is (a) the Sandiganbayan, for those charged whose salary grade is at least 27; and (b) the regular courts, for those whose salary grade is 26 and below.  Special prosecutors from the Ombudsman Office handle the prosecution.

Instead of prosecuting a meritorious complaint, the Ombudsman may simply direct any officer or employee of government to perform, expedite or stop the act complained of. The object of this power is so that any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duty by government people could be prevented or corrected, thereby enabling the government to render good service to the people.

If the government official or employee refuses to budge, the Ombudsman can recommend to his superior that he be censured, suspended, demoted or even removed from office.  But this is true only if the Ombudsman purposely chooses this path, because the Ombudsman may turn around and make use of its own administrative disciplinary authority over all kinds of government people and itself directly censure erring government people, or suspend them or order their outright removal.

This is how powerful the Ombudsman is.  But it is also a heavy responsibility.  Hence the Ombudsman should not prosecute or discipline government people—or free them from liability—only because public sentiment is against or for them, or that they are unpopular or popular.  The Ombudsman must always act on the basis of the evidence before it.

The perceptive reader will notice that the powers of the Ombudsman have, for their overarching purpose, the bringing about of the efficient service the government must give to the people.  This is more than fighting and eradicating corruption that so many people think is ultimately the purpose of the Ombudsman’s existence.

This distinguishes the Ombudsman’s mandate from that of a mere prosecutor, whose principal function is to see to the punishment of those who have committed wrong. 

In the next issue I will talk more about the powers of the Ombudsman.  

I welcome reader feedback. Please e-mail me at ombproper@ombudsman.gov.ph.

AS expected, militant groups are criticizing the P1,500 fertilizer subsidy promised by Malacañang, and, noting the administration’s track record in earlier similar scams—er, schemes—expressed serious doubt the dole would reach the intended beneficiaries.

The government’s two-pronged drive to bring down the Manila Electric Co.’s (Meralco) predatory power rates has gained a lot of ground in the past week, and it looks like the Lopezes, who control the Meralco, are in one hell of a jam, whether they admit it or not.

In my last column, I talked about the concept of the Ombudsman; how it began and how it is now.  Today let me talk, as promised, about the powers of my office.

Andy Mukherjee: India’s future rides on 76-year-old ‘Metro Man’

Indian politicians never tire of proclaiming that their country’s population is among the youngest in the world: Every third person, they note, is aged 30 or less.

Servant Leader: ‘Spe Salvi’–Part XX

Mary, Star of Hope

For over a thousand years, the Church has greeted Mary, the Mother of God, as “Star of the Sea.” Human life is a journey, yes, but toward what destination? How do we find the way? Life is like a voyage on the sea of history, often dark and stormy, a voyage in which we watch for the stars that indicate the route.

Charles R. Avila: Who is he to us? Presenting Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim

The question is not impertinent. People merely want to know: Who is he really, or what is he to us?