Republic of the Philippines OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN Ombudsman Bldg., Agham Road, Government Center North Triangle, Diliman, Quezon City 12 February 2011 To: MR. HOWIE SEVERINO Editor-in-Chief GMA News Online Dear Mr. Severino, We have read the series of articles released by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) and published online on your website, GMA News Online. In the interest of objectiveness and fair play, may we request your good office to likewise publish online our responses to the questions sent by PCIJ to our office. (Below) We will appreciate it very much if you could allocate space to the same. Thank you. Respectfully yours, (original signed) JOSE T. DE JESUS, JR. Assistant Ombudsman CONSOLIDATED RESPONSES TO PCIJ’s INTERVIEW QUESTIONS PCIJ: 1. We read in the Office of the Ombudsman’s 2008 annual report that one of the main problems faced by the office is its “meager budget allocation" and “leaner personnel complement" compared to other agencies. Does this still remain the Office’s main problem? What else do you think are the main challenges of the Office in its fight against corruption? What is being done to solve these problems?
The leaner personnel complement of the OMB still remains one of our problems in our fight against corruption. Per DBM staffing complement, our office has a total of 2,175 authorized plantilla positions as of December 31, 2008. Only about 50% of these positions have been filled up. Recruitment efforts have been stepped up without sacrificing the quality of screening procedures; however, the main problem on personnel recruitment is how to attract and keep the best and brightest employees, most especially the lawyers because of the low salary pay. Additionally, we are losing some of our lawyers whom we have trained through the years because they are lured by the tempting offers of some private and government corporations. Making corruption a “High Risk, Low Reward Activity" and “providing ordinary citizens greater access to social justice" are not really illusory objectives. The realization, however, would need a lot of manpower and financial support. The OMB believes that, in order to become formidable, it must have at least 3,000 personnel that will watch over a bureaucracy of at least 1.5 million government officials and employees. 2. We would appreciate if you could provide the latest data on the following: a. Total number of employees b. Total number of lawyers c. Total number of prosecutors d. Total number of field investigators e. Total number of vacant positions As of June 30, 2010, we have the following personnel complement: a. Total number of employees - 1067 b. Total number of lawyers - 247 c. Total number of prosecutors - 73 d. Total number of field investigators - 152 e. Total number of vacant position - 1110 3. The General Appropriations Act in the last five years shows that the allotted budget for the Office of the Ombudsman has increased significantly. From P647.54 million in 2005, it doubled to P1.33 billion in 2009. The Ombudsman’s budget is currently at P1.06 billion. In your estimate, how much more is needed? How many more personnel are needed? During the deliberations of 2010 budget, OMB submitted a budget proposal of P2.1 billion to address the pervasive problem of corruption in the bureaucracy which necessarily includes provision of lump sum fund for the creation of new positions and infrastructure projects, among others. However, this was reduced to P1.064 billion summarized as follows: 
Based on the above data, the operating budget of the OMB for the current year is only P977.470 million sufficient only to cover the personal services requirements of OMB authorized plantilla positions and meager operational requirement for maintenance and other operating expenses. The appropriations of P86.800 million are for capital expenditures which shall be used to pay the 3rd installment payment of the lot we acquired from the NHA where the Ombudsman Annex Building will be constructed. In coordination with the DPWH, plans and designs for the annex building are in progress and we hope to begin its construction before the end of the year. In much the same vein, negotiations with DPWH and DENR are underway for the construction of a Regional Office in Pangasinan. As regards the personnel complement, we are hoping that, in the short term and with the required funding support from the national government, the OMB will have one regional office in each administrative region with an ideal manpower complement of 35-50 personnel. As a matter of fact, it is the intention of the OMB to have these regional offices situated in areas where the Commission on Audit and the Civil Service Commission also hold office to strengthen inter-agency and strategic collaboration efforts in upholding public accountability. The OMB believes that, in order to attain our objectives to be the official critic, watchdog, mobilizer and dispenser of justice, we must have at least 3,000 personnel that will watch over a bureaucracy of at least 1.5 million government officials and employees. With regard to the general administration and support services, the OMB would need also sufficient number of personnel to enhance the delivery of services to the management, operations personnel, and the general public through the creation of the Internal Audit Service, permanent plantilla positions for BAC to expedite procurement process, improve the IT capability of the Office and its personnel and rationalized system in docketing/recording and releasing of cases. Attempts have been made to actualize these plans. As a matter of fact, they were included in our 2011 budget proposals and hopefully, DBM and Congress will look kindly on our proposals and favorably consider them. 4. We understand that the Field Investigation Office plays a critical role in the Office. Please kindly tell us the nature of problems that field investigators come across with regards to data gathering and evidence building? The Field Investigation Office (FIO) is the fact-finding arm of the Office of the Ombudsman. Essentially, the FIO is the venue where complaints are filed, evaluated, scrutinized, and thoroughly investigated, the result of which will establish the veracity of the complaint. Hence, it performs a very crucial role in the Office. In the investigation of a complaint, the investigator secures evidence necessary to establish whether or not the allegations are true, or a mere unfounded imputation against the concerned officials and employees. The investigator follows a standard investigative procedure upon receipt of the complaint which are as follows: a. Evaluates the complaint as to the allegations or issues involved and the sufficiency of leads; b. Determine the possible laws, rules and regulations violated; c. Prepares a detailed investigative plan of action (IPA); and d. Issues the necessary legal processes to secure documents and testimonies. In the preparation of IPA, the investigator usually identifies the issues, determines the possible laws violated and the relevant evidence to be gathered, and establishes where and how to obtain it. Aside from the issuance of the legal processes, the investigator also employs alternative techniques or approaches in building the case, viz., interview, elicitation, entrapment operations, surveillances, ocular inspections, and other similar investigative methods. The limit of the methods to be used depends much on the skills, instincts and imagination of an investigator. In doing all these alternative investigative techniques, it is inevitable for an investigator not to be exposed to hostile situation and put his life into peril. Hence, the investigator performs his duty will all precautions so as not to invite suspicion while on field work. The reality of this danger can be felt because of the limited resources of this Office. Incidentally, the Office has a limited budget, hence, the investigator does the legwork to obtain evidence within the extent of the limited resources this Office has, and in doing so, he is exposed to possible dangers while he is on the process of validating in the field the allegations in a given case. In the gathering of data and evidence, the field investigators are sometimes confronted by uncooperative government officials and employees who at times delay or even refuse to give access to, or copies of certain documents. This is probably due to unfounded fears of involvement or even pressures from their superiors. The same holds true in gathering testimonies of witnesses. More often than not, witnesses are public officials or employees themselves, and it is only after they are made to understand that their participation is necessary that they tend to cooperate. The number of field investigators and the resources available to them are also limited which tends to affect the conduct of investigations. Fortunately, FIO investigators, despite the danger they encounter in the field and the limited resources that the Office can provide, they continue to perform persistently their task to obtain the necessary evidence. 5. How is the relationship of the Ombudsman with other government agencies like the NBI, SEC, DTI, among others, with regards to the securing of pertinent documents? Essentially, the Office of the Ombudsman enjoys the full support of other government agencies. They have been very cooperative in providing the relevant documents being requested by this Office. In fact, this Office has Memorandum of Agreements with other government agencies that are very supportive with the fight against graft and corruption. Not to mention, the FIO conducts joint operations with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in cases such as the entrapment and arrest of public officials and employees involve in extortion or bribery. Recently, this Office has also forged an agreement with the Commission on Audit (COA) on how to improve the assistance it extends to the FIO in the investigation of complaints. Areas of complementation in the investigation of cases have also been identified with COA and this Office. Government offices like the NBI, SEC, DTI, including the personnel divisions of offices perceived as having a high degree of corruption have always been cooperative with the Office of the Ombudsman, such that they tend to comply on time with our processes. These government offices and a host of others have recognized the Ombudsman as their partner in the fight against graft which has created an atmosphere of cooperation. 6. How long does it usually take to investigate a complaint? There is no fixed period in the investigation of cases or complaints. The period of investigation depends on many factors like the complexity of the allegations, the volume of evidence required, the number of public officials/employees accused, and other factors. Every case brought before this Office differs in nature, weight and scope, hence, the timeframe for the investigation of each case also varies. Some cases are nationwide in scope and involves voluminous documents, thus, the investigator necessarily has to spend more time to finish them. There are also instances that the case weight is complex, moderate and simple. If the case is simple, it is not time consuming; hence, it can be disposed of expeditiously. Simple cases may take around five (5) to six (6) months to accomplish, while complex cases make take longer since the Office of the Ombudsman observes the policy of filing cases where the evidence is strong enough to secure conviction. Ombudsman investigations are always aimed at presenting a strong case so our inquiries are always in-depth. Although the standard of proof in fact-finding is only probable cause, the FIO investigators always aim at proof beyond reasonable doubt, or, in an administrative case, preponderance or substantial evidence. The reason behind this is to increase the chances of conviction of an offender. 7. Currently, how many cases does one field investigator handle? Each investigator of the FIO is assigned a caseload in accordance with their ability to manage. FIO investigators are capable of multi-tasking and time management, they are expected to manage the caseload they currently handle. Although our current investigators are well equipped and very qualified and competent, the Office has been recruiting investigators to complement and increase the existing workforce of the FIO to expedite the investigation of complaints. It must be emphasized that additional investigators is needed to efficiently and expeditiously perform the task of the Filed Investigation Office to act on complaints filed before this Office. 8. Data generated from the Sandiganbayan database reveal that from 2006 to 2009, only 223 cases led to convictions and these involve three persons only – municipal mayors from Quezon, Iloilo and Nueva Ecija. Legal experts comment that Ombudsman should focus more on high-ranking officials. Please kindly comment. Please refer to the following tables/statistics: 
9. How does the Office of the Ombudsman prioritize on which cases to focus on? Is there a system or protocol? Pursuant to Section 13 of R.A. 6770, the Ombudsman and his deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against officers or employees of the government, or 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 in order to promote efficient service by the government to the people. The Office of the Ombudsman is also empowered to investigate and prosecute offenses committed by public officers and employees. Section 15 of R.A. 6770 vests the Ombudsman with the authority to investigate and prosecute, on its own or on complaint by any person, any act of commission or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. Moreover, in the last paragraph of Section 15 of the said law, it mentioned that the Ombudsman shall give priority to complaints filed against high-ranking government officials and/or those occupying supervisory positions, complaints involving grave offenses as well as complaints involving large sums of money and/or properties. The Office of the Ombudsman is only among the other agencies or entities which share the power to initiate and conduct investigations with respect to any criminal act. However, when it comes to cases cognizable or within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, the Office of the Ombudsman has the sole authority to conduct such investigations and the exclusive authority to file and prosecute cases before the said court. The law defines such primary jurisdiction as authorizing the Ombudsman to take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of the government, the investigation of such cases. Administrative Order No. 07 consistent with due process as later amended by Administrative Order No. 17 provide for the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman pursuant to the authority vested in the Office of the Ombudsman under R.A. 6770. The said Rules of Procedure shall apply to all criminal and administrative complaints, grievances or requests for assistance and such other matters cognizable by the Office of the Ombudsman. It also provided the grounds from which a complaint may be brought with and the manner on how such complaint is handled by the Office. 10. We’ve spoken with some people who had filed complaints or requests for assistance at the Ombudsman. Many of them say that it’s difficult to access to information – get clear updates on the status of cases or requests for assistance that they filed. Please kindly comment. What is the protocol when a complainant asks for updates? What type of information should be provided to them? There are requirements every requester has to comply every time they want to know of updates on the status of cases. The requester must be a party to the case otherwise, he has to bring with him an authorization coming from the party concerned. The requester will then fill up a Request for Assistance form stating therein the Title and Case number of the case he wants to know. The Officer of the Day in the Public Assistance Bureau will check the status of the case with Records Division and, usually the Records Division gives the following status, such as: a. “still pending with the investigator" b. “already submitted to the Director/Assistant Ombudsman" c. “or the case is with Higher Officials" It is at this instance, where the officer of the day will suggest to the requester to write a follow-up letter to the official where the case is pending. We entertain requesters as they come to the Public Assistance Bureau. We assist them in following-up their cases in the Office. We give assistance to everybody as long as they are party to the case. We give suggestions to those who wants to know the status of the case but they are not a party to the said case. We usually give information that are being asked for by the requesters except those important matters that are highly confidential. 11. Legal experts say that the Ombudsman is vested with broad powers, but it has only exercised a fraction of these powers. Since prosecution is key, the Office, they say, has focused so much on this function and has basically become a prosecution office. And prosecution, of course, takes time and puts a lot of impact of the Office’s resources. Please kindly comment. The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers is vested primarily in the Office of the Ombudsman. It bears emphasis that the Office has been given a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory powers under the Constitution and R.A. 6770. This discretion is all but free from legislative, executive or judicial intervention to ensure that the Office is insulated from any outside pressure and improper influence. The five major functions of the Office of the Ombudsman are Prosecution, Administrative Adjudication, Investigation, Graft Prevention and Public Assistance. With these major functions, it can be said that the Office is not merely a “prosecution body". Prompt prosecution of criminal and administrative cases is done in accordance with the Rules of Evidence, law and prevailing jurisprudence. It also actively prosecutes and monitors through the Prosecution and Monitoring Bureau under PAMO the Ombudsman cases (those falling under Salary Grade 26 and below) filed before the regular courts. The Office strictly monitors the compliance of the head of agencies in the implementation of its decisions with administrative sanctions. It extends assistance to citizens in obtaining basic public services from government. It may prevent or stop a public officer or a government agency from performing an act which might cause injury to the government or to the people. Corruption prevention also embraces the study and adoption of ways and means to minimize if not to eliminate, the opportunities of committing corruption, to awaken the people’s awareness of its evils and solicit their cooperation in its eradication, as well as to maintain efficiency in government operations. It effectively enlists broad support of multi-sectoral stakeholders by establishing a continuing partnership with other government agencies, the civil society, non-government organizations, business, academe, youth and other major sectors of society for nationwide campaign for integrity in public service, the propagation of sound Filipino values of honesty, discipline, respect for elders and authority, as well as promotion of a transparent, accountable and effective governance. It initiates the conduct of review of the policies, systems, procedures and practices in the performance of the critical functions of specific government agencies and makes recommendations for a systematic operation of the government machinery free from bureaucratic inconveniences and for adoption of strategies to address corruption vulnerabilities in their organization. 12. In the course of my research, we came across this data: In 2004, Ombudsman’s annual report indicated that it had a total of 1,179 personnel. The COA’s 2004 audit report, meanwhile, state that the Office spent P293.56 million on personal services. In 2008, Ombudsman’s annual report indicated that it had a total of 1,007 personnel. The COA’s 2008 audit report, meanwhile, state that the Office spent P667.99 million on personal services. This amount is P374 million more than what is used to spend on personal services in 2004 when it had more employees. Please kindly explain. The personnel complement of 1,179 reported in 2004 pertains to the authorized OMB plantilla positions, meaning, filled and unfilled as of December 31, 2004. The P293.56 million expenses for personal services correspond to the actual personal services requirements or salaries of the Office’s 822 filled positions at year-end of 2004. On the other hand, the 1,007 personnel reported in 2008 represent the total filled positions of the Office of the Ombudsman as of December 31, 2008. Per DBM staffing complement, the Office has 2,175 plantilla positions as of December 31, 2008. Indubitably, this would require more personal services requirements than what was spent in 2004 to cover the salaries and wages of additional personnel including the provision for the compensation adjustments of all national government personnel last July 1, 2007 and July 1, 2008. 13. Has there been any communication with President Aquino on strengthening the anti-corruption efforts of the government? No formal written communication has been sent to the President. However, in media interviews and press releases, it has been largely communicated to the President that, if he so desires, the Ombudsman is very much ready and willing to meet with him, as she reiterated our office’s strong support of his “KUNG WALANG KORAP, WALANG MAHIRAP" advocacy. The Ombudsman believes that there is nothing wrong for her and the President to meet despite their respective offices being autonomous and independent of each other, because what they will only discuss will be the common goal of achieving zero graft and corruption in our society. 14. In our interviews with former employees of the Office of the Ombudsman, we gathered information that several reforms were already initiated before Ombudsman Gutierrez took office but these, they say, were allegedly discontinued. These reforms include hiring of at least 200 prosecutors and at least 500 field investigators by end of 2006 and the establishment of regional offices by the end of 2009. Please kindly give an update on this. No so called “reforms", if any from the previous 2-year old watch of the former head of the agency were “discontinued". In fact, most reforms in this office were installed only during the incumbency of the present Ombudsman e.g., cross trainings pursued; programs for continued improvement and development of investigators and prosecutors with funding from the USAID implemented; medical and dental clinics, with full-time physician and dentist established, to take care of the health and well-being of our employees; a small chapel to address their spiritual needs put-up; and integrity development in various flagship agencies of the government installed, in order to foster strong moral values in the bureaucracy towards a graft-free society. Out of the total plantilla items of 700 for prosecutors and investigators, as of 31 July 2010, only 297 were filled-up, not because we did not endeavour to advertise vacancies for recruitment. Since we are covered by the Salary Standardization Plan, which sets a uniform compensation level for almost all government agencies (with few exceptions e.g., government financial institutions or government owned and controlled corporations), it appears that our pay scale for lawyers is too low to attract many of them to join us and would prefer to go to areas, public or private, where the grass grow greener. For fact-finding investigators, we endeavoured to recruit 455 during the same period, following the ambitious formula of the past Ombudsman to just hire fresh top university graduates, due mainly to the near impossibility of hiring full-pledged lawyers owing to the low-compensation category of these plantilla positions. At the start of the program, problems ensued almost instantly. Since they were greenhorns despite good grades from the school they came from, the office saw the very expensive need of training them to acquire the standard investigative skills before it could field them. Even then, close supervision by their peers who are lawyers became necessary to the extent that the latter’s own tasks were affected. A month or so training for these novices, especially in the special art of case build-up of corruption cases is definitely not enough compared to what a lawyer, or even at least an under-bar recruit who had 8 years of school experience, can dish out. Investigations in this office almost always require analysis of documentary evidence and taking legally relevant statements of witnesses. One more thing, most of these fresh graduates of a 4-year baccalaureate course appeared to have further things in mind. They use the employment as springboard to enrol into another course. And when conflicts arise between their work and their new scholastic endeavour, they would abruptly resign. Some law graduates proceeded to take the bar and passing same afterwards leave the office to seek healthier pasture. Nevertheless, complemented by lawyer-investigators, we managed to have 183 of them stay as of date. They learned the ropes by dint of hard work and acquired experience. We will continue with the program in spite of this pessimistic outlook, still hoping we could really train them to become crack investigators without so much strain on our budget. On regional offices, the Office of the Ombudsman had since opened the one in Calamba, Laguna; another in Cagayan de Oro, as well as in Iloilo City. Very soon, the regional office in Rosales, Pangasinan, will be inaugurated, to be followed by other stations, all geared towards bringing the public assistance services of the office to the people Barring budgetary constraints, we will continue to push forward for more of these regional offices. 15. The Ombudsman then had also crafted and implemented training programs to strengthen the Office’s individual and institutional competence, particularly its prosecutors and field investigators. A series of trial advocacy skills training seminars and training workshops on policies and procedures, case studies and resolution writing were conducted. Are these still implemented? This question has been well answered beforehand. 16. We were also informed that the Office subsequently offered programs such as gardening, flower arrangement, cosmetology, and massage. What purpose do these programs serve? Upon the request of many employees, through the HRMD (Personnel Section) of our office, the Ombudsman allowed the presentation by a barangay leadership of a seminar on these things, designed merely to make them learn additional trades or crafts they and members of their families can use to augment their income and livelihood, or provide useful endeavor or hobby during week-ends or special holidays. The green project on the other hand is a temporary activity for the period that the lot we purchased for a building annex remain vacant. More than a gardening project, it is actually an environmental awareness program covering the processing of organic waste vis-à -vis the zero-waste program, use of the processed waste or compost as fertilizer and the planting of organic vegetables. The gardening project may also be deemed one aimed as an income augmentation or as an avocation opportunity. It was a one-time affair. It was not intended to conflict with their job. The same was just part of the Ombudsman’s continuing concerns for the lowly paid employees of her office. 17. Does the data you provide on Question No. 5 (conviction based on number of decided cases) include cases filed by the Office of the Ombudsman before regular courts (for officials with salary grade 26 and below)? No. It does not include cases filed by the Office of the Ombudsman before regular courts. These cases are generally handled by the local prosecutors under the Department of Justice, as deputized Ombudsman prosecutors. The budget of the Office only includes prosecutors in our Office of the Special Prosecutor prosecuting cases before the Sandiganbayan. 18. Former employees of the Office say that the Ombudsman has been generous with bonuses. Among others, a bonus was allegedly given when an impeachment case was filed and another when it was dismissed. Please kindly comment. Pursuant to the Special Provisions applicable to All Constitutional offices Enjoying Fiscal Autonomy, namely: the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections, the Commission on Audit and the Office of the Ombudsman, are authorized to use savings in their respective appropriations for payment of fringe benefits of their officials and employees, among others. [What was extended to the officials and employees is financial assistance and not bonus, purposely, to alleviate the plight of its employees from the unstable prices of basic commodities and it has nothing to do with the cases filed against the Honorable Ombudsman. Please be wary of unscrupulous people with axes to grind against the Ombudsman, masquerading as “former employees of the Office" who would feed you with misleading or wrong information to get back at the Ombudsman. It is advisable that you first tell us the names of these “former employees" to make sure that your good organization is not just being used by them to sow intrigues in the public mind about our office. Caveat emptor, if we may paraphrase.] 19. In 2009, the Office of the Ombudsman’s financial statements show that its personnel economic relief allowance (PERA) grew by 979 percent from P5.01 million in 2004 to P54.07 million in 2009. According to the DBM’s Budget Circular No. 2009-3, the personnel economic relief allowance or PERA shall be given at P2,000 only. Please kindly explain how the 2009 figure was computed. The figure was computed based on the 1,073 filled positions in 2009. OMB’s personnel complement (filled positions) has grown from 902 in 2004 to 1,073 in 2009. The difference between the authorized appropriations and the actual expenditures for PERA was used to pay other expenditures which have no funding allocation such as maternity leave benefits, monetization of vacation leave credits and loyalty cash incentives of OMB personnel pursuant to the authority vested in the Office of the Ombudsman and Constitutional Offices authorizing them to use their savings in appropriations. 20. Does the Office still implement the merit award system mandated by the Civil Service in which the performance of lawyers and non-lawyers are evaluated for purposes of yearly award and recognition? If so, please kindly send any supporting document. Per guidelines on the matter, recognition and award on the basis of performance are conferred through the Best Employee Awards. Best Employee Awards were last conferred to 108 employees on April 30, 2007 based on above satisfactory performance for the Calendar Year 2006. Presently, it is not being implemented because the existing program on Awards and Incentives for Service Excellence (PRAISE) has been subjected to review and a new PRAISE has been adopted. Copy of the new PRAISE was forwarded to the Civil Service Commission for approval. The new PRAISE, however, needs to be implemented only after the same has been approved by the Civil Service Commission. While the PRAISE is undergoing review, the Office is annually implementing the Productivity Incentive Bonus, which is likewise a performance-based incentive. 21. What role/tasks/duties did you perform in connection with high-impact cases that have been submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman, notably those filed against: • Former First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo • Former Armed Forces Comptroller Carlos Garcia • Former Comelec Chairperson Benjamin Abalos • Police Captain Rolando Mendoza • Former Justice Sec. Hernando Perez All cases filed before the Office of the Ombudsman are immediately raffled off to investigators who conduct the preliminary investigation and/or fact-finding investigation of these cases. Their recommendations are submitted for approval to their respective Directors, Assistant Ombudsmen, Deputy Ombudsmen and finally to the Ombudsman for her approval. • Former First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo • NBN-ZTE scam - The Ombudsman formed a special panel to investigate the consolidated cases pertaining to the scam. She has inhibited herself from the case upon a motion filed by lawyer Ernesto Francisco. • Mega-Pacific case – Ombudsman Gutierrez formed a special panel to investigate the case. She ordered the conduct of a public hearing to ensure transparency in the investigation of the same. 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. • Former Armed Forces Comptroller Carlos Garcia The Plunder Case against Garcia has already been filed by the Office of the Special Prosecutor headed by then Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio when Ombudsman Gutierrez assumed office on Dec. 1, 2005. However, even though the Information was later found to be inherently deficient, the prosecutors handling the case did their best to salvage what they can from the said Information, with the best interest of the State in mind, resulting in the Plea Bargaining Agreement. • Former Comelec Chairperson Benjamin Abalos • NBN-ZTE scam - The Ombudsman formed a special panel to investigate the consolidated cases pertaining to the scam. She has inhibited herself from the case upon a motion filed by lawyer Ernesto Francisco.Graft charges were filed against Abalos and former SSS Chair Romulo Neri before the Sandiganbayan. • Mega-Pacific case – Ombudsman Gutierrez formed a special panel to investigate the case. She ordered the conduct of a public hearing to ensure transparency in the investigation of the same. 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. • Police Captain Rolando Mendoza The Ombudsman approves or disapproves recommendations made by sectoral offices, in this case, by the Office of the Ombudsman – Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (OMB-MOLEO). The recommendation submitted by OMB-MOLEO on the Mendoza case was already under review by one of her lawyers to advise her whether or not to approve the said recommendation when Mendoza staged the now infamous “Rizal Park hostage incident". His case is undergoing thorough review because of the gravity of the offense and the imposable penalty of dismissal from the service. However, after her talk with Mendoza over the telephone , she fulfilled her promise and ordered that the case folder be forwarded to her so she can personally review the case. (During the talk with the Ombudsman, Mendoza was sober and made no indication of animosity towards her). She also sent Mendoza a letter which confirmed her commitment to the latter that she will personally review the case. • Former Justice Sec. Hernando Perez Ombudsman Gutierrez ordered the filing of charges of extortion (Article 294 in relation to Art. 293 of the Revised Penal Code), and Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) against Perez, his wife Rosario, his brother-in-law Ramon Arceo and business associate Ernest Escaler before the Sandiganbayan in connection to the $2M extortion charge filed by former Manila Rep. Mark Jimenez. She also denied for lack of merit several motions filed by Perez, including a Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion to Dismiss, and upheld the said Resolution. Related questions: The popular notion is that your close personal ties and association with Mr. Arroyo (your law classmate) and Mr. Perez (under whom you worked as Justice Undersecretary) may have unduly influenced your conduct and attitude toward cases that have been filed against them before the Office of the Ombudsman. Please comment. Cases before our Office are decided based on the merits of the case, the evidence presented by the parties, and laws and jurisprudence. In the case of former First Gentleman Mike Arroyo, the complainants failed to present sufficient evidence to warrant his indictment. On the other hand, the special panel which investigated the cases filed against former Justice Sec. Hernando Perez, under whom, as you have correctly stated, Ombudsman Gutierrez worked as Justice Undersecretary, found probable cause to file the cases against Perez before the Sandiganbayan. 22. A review of the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman shows a discernible, if disconcerting, tendency: high-level officials and personalities close to you and the Arroyo administration have been cleared of charged filed against them. Please comment. As stated above, cases before our Office are decided based on the merits of the case, the evidence presented by the parties, and laws and jurisprudence. It is worth mentioning also that former Justice Sec. Hernando Perez (who was charged with extortion and Violation of the Anti-graft law) is the Ombudsman’s former Boss at the DOJ, while former SSS Chair Romulo Neri and former Comelec Chair Benjamin Abalos ( both charged with Violation of the Anti-Graft law) were perceived to be close to the Arroyo administration. 23. How do you assign priority to cases filed before the Office of the Ombudsman? The observation is that the Ombudsman takes interminably long periods of time to investigate cases against high-level officials? The law stipulates that: “The Ombudsman shall give priority to complaints filed against high-ranking government officials and/or those occupying supervisory positions, complaints involving grave offenses as well as complaints involving large sums of money and/or properties" (Sec. 15, RA 6770) Please comment. To speed up the investigation of cases, the Ombudsman forms special panels and creates Task Forces for specific type of cases: Task Force O-Plan Red Plate for Unauthorized Use of Government Vehicle; Task Force SAPAK ( Sama-samang Pagkilos Laban sa Katiwalian) for education-related offenses; Task Force Greenlane for Lifestyle Check Cases. However, the length of time that investigators devote in resolving a case vary, depending on a number of factors like the complexity of the case, or the number of respondents involved, or cooperation extended by other government agencies when their assistance is sought. 24. We are aware that in your latest annual report for 2009, the Ombudsman says it acted on almost 8,000 cases and posted a conviction rate of 80% - supposedly a figure higher than the average annual conviction rate from 2001 to 2007. However, the Sandiganbayan database reveals that while more than 1,000 cases had been filed before the anti-graft court since you assumed office, only 223 or a fourth of these cases resulted in convictions. Even sadder, almost all these cases- 221- were against one official: A Quezon town mayor, while one each involved an Ilo-ilo municipal mayor and a city mayor from Nueva Ecija. Based on the Sandiganbayan database, the Ombudsman under your watch has managed to secure the conviction of less than one official per year. In contrast, cases filed during the terms of former Ombudsmen Conrado Vasquez, Aniano Desierto and Simeon Marcelo had led to the conviction of 62, 35 and 16 officials per year on average, respectively. In short, by all indications, your performance as Ombudsman would rate the poorest compared to your three predecessors. Please comment. We would like to correct your data regarding our conviction rate. For 2009, our conviction rate was 33.6%. We posted a 73.42% conviction rate in 2008, the highest conviction rate ever reached by the Office. Likewise, since the Ombudsman assumed office, the following officials were among those convicted: in 2006, a commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, an executive director of the National Maritime Polytechnic in Tacloban City; the general manager of the Bacolod City Water District and a former mayor of Pampanga. In 2007, the following officials were among those convicted by the Sandiganbayan: former President Joseph Estrada and his co-accused Charlie “Atong" Ang; former Paranaque City Mayor Joey Marquez; and Dir. Trinidad Sibug of the Bureau Tribal Relations of External Affairs of the Office of Southern Cultural Communities. In 2008, the following officials were among those convicted by the Sandiganbayan: two members of the House of Representatives, a provincial vice governor, a provincial board member and their co-accused private individual; former Parole and Probation Administration Chief; Kalinga Mayor Wilfredo Dugayon and a municipal treasurer; a governor, executive secretary and disbursing officers of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao; a Municipal Trial Court Judge; a Municipal Mayor; Prosecutors of the Dept. of Justice; and a chancellor and Acting Personnel Officer of a State University. In 2009, the Sandiganbayan convicted retired Major Gen. Carlos Garcia of perjury; several mayors, municipality treasurers, registers of deeds, a university president, and a provincial prosecutor. These data are available in our annual reports uploaded on our website: www.ombudsman.gov.ph. The Sandiganbayan uses a formula different from ours. For example, the Sandiganbayan includes in its computation cases which did not go into trial, like those archived or dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On the other hand, the Office of the Ombudsman follows the following formula in the computation of the conviction rate: The said formula has been approved and accepted by the Millennium Challenge Account – Philippine Threshold Program – Technical Assistance Project (MCA-PTP-TAP). Office of the Ombudsman 
GMA Brandtalk
Tracking
Archives
